Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Progressive Trickery

By Russell Dovey in Op-Ed
Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 03:08:53 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

An Australian major newspaper's political discussion site, Webdiary, recently hosted Hamish Alcorn's book review of Don't Think Of An Elephant by George Lakoff, Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley. The review contains a mind-expanding extract from the book, and people have made some great comments. I suggest you read at least the review before continuing.

Lakoff's book explains new discoveries of how small groups of neo-conservatives in major Western nations came to dominate their countries so strongly over the last 30 years, and why the conservatives, progressives and the left so completely buckled to their agenda.

There is nothing new about this, but what is different about this book is that it details how the neo-cons frame political debate in order to cause neutral and opposing advocates to unwittingly help them. Even more importantly, it backs up this observation with scientific knowledge of how humans think about and respond to ideas, and shows progressives how they can effectively and ethically fight back using the methods that the neo-cons have perfected over 30 years, as well as our own.


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT
The importance of Lakoff's insight into neo-conservative control is that it takes years of unrelenting, fanatical effort to control the reference frame of political debate for an entire global culture - but it can be done. The neo-cons began their road to power in the 1970s, and they kept at it over decades to get the result we see now - dominating political, economic and social control.

The vastly enlightening, and sobering, realisation that I had when I read this was that we cannot quickly take back what we have lost over the last thirty years. We have decades of hard, thankless work ahead of us before we can undo the damage the neo-cons have caused.

We have to admit to ourselves that there is no magic bullet, that there is no way to explain the problems we see that will suddenly make people say "Wow! You're right!" and finally convince them of what we've been saying for years. You can get them to gradually change their beliefs, but it takes time. The nature of the human mind means that true change, by a small, dedicated minority, is possible - but that it takes more time and effort than anyone but fanatics are willing to spend. It's the work of a lifetime.

Are we fanatical enough about our progressive beliefs to push constantly and selflessly for the rights of others while being insulted and marginalised, like Julian Burnside?

Do we have the guts to tell it like it is, day in, day out, even if that turns you into a figure of contempt in the mainstream media like John Pilger?

Have we the strength to stick to our guns and ask the hard questions even when it gets you jeered at by every idiot who watches Fox News, like Seymour Hersh?

Can you constantly think carefully about how to tell people the truth, how to trick them into believing the truth instead of believing charming lies, while being constantly insulted and baited by the attack-dogs of the elite who know what you're trying to do and will try to ruthlessly destroy you for it?

If you can, then you've got to start working with those who also have progressive values, and stop being baited into bickering with them.

There are five other types of progressive who agree with most of what you're on about, remember. Get together with these people, hammer out the areas where you agree, and start singing in harmony. Your arguments will finally be focussed on the real enemy, instead of being wasted on people you mostly agree with.

Remember who the real enemy is, and attack their lies by reframing the language - but remember also to tell your own convincing truths, and let the other side respond to your baiting for a change.

Learn to tell the difference between conservative debate and neo-con propaganda. Engage the conservatives in respectful discussion, since they are telling the truth as they see it; reframe the arguments of the neo-cons to show exactly how inconsistent and untruthful they are when expressed in neutral terms. Be very sure that you know the difference; you do not want to attack a conservative's integrity without cause, since that will turn them off you immediately. However, don't be afraid to tell someone that they are wrong, and why, and what the right solution would be.

Don't constantly qualify your arguments because you think you might be wrong; this just turns people off, since it makes you look indecisive and weak. If you don't believe your own words, why should they believe you? Instead, be SURE. Think through what you're saying, and do the research necessary to make sure you're right. You can then write with full confidence that what you're saying is true. Only seem unsure when you are trying to lure the attack-dogs into your own argument's frame of reference.

If you can't be a frontline thinker and writer in this way, then you've got to do your best to support those who can, by any means possible - parrot them in bars, like the ones who spout Howard's lines at you; donate to their think-tanks; vote them in at election time; buy things from their companies; read their work, and tell your friends about it; and above all, talk to them and keep their strength up, since few humans can cope with the stress of being constantly vilified without a strong support network.

Above all, believe in yourself. You are capable of changing the world, but speaking the truth isn't enough. You've got to cleverly fight the war of words, remembering that the people you're trying to influence aren't going to believe you just because you are right.

The neo-cons don't care about truth; sadly, that gives us little advantage, because they are experts at creating the perception of truth. We must present the truth with knowledge of how to hang that truth on the hooks every person has in their mind. As I said above, we must trick people into believing the truth.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Webdiary
o Don't Think Of An Elephant
o review
o Also by Russell Dovey


Display: Sort:
Progressive Trickery | 470 comments (443 topical, 27 editorial, 0 hidden)
Theres an interesting interview (3.00 / 6) (#6)
by GenerationY on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:40:00 PM EST

with Lakoff here where he stretches out a bit and discusses his thinking with some good examples, re: tax, gay marriage etc. Theres a further interview here on the War on Terror. Interesting.

Lakoff's presentation here... (3.00 / 5) (#8)
by cr8dle2grave on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:58:45 PM EST

...is just a little on the light side. Those interested in a more detailed and rigorous account of the pervasive role played by metaphors and framing within discourse would do well to read Fauconnier and Turner's Conceptual Integration Networks. Further online and print only papers can be found on Mark Turner's home page.

As for Lakoff's article, I find the claims about the relative dearth of funds spent on progressive "think tanks" to be more than a bit dubious. No doubt, the dispute would rest upon what gets labelled a "think tank" and "funding". As a counterpoint, I recall an interview on NPR with a researcher who argued against just this position. She argued that there is, in fact, far more money funding progressive or liberal organizations (Pew and MacArthur being the largest charitable groups in the country), but that the conservative groups effectively get more-bang-for-their-buck.

I suspect that claims of such a disproportionate degree of funding are premised upon a narrow definition of "think tank", which selects for those organizational structures which conservative groups have demonstrated are so effective.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


Oh noes, the neo-cons are coming! (1.85 / 7) (#9)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:06:31 PM EST

Why is all this bad? There are people out there who feel that western societies are closer to the ideal than others, and not all of them sit on on boards of conglomerates or have libraries named after them.

--
"What's next, sigging a k5er quote about sigging someone on k5?"


Of course there are. That's the point. (3.00 / 2) (#10)
by Russell Dovey on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:13:43 PM EST

I'm not saying that neo-cons haven't got the support of the majority, I'm saying that they've manipulated the way we think about ideas so they can more effectively lie to us, so that we'll support them.

However, what I really want to say is that we progressives can break the neo-con hold over our popular culture, but it will take decades to do it because their victory has been so extensive.

Democracy is broken, but only recently has it become so. Before Bush, no neo-con had to rig their election to get into office.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

I just don't understand (2.00 / 4) (#13)
by minerboy on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 06:18:47 PM EST

What you find so offensive (evals ym eb) about neocon arguments (evals ym eb). They only want to make (evals ym eb)the world a better place for everyone(evals ym eb). Seriously, do you think that (evals ym eb) some linguistic trickery (evals ym eb)could make any difference ?



Sorry, massa. (none / 0) (#17)
by Russell Dovey on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:25:05 PM EST

Didn't mean to run from the plantation, no sir.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

I am not a pony boy! (none / 0) (#93)
by speek on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:18:19 PM EST

Really, I'm not...

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Reminds me of Renana Brooks' article (3.00 / 7) (#14)
by killmepleez on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 06:25:30 PM EST

Below is a link to, and excerpt from, the June 30, 2003 Nation article, which has been reprinted and circulated widely. I think someone even MLPed it into the queue soon after its original publication:

A Nation of Victims

In an article in the January 16 New York Review of Books, Joan Didion highlighted Bush's high degree of personalization and contempt for argumentation in presenting his case for going to war in Iraq. As Didion writes: "'I made up my mind,' he had said in April, 'that Saddam needs to go.' This was one of many curious, almost petulant statements offered in lieu of actually presenting a case. I've made up my mind, I've said in speech after speech, I've made myself clear. The repeated statements became their own reason."

Poll after poll demonstrates that Bush's political agenda is out of step with most Americans' core beliefs. Yet the public, their electoral resistance broken down by empty language and persuaded by personalization, is susceptible to Bush's most frequently used linguistic technique: negative framework. A negative framework is a pessimistic image of the world. Bush creates and maintains negative frameworks in his listeners' minds with a number of linguistic techniques borrowed from advertising and hypnosis to instill the image of a dark and evil world around us. Catastrophic words and phrases are repeatedly drilled into the listener's head until the opposition feels such a high level of anxiety that it appears pointless to do anything other than cower.

Psychologist Martin Seligman, in his extensive studies of "learned helplessness," showed that people's motivation to respond to outside threats and problems is undermined by a belief that they have no control over their environment. Learned helplessness is exacerbated by beliefs that problems caused by negative events are permanent; and when the underlying causes are perceived to apply to many other events, the condition becomes pervasive and paralyzing.

Bush is a master at inducing learned helplessness in the electorate. He uses pessimistic language that creates fear and disables people from feeling they can solve their problems. In his September 20, 2001, speech to Congress on the 9/11 attacks, he chose to increase people's sense of vulnerability: "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.... I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight.... Be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat." (Subsequent terror alerts by the FBI, CIA and Department of Homeland Security have maintained and expanded this fear of unknown, sinister enemies.)

Contrast this rhetoric with Franklin Roosevelt's speech delivered the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He said: "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.... There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces--with the unbounding determination of our people--we will gain the inevitable triumph--so help us God." Roosevelt focuses on an optimistic future rather than an ongoing threat to Americans' personal survival.



__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "J
Indeed (none / 1) (#59)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST

Excellent, intriguing post (as is the article itself). Could you please elaborate on the differences, efficacy and goals of the Bushian and Rooseveltian linguistic tricks?

--
"What's next, sigging a k5er quote about sigging someone on k5?"


[ Parent ]
Excellent point (3.00 / 2) (#161)
by toganet on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:52:20 PM EST

This is an important contrast, and shows how the current generation in power has, culturally, "nowhere to go but down".

In my grandparents' day, the world was a wonderful place, full of potential and worth saving.  Sure, the occasional fascist might threaten things, but we could -- we must -- overcome, and there could be no doubt.

But now, we have achieved all that can be achieved (thinks the neocon).  Profits are mazimized, health care is optimized (cost vs. disease prevalence) and we can't add more cable channels with going to 4 digits.  So where to go?  Only backwards beckons -- we must revert to the imagined past, where men were John Wayne wearing a cross, and women were all June Cleaver.  No one ogled anyone with the same plumbing, and everyone graduated high school, got a job at the mill, and lived happily ever after.

There is no room for optimism when you reject any possible future in favor of an impossible past.

Johnson's law: Systems resemble the organizations that create them.


[ Parent ]
-1, mentions fox news (1.37 / 8) (#15)
by AllAloneInTheDark on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 07:18:56 PM EST

I saw "Progressive" in the title also. Historically, progressives have been cornerstone founders of institutional racism, trade unions, and imperialist expansionism. I hate these people with all the passion in my heart; they are the devil.


Writhe in agony, your New Age remedies are ineffectual.
No worries. (none / 1) (#19)
by Russell Dovey on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:39:20 PM EST

This technique will work for any political faction; you just have to work really hard for it. Substitute your own pigeonholing terms for "progressive" and "conservative" if you like, and advocate your own position. Just don't lie! Lying is part of the neo-con value system, since those in power must lie to the masses in order to keep them in line.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

i am a liberal (1.73 / 23) (#24)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:39:48 AM EST

i am pro-gay marriage, pro-choice on abortion, pro-marijuana legalization, etc.

and all of these efforts ARE failing nowadays

and as a liberal, who is exasperated at the failures of those who fall on the left, i know this:

people like this russel dovey and other neocon obessed 'tards like him are not progressive liberals, they are just nihilistic cynical losers

and i know exactly why neocons have ocme to dominate the world... not because of anything smart they did, but simply because THE LEFT DROPPED THE BALL, IT FAILED, and the neocons rushed into to fill the void

not because the neocons did anything smart or right, but because the left simply failed to lead anymore

the left, until recently, has been running end runs around fascists and racists and fundamentalists for decades, REAL progessive liberals have been eating neocons for breakfast without a second thought, and the neocons feared and loathed us: we abolished slavery, we instituted a woman's right to vote, we advanced the civil rights movement, we made advances on homosexual rights, etc.

and all this was done in spite of bible thumpers and braindead social conservatives at every turn, lots of them

what we have nowadays? the neocons aren't screaming in fear and loathing of the left, no, they are quietly laughing at the elft, and it is the left who is fearing and loathing the neocons

now that fight for progress is slipping: pro-gay marriage efforts are slipping, roe v. wade, establishing abortion's legality might be overturned, etc... and the neocons haven't done anything new or different to achieve this- is gw bush a blazing intelligent man? ha!

no, the failure lies on the left itself, and so all this talk of neocon genius is bullshit

the left simply needs a fucking backbone, to actually fight for things it saw as important in the past, but have lost sight of

what do i mean?

here it is, a prime example if you are a lefty who is no longer a progressive liberal:

you don't actually care about improving the world, you just care about fighting neocons

see?

if you frame your concerns, like russel dovey and others on fucktwits on the left do, as one of fighting the neocons, you have already lost, and you are truly not a liberal

what the hell am i talking about?

you never lead anyone in this world by following what the neocons do in kneejerk reacion

let me repeat; you never lead ANYONE in this world if you frame all of your concerns in reference to what SOMEONE ELSE DOES, it doesn't matter if you kneejerk oppose what they do, that is fruitless, you have already lost because your obsession is with them, not the REAL ISSUES

the truth: fighting neocons is FOLLOWING neocons

let me repeat: FIGHTING NEOCONS IS FOLLOWING NEOCONS

you let them frame the agenda!

see?

you let them set the agenda, you let them pick the subjects, you let them choose the fights, and so what happens?

the left becomes every pathetic stereotype the neocons call it, and no one is inspired to follow you, because you haven't offered anyone ANYTHING WORTH FOLLOWING

REAL leadership on the left is about COMPLETELY IGNORING the neocons, and simply, and POSITIVELY picking your own subject matter to concern yourself with, and going with that, and forming an alternative, WORKABLE agenda which people can assemble around and feel good about

YOU IGNORE THE NEOCONS

if you have a real workable agenda in spite of them, they wither and fall away and die as people assemble around you with something positive to ffer instead, but if you let the real issues be ignored and spend all your time worrying about the neocons, like the fucktard who wrote this piece, YOU JUST LOST THE FIGHT AT THAT EXACT MOMENT IN TIME REGARDLESS OF HOW FIERCELY YOU FIGHT THEM BECAUSE YOU JUST LET THEM LEAD... yu handed them the rights to set the agenda

right now, what we have is a bunch of sycophantic losers, no leader on the left: just kneejerk mirror image react to whatever neocons say, and hate them, to no effect except to drive moderates away from you, because YOU OFFER THEM NOTHING POSITIVE IN CONTRAST

enjoy your first lesson on real leadership, useless nihilistic cynical fools on the, left who are not anything like the great progressive liberals of decades past in any sense of the word

you're fat rich useless children of the west, ignorant of some important lessons about how the real world works, playing in the burnt out husk of the left's former great self

i await the reawakening of the left, and it won't come from any of you sycophantic obsessed with neocons losers

and in the meantime, i have nothing but hate and scorn for you pathetic cretins playing in the shell of the left, without a shred of resemblance to what the left really stands for, without a single ture leader amongst you

people like the fucktard russel dovey who wrote this peace, with his fucking sycophantic obsession with neocons, ARE MORE HARMFUL TO REAL PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM IN THIS WORLD than a million neocons ever could be

because you have lost your love for the issues, and developed an unhealthy obsession instead, and the issues the progressive liberals hold dear, betray and wither instead, with more force than any neocon could inflict

you're neglect is more poisonous than any neocon could be

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Hear! Hear! (none / 0) (#27)
by esrever on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:39:10 AM EST

All well said, however I do take slight issue with your poor grasp of the historical realities around the abolition of the slave trade.  In both the UK and the US it was primarily the 'bible thumpers' as you so gracefully put it that drove the abolition, not the progressives/left/liberals.  

In fact, a good reading of William Wilberforce's life shows that as well as being a true-blue bible-thumper he was also at odds with the powerful capitalists of the day.  Putting him as far away from the 'right wing' as the east is from the west...  It's not always left+liberal vs right+biblethumper; there is a middle ground...

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

yeah but (1.00 / 6) (#29)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:39:17 AM EST

you are reaching far enough back into history that organized religion, which does posit that all souls are equal, both islam and christianity say this, that even organized religion was liberal as compared to the conservatives of their day in the 1800s!

so you are right: the religious abolitionists were pretty much the last progressive liberal gasp of organized religion

i mean organized religion spread in the first place because it was liberal compared to the conservative teachings of it's birth... in ancient rome, for example, where "might makes right" was about it in terms of a moral center, christianity and it's teachings on equality of all souls found fertile ripe ground for expansion

later, when the catholic church became an old boys club of indulgences for the rich, so sorry to the poor, boom: you had the protestant explosion in northern europe in reaction to this conservatism

later, in the 1800s, with social darwinism and all, manifest destiny still help onto such racist conservative notions of "if you got the guns, you win, sorry brown people"... just like ancient rome

but no teachings from organized religion is left that can be viewed as liberal nowadays, it's all been passed over, the whole entirety of organized religion itself, is completely conservative nowadays

and so the church fades in europe, and will wane everywhere else in the west, it has nothing more to teach us morally, and in fact, its proponents nowadays, with their amoral teachings against abortion and therefore against the rights of women, and its flaming hatred of gays, are nothing but the same kind of small-minded hateful people jesus christ was poised against 2000 years ago

so rip, christianity, your time has come and past, you taught the world a lot, but you have no more to teach

islam will be killed next by the march of progress and liberalism


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

abortion and gays (none / 1) (#34)
by minerboy on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:41:00 AM EST

Conservative views on abortion are very moral. If you believe that life begins at conception, then ending that life is murder, and is not justified except as self defence. The left claims that conception is not when life begins, provides some scientific arguments for this, and then claims that life begins when the baby exits the womb, or even the birth canal, and equally arbitrary definition, and one also not supported by science. So who's the most moral ?

The religious right does not hate gays, they believe that gay sex is immoral. There are many examples of religious organizations reaching out to help gays. The left wants complete acceptance of gay sexual behavior, and links that with personal acceptance, premissed on a biochemical connection with being gay. The conservatives believe Society has a right to limit behavior it deems dangerous. I'm old enough to remember C Everett Koop, and the reaction from the gay community when the San Francisco bath houses were closed down. Clearly, a mindless "I do what I want" attitude from the gay community is a big part of the spread of aids. It's interesting that someone would try to blame the religious right for the spread of AIDS, that's pure revisionism.

Last, look at the issues progressives choose as important. Few really matter much - organic vegtables, being mean to Chickens, and other politically correct minutia. I wish some progressive would address health care, something better than let's be like canada



[ Parent ]
abortion and gays (none / 1) (#52)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:20:05 PM EST

if women laid eggs, like birds, the conservatives take on abortion would be entirely moral

as it is, their attitude ocmpletely dismisses the fact that biology, for better or for worse, has tied the rights of two human beings together for a period of time biologically

that means the conservatives completely dismiss the rights of the mother, and treat her like a breeding machine

that's morality?

finally, i am utterly appalled at the attitude of social conservatives as gay, look at the fucking pope:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/23/pope.book.reut/index.html

this is morality?

no this pure hatred, ignorance

for every fucking conservative out there who thinks gays are oging to destroy the family, i REALLY want them to describe to me exactly how some fucking gays are oging to fucking hurt heterosexuality and child rearing, the family?

fact: the position of social conservatives on abortion and gays is EXACTLY OPPOSED TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF MORALITY AND JUSTICE, AND FIGHTING SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES AND THEIR IGNORANT INFLUENCES IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF MORALITY AND JUSTICE


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

regarding facts (none / 1) (#56)
by minerboy on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:54:13 PM EST

the position of social conservatives on abortion and gays is EXACTLY OPPOSED TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF MORALITY AND JUSTICE - not a fact, an opinion.

First, consider abortion, at what point does the fetus gain the right not to be killed ? As an analogy, say that I had plenty of food, and you had none (and no where else to get any), would it be moral for me to share my food? I think yes.

Now lets say that I was an immoral prick, and didn't want to give up my food, would it be moral for society to compel me to share - most liberals would say yes.

The only question in my mind is the point at which the fetus acquires the right to remain alive. Personally, I would say around 3-4 months, but that could be open for debate. Clearly, after 6 months there should be compeling medical reasons for performing abortions, and clearly the government should regulate this.

Gays lie on the cusp of sexual morality. Traditionally there is no question that homosexual acts are considered immoral. Should they be ? do they hurt anybody - generally no, no more than beastiallity hurts anybody, or polygamy hurts anybody. But there can be socio/sexual practices that demean a society - adultery for instance. If someone believes that this is the case for homosexual sex, then they are moral in opposing government recognition of this type of relationship, and may even seek to criminalize the act itself.



[ Parent ]
fetuses do have rights (none / 1) (#136)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 04:46:42 PM EST

but so do mothers

the question of where you draw the line, then, of course is a powerful one... and more importantly, A PERSONAL ONE

don't you think the mother knows better than you or me?

it's the fuckers who think the women have NO rights who are the real problem, you seem malleable to the idea of the mother having rights at least

as for gays: i hear a lot of hot fucking air form you and nothing else

put your money where your mouth is: HOW THE FUCK IS A GAY GOING TO HURT A FAMILY

PLEASE tell me exactly how a gay couple is going to hurt heterosexual couples or their families

PLEASE will someone explain to me how this vast homosexual agenda of evil is going to destroy the american family????

HOW THE FUCK IS SOME FUCKING GAY DUDE GOING TO HURT A FAMILY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY!!!!!!!!!!

WHERE DOES THIS FUCKING PSYCHOTIC IGNORANCE AND FEAR COME FROM???????????????????????

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

How gays hurt families (none / 1) (#189)
by minerboy on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 09:23:52 AM EST

First lets separate a homosexual sex act from "being gay". A majority of people have performed a homosexual sex acts at least once. Doing this is perhaps promiscuous, but is no worse than other promiscuous sex.

Being gay is a lifestyle, and enters into a societies politics. The best example is the impact of lesbians on the feminist movement. This group devalues traditional family roles for women, lobbies government not to subsidize these roles, or expect equal subsidy for their own relationships. The group has also attacked traditional male roles, to the point of suggesting that all heterosexual sex is inherently violent.

I don't hate people who perform homosexual acts - any more than I hate people who cheat on their wives, or highly promiscuous people. I strongly disagree with those who would legitimize the lifestyle as desirable.



[ Parent ]
OMFG. (none / 0) (#191)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 10:03:32 AM EST

A majority of people have performed a homosexual sex acts at least once.

I demand a cite for this claim.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

see mr. Kinsey (none / 0) (#193)
by minerboy on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 10:35:55 AM EST

Most of course is adolescent circle jerks that go to far. http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/kinsey21.htm - From kinsey - "perhaps the major portion of the male population, has at least some homosexual experience between adolescence and old age. In addition, about 60 per cent of the pre-adolescent boys engage in homosexual activities (Chapter 5)."



[ Parent ]
Okay (none / 0) (#201)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 12:16:07 PM EST

I appreciate the cite - I had not heard that figure before and it says a lot that you didn't just pull the statement out of the air - but you should realize that Kinsey's research isn't universally accepted - he based his research on a sample of long term prisoners - men for whom homosexual activity might be more likely than the population as a whole.

Also, the best summary I've found simply says that he claimed 37% of men had achieved orgasm through homosexual contact, and about half that percentage of women - hardly a majority.

Hrm. I wonder if those numbers might not have gone up since them certainly I've seen claims that the number of women experimenting with lesbianism is way up - sometimes simply as a way of taunting/teasing men. (Not that I ever get invited to those sorts of parties.)

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

What, there's a gay "group"? (none / 0) (#268)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 05:57:32 AM EST

Are you mental?

For one thing, if your entire argument that gays hurt society stems from the old "lesbian man-hating feminist" stereotype, then you're standing on thin ice.

For another thing, there is no unity among gays, any more than there is among black people, or women, or... hell, bus-drivers. It just isn't that simple.

Most gay people just want to get on with life like everyone else.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

so your saying (none / 0) (#279)
by minerboy on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:35:06 AM EST

That there is no "Gay Community", with its own special political interest. Your living in a dreamworld, dude.

They've made aids a global, rather than a continental problem, they've lobbied schools to include recognition of gay families, even though these are uncommon, they've lobbied effectively for the idea that gayness is genetic (or at least congenital) despite all the evidence to the contrary,(from Kinsey, to San quentin, to the ancient greeks). I could go on, but you won't get it anyway



[ Parent ]
What you're saying, meet "Mr Truth". (none / 0) (#298)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:49:22 PM EST

AIDS was not spread throughout Africa and Asia by gay men, and in the West it's been intravenous druggies as well as gays.

Schools should recognise families based on how good they are for the kid, not on some half-assed scheme based on conformity to societal norms. If the kid lives with a badger, but it's a smart, responsible badger, LET HIM BE.

Scientific evidence shows that homosexual behaviour is quite common in the animal kingdom, as well as in humans. It's something that we all have to a greater or lesser extent. If it's not genetic it must be magic. Fairy magic, perhaps?

As for your "dreamworld" comment, gays live in communities. They have advocacy groups. They march in parades. But they do not all worship a gay Pope in a pink Popemobile who tells them all what to do. THEY ARE NOT UNITED.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

truth, you can't handle the truth (none / 0) (#331)
by minerboy on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 08:23:50 AM EST

Aids would have been limited to africa if not for gay men. the CDC has traced the desease to the guy that brought it to the US. IV drug users were secondary. Of course the propaganda machines try to minimize the role of gays in the spread of this disease.

Healthy gay relationships with solid parental relationships are few and far between, having schools teach that these are common alternative lifestyle is like saying that playing the lottery is a viable way to get rich.

The question on genetics has to do with the question of gays being genetically distinct, the way being blonde is genetically distinct. They argue that they are entitled to certain protected status, certain advantages. My point was that homosexual behavior is quite common, and that many people have performed some homosexualt act. This fact flys in the face of the claim that gays are somehow genetically distinct.

Last, its true that gays may differ on their politics, but so do catholics. There are gay lobby groups, and gay leaders.

Its intersting you bring up the pope, because his political agendas are so different. the pope promotes the idea of discipline, and self control and has had a hand in the fall of totalitarianism. The gay agenda promotes doing whatever makes you feel good for the moment, and has helped promote the spread of a deadly disease. Which side is better, hmmm, help free poland, or help spread aids.



[ Parent ]
Propaganda machines? (none / 0) (#348)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 03:45:01 PM EST

AIDS would never have stayed confined to Africa if gays hadn't been around. It would have spread slower, but would still have come. So the most you can claim is that AIDS spread faster because of gay men.

However, that's not a moral judgement, is it? AIDS is a blood-borne disease, and any activity which shares blood or some other bodily fluids was going to be a problem. Every disease is unique in this way. The Black Plague was transmitted by fleas. West Nile virus by mosquitoes. Flu by air.

In any case, we're largely on top of that problem now in the West. Educating people about how to protect themselves has done wonders, even though some conservatives continue to be short-sighted in this area.

Healthy gay parental relationships are few and far between? That must make me a statistical fluke of some enormous magnitude, since I can think of two off the top of my head, both lesbian couples with good kids. I don't know any dysfunctional gay couples, but I assume they exist. The ratio is probably similar to heterosexual relationships. Look around; they're out there, and they're not going away just because you think they're suboptimal.

Regarding genetics, I think we're arguing with ghosts here. You say that homosexual behaviour is not genetically distinctive, since it's common in both our species and many others. I say that homosexuality is a natural part of our species and many others. So, what are we arguing here? I think we agree.

Whether there turns out to be a "gay gene" or not doesn't matter, and it'll probably turn out to be a lot more complicated than we can imagine.

Anyway, genetics has nothing to do with "protected status. Religion enjoys a protected status, and it's cultural, not genetic. What protections do you think that gay people get under the law that heterosexual people don't? I can think of a few examples of the reverse.

Gay lobby groups, gay leaders: Certainly. But they don't all want the same things, or think the same way, or act the same way. Catholics are a good example; there are hundreds of millions of them, but they don't exactly think as one. They don't even all favour the pope!

Your assertion that the "gay agenda" has helped promote the spread of AIDS is a vile slander of the basest kind. Sexual health advocates have had to fight against conservatives, not gays, every step of the way in the fight against AIDS. Condoms, sex ed, free or cheap blood tests, all have been attacked and opposed by religious conservatives from day one, and it continues. Without this opposition, millions of AIDS victims might still be alive.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

two things (none / 0) (#359)
by minerboy on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 05:52:47 PM EST

First, on the commonality of gay couples parenting children. At best, 1-2% of children have gay parents, less with parents in a monogamous gay relationship. Having schools teach that this is common alternative lifestyle streches the definition of common beyond reason.

Second, It is a commonly held misconception that conservative policies were responsible for the rapid spread of aids. I was there at the time, and remember the gay community protesting the closing of gay bath houses, and disputing the fact that gay sex spread aids. Conservatives opposed public funding of condoms, and free needle programs, but did not oppose education programs.



[ Parent ]
Okay. (none / 0) (#366)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 07:30:18 PM EST

Point one: You're fighting a strawman. Go ahead and beat his strawny ass, I don't care.

Point two: Conservatives still oppose sex ed programs in schools, unless they're the "refrain from sex entirely" type, which have been proven not to work. I'll concede the point on the bath houses, it's more of a grey area there. As homosexuality gets more and more accepted, we need segregated "gay-friendly" areas less and less.

I'm not surprised that people initially attacked the idea that gay sex spread AIDS; it seemed like just one more way for bigots to spread fear. Turned out to be wrong, and mostly that's been accepted now.

I am surprised, however, that even now that we know all the facts and have dealt with the problem, you are still trying to tar gay people with the AIDS brush after 20 years. What possible relevance does this have to today's issues?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

AIDS (none / 0) (#376)
by minerboy on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 10:20:59 PM EST

Provides a concrete historical example of how the gay lifestyle can harm families. That was the original assertion, and why I brought it up.



[ Parent ]
Perfect Example (none / 0) (#53)
by Ward57 on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:29:38 PM EST

of how conservatives frame the arguments. The question of whether personhood/ensoulment occours at conception has been re-written to be "does life begin at conception", (which has a simple and undeniable answer). Not the same question at all, the sort of thing I would normally regard as sarcastic.

[ Parent ]
then lets ask (none / 0) (#54)
by minerboy on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:35:25 PM EST

At what point does a human acquire the right not to be be terminated ?



[ Parent ]
we could go on and on. (none / 0) (#63)
by mpalczew on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:52:44 PM EST

at what point is someone considered a person?
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]
Which is precisely (none / 0) (#267)
by Ward57 on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:07:49 AM EST

the debate being obscured.

[ Parent ]
Yes... (none / 1) (#31)
by Russell Dovey on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:52:43 AM EST

So we agree then? "The left has dropped the ball" of course, that's why the neo-cons have won the war of words for the last 30 years.  

"We must stop responding to the neo-con agenda"

That's the entire point of the article, thanks for missing it.

CTS, did you even read the damn review before spouting off?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

hey shitstain fucktard (1.00 / 10) (#33)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:47:26 AM EST

i see a dozen paragraphs obsessing about neocons above

AND NOT ONE FUCKING PARAGRAPH DEVOTED TO ISSUES PEOPLE ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT

therefore, whether you know it or not, you are a follower of the neocons

hating them, as obsessively as you do, is a way of following them!

and it doesn't do anything except give them more power

and for that, you are exactly the fucking poster boy of what is wrong with the left

because people like you do more damage to the left than a million neocons ever could

YOU IGNORE THEM YOU MORONIC FUCK!!!!!!!!!!

AND YOU FOCUS ON THE ISSUES!!!!!!!!!

AND THEN YOU LEAD!!!!!!!

AND THE NEOCONS FADE AWAY!!!!!!!!

but you? you don't actually care about any issues

for you, hating neocons has become your reason for being

which make syou nothing more but their tool, and the sum total of your effort sis ensuring they are talked about, and heard

you stupid useless tool


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

way to debate (none / 0) (#38)
by army of phred on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:18:58 AM EST

not

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
i'm not here to debate (1.00 / 6) (#51)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:14:54 PM EST

i'm here to smack retards around like this russel dovey

WHO REPRESENT THE THINKING THAT IS DOING MORE DAMAGE TO THE LEFT THAN A MILLION NEOCONS EVER COULD

i'm not here for cool calm rational discourse

i'm here for WAKE THE FUCK UP YOU BLIND FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!!!!!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

but you're basically just pidgenholing yourself (none / 0) (#57)
by army of phred on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:02:38 PM EST

if thats what you want then its ok. If you really believe that your viewpoint doesn't deserve a sales pitch then I understand but you're carrying on worse than any bitter defeated leftist I've seen anywhere, and they're usually the ones parodied.

Don't get me wrong, I've gone off plenty, but you seem to have gone off for good and stayed there.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]

i have (1.00 / 3) (#81)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:18:20 PM EST

i'm not dealing with people i can rationalize things with, i'm dealing with children, children that need to be spanked

i don't respect the assholes i'm yelling at

i've lost respect for them in so many ways, and now i hate those who are nominally on the left, but bear no resemblence to anything liberal or progressive or positive or actually interested in making this world a better place, just jingoistic, rich spoiled brats whose ideology bears a parent child relationship with neocons: we have to fight big bad daddy

no you don't you fucking morons! you hand them all of the power with that attitude!

you have to ignore the necons, and positively apporach the issues

instead of this sycophantic sticking of their noses in neocon's asses and telling us all that their asses stink

thanks for that moron!

can we actually talk making the world a better place now?

do you think neocons actually pay you any notice?

no, what they do is completely ignore you, WHICH IS WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING TO THEM, and when they do take notice of you, they laugh, how you hang on the neocon's every word

children on the left, mad at daddy because he took the car keys away

you have to smash this parent-child paradigm, and approach the world anew, as an independent individual, interested in the world's problems and completely devoid of any concern or notice of neocons

ONLY IN THAT WAY DO YOU DEFEAT THEM

but this moron russel dovey is exactly the sort of asskissing sycophant on the left that ensure all of the focus remains on the neocons, and therefore all of the power remains witht he neocons, and therefore they wind up being nothing but simple followers of neocons: all of their kneejerk reaction framed in opposition to what neocons do, so that neocons wind up LEADING THE NEGATIVE NIHILISTIC LOSERS ON THE LEFT

and they think they are fighting them!

spoiled useless rich westerners, without a fucking clue

permanent children

retards

utterly useless to issues in this world where people are ACTUALLY SUFFERING


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

no (none / 0) (#88)
by army of phred on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:49:03 PM EST

you have to smash this parent-child paradigm, and approach the world anew, as an independent individual, interested in the world's problems and completely devoid of any concern or notice of neocons

The neocons are currently running the place, with that as a given, why not watch my government in action and comment? Why do you think its right to let the government operate unobserved? What makes you so angry, that folks talk about their government? Where did the notion of a "loyal opposition" go? Why do people despise multiparty politics anymore? Whats the matter with taking these issues and turning them, viewing them from every perspective, I wonder why debates anger neocons so much, you guys rant and rave like we on the conversational left hate the very country we live in, when in reality, its because we strongly prefer the place we live that we care so much. I guess you neocons just don't get that.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]

repeat (none / 0) (#135)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 04:43:02 PM EST

  1. you focus on the issues
  2. you attract people to your agenda
  3. you live in a democracy, so eventually, you take the govt
but, if, as you suggest, you spend all of your time obsessing about the neocons, YOU WILL NEVER BE IN POWER, EVER

it's about spending your time and energy wisely, and sycophantically sticking your nose up neocons asses and telling the world it stinks is not useful!

what do you care about?

the issues?

or the neocons?

it seems to me some care more about hating the neocons than the issues, and that's the sign of a bankrupt cause


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I multitask (none / 0) (#148)
by army of phred on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 07:47:35 PM EST

granted, I realise the startup and shutdown costs of task switching. I also know that its healthy to carefully budget low amounts of energy toward politics, and I think you should consider this too, you look to have lost control here.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
when you're a rat on a ship headed towards (none / 0) (#159)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:50:48 PM EST

the shoals and the captain is asleep at the wheel, you do what you can so you don't get wet


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
So long (none / 1) (#43)
by Nosf3ratu on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:27:07 AM EST

so ranty.

So quintessential CTS.

Plus three'd.


Woo!
[ Parent ]

Subject: (none / 1) (#62)
by MMcP on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:51:23 PM EST

Don't

You

Hate

PANTS

?

[ Parent ]

To sum up... (3.00 / 3) (#131)
by TheWake on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 04:14:12 PM EST

As long as the left is obsessed with winning they will lose. In order to win the left needs to put forth it's ideas then there will be competition.

[ Parent ]
You are a cretin (none / 1) (#186)
by mettaur on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:48:26 AM EST

what the hell am i talking about?

No, no, no. Talking is when you use language.

you're neglect is more poisonous than any neocon could be

Your attempts at grammar and spelling are more irritating than "cynical losers" are.


--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
i am annoying (none / 0) (#213)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:01:11 PM EST

but the asshole who wrote this article is the type of person who is actually destroying the left

i'm talking about saving it

so which would you have?

my loud rude honesty?

or their polite placid acid on your soul?

you wouldn't be the first moron to sell your future for the sake of maintaining social decorum

fucking loser

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Bah (none / 0) (#207)
by Western Infidels on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 01:28:29 PM EST

I frequently get the urge to reply to one of your posts, but your refusal to use conventional punctuation and capitalization makes me feel like I'd be debating a child. I know you can write properly; why don't you?

I see the story as a guide to getting the Left/Progressives/Liberals leading again. Getting organized and adopting strategies that have worked for the neo-cons doesn't mean you're exclusively a "neo-con fighter."

[ Parent ]

let's put it this way (none / 0) (#214)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:04:57 PM EST

the same focus on style over substance that you have in paragraph 1 of your comment is exactly the kind of problem with style over substance you have in paragraph 2

style NEVER beats substance, except for the kind of losers who triumph style over substance, who do so only at the sake of their IMMEDIATE IRRELEVANCY TO REAL PROBLEMS IN THIS WORLD

understand?

rude loud honesty about reality trumps polite placid acid on your soul any day

don't sell your future for the sake of social decorum

FUCK THAT BULLSHIT

GET FUCKING REAL


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

If rude, loud honesty worked... (none / 0) (#269)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:00:53 AM EST

...billions would not be spent on propaganda.

Subtle, clever honesty is the way to go.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

said the snake (nt) (none / 0) (#287)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:10:56 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Style over Substance (none / 0) (#283)
by mettaur on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:09:51 AM EST

There is a sticking point. The rules of english are constructed so that text is easy to read. That's "style", but it affects comprehension and interpretation significantly.


--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
people trust well dressed liars (nt) (none / 0) (#288)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:12:34 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
So would it not be mean and tricky... (none / 0) (#308)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 04:10:47 PM EST

...to be a well-dressed truth-teller?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

doesn't that idea (none / 0) (#332)
by circletimessquare on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 08:58:43 AM EST

counteract your entire story?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Nope. Supports it. (none / 0) (#349)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 03:48:35 PM EST

Because the truth should not need to be well-dressed; people should be able to see the truth when it's placed in front of them. Mostly, they can't.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Truth isn't like Plato's Ideal (none / 1) (#369)
by Shajenko on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 09:36:01 PM EST

You can't just instantly recognise truth when you see it. For instance, I could say there were only 500 soldiers killed in Iraq, or I could say there were 5000 soldiers killed in Iraq. How do you know either one?

Plato and his pals thought that if you merely pondered upon the nature of truth that you would come to know the truth. Things don't work that way. For instance, the scientific method requires that we actually test our hypotheses before we can claim they are true.

And it's impossible for any normal individual person to test the various macroeconomic policies that the political parties claim are superior, and all of them claim that their theory is "common sense".

This is how people get conned.

[ Parent ]
you represent (none / 0) (#377)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 12:19:21 AM EST

the death of the left

what you say in your story ensures the right prevails

THAT is the truth

and you can't see it...


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Urg (none / 0) (#406)
by Western Infidels on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:13:56 PM EST

the same focus on style over substance that you have...

I think you've got that backwards; I try to write according to the rules of English, like everyone else, and thus my writing has dramatically less about it that could be called "style" than your own highly stylized writing has. I'm not the style-obsessed one.

Anyhow, I hate it, and I see now that it was a mistake to even try to talk to you, so... never mind.

[ Parent ]

Gotta love this thread (none / 0) (#459)
by Mason on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:49:59 AM EST

CTS tries to attack liberals for not liberalling in the best way, and then the righties come in and they go about the usual bickering.

Know your friends and enemies, CTS.  After the election, embittered pseudo-lefties attacking the party and ideology have been all too common.

If we want to fix things, we have to:

-Kill all of the party election consultants.  Don't ask why.

-Make Dems realize that the lobbyists aren't coming back, so there's no reason to keep out the welcome mat.  We're an opposition party now, it is time to fucking act like one.  We get less corporate money, but we also have to worry about fewer toes.

-Take on the liberal media myth head-on and don't stop beating it down.  It is too perfect of a tool for keeping the public misinformed.

-Turn election fraud into a national crisis.  If Haiti or something had had the same funky numbers we had in this past election, we'd have troops over there forcing the crooks out of office.

Learning to argue better in online forums is kind of a low priority.

[ Parent ]

the "progressive" misnomer (1.69 / 13) (#25)
by NaCh0 on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:54:21 AM EST

Returning to the failed ideas of Karl Marx is not progress. But by all means, continue to polish your turd. All of the Orwellian rightspeak in the world won't make your loony leftwing ideas palatable to a mainstream audience.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
Of course... (2.55 / 9) (#26)
by Znork on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:20:01 AM EST

Considering the neocons have been fairly successful in making their loony leftwing ideas palatable to a mainstream audience, I'd suggest you've already been proven wrong.

See, just calling it neoconservatism instead of neotrotskyism fools most people.

[ Parent ]

Shhhhh! (none / 1) (#28)
by GenerationY on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:50:43 AM EST

Its funnier if they don't know.


[ Parent ]
Marx was wrong, wrong, wrong. (none / 1) (#32)
by Russell Dovey on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:54:14 AM EST

Any more questions?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Oh, I see.. (2.00 / 4) (#37)
by The Amazing Idiot on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:09:41 AM EST

So a group of power-loving Neo-Cons calling themselves "Communists" now invalidate Marx's original views?

Thats essentially what happened in the USSR. Once they got setteled in, they ruined the country.


[ Parent ]

Marx was right and wrong. (3.00 / 4) (#58)
by spooky wookie on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST

Right about his analysis of the material world and class-struggle.

Wrong about his idea of a revoluton.

Any more questions?


[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0) (#75)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:40:34 PM EST

Are you prepared to defend a teleological materialism and an economic determinism?

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
To a large extent yes. (none / 0) (#129)
by spooky wookie on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 01:14:20 PM EST

Where I disagree with Marxism is that Communism should be some kind of final utopian goal for the human race. Thus I disagree with his conclusion that after a revolution everyone will live happily ever after and won't need religion and opiates anymore.

The problem with Marx really, is that he spent an insane amount of time analysing history but wrote very little about Communism itself.

I still think he made lots of good analytic points tho. And that is why he still remains so important regardless of Communism's future succes.

[ Parent ]

remember, Marx (none / 1) (#108)
by the sixth replicant on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:02:09 AM EST

also thought that capitalism was, if not the best, was at least better at distributing goods and services within an economy than other systems. What he did try and do is show that capitalism will eventually sow the seeds of it's own destruction. Historically, he was right (though a lot of non-linear effects need to be taken into account here). BTW the best example he was right was Roosevelt's New Deal.

Ciao

[ Parent ]

Learn some economics (none / 0) (#240)
by kurtmweber on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:46:53 PM EST

Milton Friedman explained quite clearly how the Great Depression was a consequence not of too much capitalism but rather of too much government interference--specifically with its control of the money supply.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
Absurd materialist religionism. (none / 0) (#168)
by fragmal on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 12:08:07 AM EST

YFI.


The content in this comment is protected under the Creative Commons License. Details about the Creative Commons License can be found here.
[ Parent ]
YFM. (none / 0) (#185)
by spooky wookie on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:44:41 AM EST

{nt}


[ Parent ]
Fascism is only mainstream in the US. (none / 1) (#35)
by mr strange on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:51:04 AM EST

In the rest of the world, it's considered to be soooo last century.

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]
Furthermore (none / 0) (#46)
by GenerationY on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:52:23 AM EST

Imperialim and the world view that follows from pseduo-paternalistic "caring" Imperialism even more so (C19 for the UK and France, more like C17 for Spain and Portugal etc.). The older nations of the world had all had multiple goes on civilising the savages and making them think the same as us for their own good long before the US even existed.


[ Parent ]
You should know better (none / 0) (#68)
by godix on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:04:28 PM EST

Come on, usually you get the facts right even when I disagree with how you view the facts but this time you're just wrong. France was directly involved in Vietnam up until 1954. France was a colonial power well into the 20th century, well after the US started it's pseduo-imperialism that isn't really imperialism post WWII policies, and well after the development of the current world political landscape. Before claiming Europe has had the moral high ground for centuries try making sure that Europe has actually had the moral high ground for centuries.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
Not to mention... (none / 1) (#73)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:38:54 PM EST

...that most our neigbors to the south would be rather ill-disposed to the view that Spain abandoned its paternalistic attitudes back in the 17th century.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Oh no quite the opposite (none / 0) (#84)
by GenerationY on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:49:41 PM EST

we have the moral lowground to our eternal shame. Theres always room down here in the Pit of Dam-nation but it doesn't mean you should go out of your way to join the club. It was all a terrible mistake we can probably never do enough to put right. I think its part of the reason Brown is flying around trying to give African nations billions of pounds. You will note that very few people have suggested he should probably spend our tax money at home instead. This is also why you won't hear much from Kipling in British schools. The history of that time is very painful to study. The problem with Imperialism is that its hard to pull out because theres always some people who'd rather that you'd stayed because of power vacum issues. Or they feel you should intervene. There are all sorts of complications and its hard not to make things even worse. Its all just really bad.

Perhaps I didn't put it very well, but your reply suggests you agree with my basic point that mature countries that have tried Imperialism aren't exactly proud of it and nobody else was very impressed either. I don't really know who its ever worked out well for really. Not even the Romans. The lesson from history is pretty clear, which answers the original point; theres no more failed an ideology than imperialism itself. Communism (lets forget Marxism) has hardly had a proper run by comparison.

[ Parent ]

Tsk, Tsk! (none / 1) (#90)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:06:24 PM EST

I don't really know who its ever worked out well for really. Not even the Romans. The lesson from history is pretty clear, which answers the original point; theres no more failed an ideology than imperialism itself.

The fruits of Periclean Athens alone seem to me an entirely adequate and sufficiently robust defense of Imperialism that it stands eternally justified. Wherever material culture has flourished in the course of human history, it has done so under the guiding hand of imperium--Han, Sumerian, Egyptian, Attic, Roman, whatever....

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Bah. IFI. (none / 0) (#118)
by GenerationY on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:13:31 AM EST

But you know what I mean.

[ Parent ]
not really (none / 0) (#163)
by Battle Troll on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:31:44 PM EST

I ask you, Mr Dovey, where would we be today without the Byzantine Empire?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Depends how you frame the debate (none / 1) (#94)
by godix on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:26:06 PM EST

If I agree or not depends entirely on if you and I agree on the definition of 'imperialism'. I view imperialism as country A takes over and directly controls country B but still keeps country B as a seperate entity. By this definition the only major imperialistic country in the world currently would be China. The US certainly wouldn't qualify, it has a history of either annexing land entirely and making it part of the US or turning the country over to the locals and getting the hell out ASAP. The US comes in and kicks ass till it gets what it wants then it leaves. An imperial country comes in and kicks ass till it gets what it wants then it stays around until it's thrown out, usually violently.

I do think true imperialism has proven to be a poor idea although historically speaking it's results aren't universally bad. India, for example, probably had a net benefit from Englands rule and Roman imperialism helped spread advanced ideas throughout Europe faster than would otherwise have happened.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

-1, resection to "by Baldrson" (1.00 / 8) (#40)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:46:51 AM EST



--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
What's Baldrson-like there? /nt (none / 0) (#74)
by jongleur on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:40:11 PM EST


--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
OH NOES!11@2! DA JOOZ!!1 (3.00 / 5) (#42)
by Pelorat on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:17:00 AM EST

Sheesh. Evolve.

heh, "the Jewish influence" (2.25 / 4) (#45)
by Pelorat on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:50:59 AM EST

So which group runs that show? The Shadow government? NID? The Illuminati?

Freemasons?

Boy Scouts?

Tok'ra?

Their ethnicity is mentioned, hell it's the main focus, why? Is that supposed to make us suspicious of them? Hmm, lets see what your links say. Ah, JOOZ are a cunning lot, aren't they? Clannish, greedy, intelligent, aggressive. Boy, isn't it coincidental that X number of them are in favor of Y? It's almost like they're working in concert. What? Oh, no, I'm not saying anything bad about them. Just dropping hints like food through a malaria victim and insinuating all manner of conspiratorial things, that's all.

Is it coincidental that a lot of Jews in politics support Israel? Not necessarily, interests converge, after all.. and there are plenty of Jews who oppose neo-conservatism. But are they managed and directed by some shadowy cabal, is the political support of Israel all part of some devious master plan? Uh, no.

Bringing conspiracy to an argument is like bringing saran wrap to a gunfight.

[ Parent ]

Thinly disguised anti-semitism (none / 0) (#47)
by shinnin on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:18:06 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I wonder (none / 1) (#97)
by gdanjo on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:04:58 PM EST

What would happen if one day there really was a Jewish conspiracy? Would it be legitimate to say the things in the style of the previous poster?

Do you also say "OH NOES!0-1! DA RIGHT-WING NUTZ@!@" when someone suggests that the "right" has a specific agenda, and is actively enforcing it?

Your post is a good example of "framing" the article talks about. We can talk about "the right", "the left", Catholics, Muslims, etc. all we like, and suggest commonality within these groups and self-beneficial actions on behalf of their participants, but make a suggestion about "jews" and instantly the anti-semetic frame gets activated and boom! you're a Nazi biggot.

Not that I particularly care about "JOOZ", or any of the other groups mentioned; I just find the mechanics of extra-context injection interesting.

Sheesh. Evolve.
Bah. Create.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

So is yours (none / 0) (#109)
by Pelorat on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:12:42 AM EST

When did I call anyone a Nazi? Oh that's right, I didn't. WTF.

I'm more anti-conspiracy-theory than pro-Jew. It's just more fun to poke at racists than political wackos. Stirs up more indignance that way.

I mock the ones who see the VRWC and VLWC everywhere too, so yeah. I might not be consistent about posting every time (just as I don't consistently post my oh noes da jooz line), but you can be sure I'm laughing.

[ Parent ]

yah? (none / 0) (#149)
by gdanjo on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:05:35 PM EST

When did I call anyone a Nazi? Oh that's right, I didn't. WTF.
When did I say you called someone a Nazi? Oh that's right, I didn't. WTF.

These little semantic plausible denyability games certainly are fun to play, but they really aren't fooling anyone. In fact, they show exactly how frames work - you don't have to call anyone a bigot to get people to think you did; you just need to frame the response the right way ("OMG THA JOOZ!").

I'm more anti-conspiracy-theory than pro-Jew. It's just more fun to poke at racists than political wackos. Stirs up more indignance that way.
There you go again - you made no arguments in the exchange with the other poster, and yet you call them racist.

Oh, you didn't call them a racist? You made a sound argument that showed the person to be racist before the "OMG JOOZ" remark? PST LNK PLZ KAY THX.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

All you have to do (none / 0) (#227)
by Pelorat on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 04:50:59 PM EST

Is read through the links he provided.

When did I say you called someone a Nazi?
Right here:
but make a suggestion about "jews" and instantly the anti-semetic frame gets activated and boom! you're a Nazi biggot.

Semantic plausible deniability indeed.

[ Parent ]

sorry (none / 0) (#235)
by gdanjo on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:23:16 PM EST

I see no "you" in there. You might want to familiarise yourself with "generalisation" before you spout off next time.

You can put away your saran wrap now.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Nice dodge (none / 0) (#394)
by Pelorat on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:30:09 PM EST

But there was absolutely no reason to point it out in this thread if you didn't think I was also doing that with my original post. It was a direct shot.

Saran wrap, huh? Be a good lad and point out where I think you're part of a conspiracy of any kind. Did you even read that post?

[ Parent ]

Go back to lurking (none / 0) (#400)
by gdanjo on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:36:30 PM EST

and searching for cheap shots. You've got nothing else worthwhile to say.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

believing in conspiracies (none / 0) (#138)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 04:57:13 PM EST

is what people do when they refuse to accept reality

we would assume that people form ideas about the world and then change their when reality proves what they believe to be wrong somehow

but some people are so pigheaded and closedminded and ignorant, they'd rather change reality than change their beliefs

thus, conspiracy theories

conspiracy theory is the province of dimwitted closed minded fools

if you believe in conspiracy theories, you are:

  1. genuinely low in intelligence
  2. closed minded to an extreme
  3. a gullible numbnut
or any combination of the above


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Speaking of dodgy language... (2.85 / 7) (#48)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:35:34 AM EST

Who exactly are these neo-cons you keep speaking of? I used to know what the term meant before it entered the popular lexicon, but that doesn't seem to square with your use of term here.

The brief historical overview you give above seems to confuse movement conservatism with neo-conservatives. Or are they the same thing to you?

In his article Lakoff focuses on Dobson and his organization more than anyone else, but you suggest he is addressing neo-con distortions. Is Dobson a neo-con now?

Do you have anything or anyone in particular in mind when you speak of neo-cons? Or is it merely a term of opprobrium? Scapegoats? Boogey-men?

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


My thoughts exactly (none / 0) (#69)
by Benny Cemoli on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:30:11 PM EST

I thought this was a really good article, but it really has nothing to do with "neo-cons".


"the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."
[ Parent ]

But that's a great way to "frame" (none / 0) (#70)
by Skywise on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:05:54 PM EST

an argument about porkchop though!

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0) (#82)
by Benny Cemoli on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:22:49 PM EST

Originally the sig asserted that PDC had confessed to being a goat fucker. I felt bad about this after a day or so (before it became necessary for porkchop_d_lawyer to get involved ;), so I changed it to the opposite.

Now I don't know what to think. I just feel so ... dirty.


"the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."
[ Parent ]

Excellent (none / 0) (#49)
by pHatidic on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:54:18 AM EST

There are entire books on reference frame shifting, but I can't remember any offhand. Perhaps someone else knows a good book on the subject? I have never read one, but I would like to. It is an extremely powerful tool, be it for politics, seduction, power, etc.

Lakoff's "Don't think of an elephant" nt (none / 0) (#72)
by jongleur on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:35:47 PM EST


--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
or the more thorough version of it. (none / 1) (#226)
by Norwegian Blue on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 04:19:49 PM EST

"Don't think of an Elephant" is a simplified extract from "Moral Politics" by the same author. His earlier work is not related to politics.

[ Parent ]
You might begin with... (none / 1) (#80)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:17:50 PM EST

...with Aristotle's Rhetoric. The rest is mere footnotes.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
The problem with George Lakoff and this article (2.80 / 10) (#55)
by Lode Runner on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:50:49 PM EST

is that they both assume support of center-right policies is born of ignorance and/or an inability to question the premises of Bush/Blair/Howard's arguments. The true neocons, ex-leftist, ex-academics, know the left's discourse cold. The Guardian is prerequisite reading for The Weekly Standard. They know the left's precepts and they simply disagree.

To put it bluntly, Lakoff (and the left) isn't marginal because people to his right are unfamiliar with his enlightened Weltanshauung, he's marginal because they know it as old hat and have roundly rejected most of it.

The left's problem isn't that people aren't reading John Pilger, it's that he's being read, rejected, and indeed held up as paradigmatic of the leftist geopolitical thinking. What Lakoff doesn't get is that Tim Blair, the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed editors, etc etc, encourage their confreres to read the likes of Pilger. So when you (leftists) confront a centrist with a Pilger piece, you are not only not telling them anything they haven't heard, but you come off as an idiot dogmatist too.

I disagree (3.00 / 2) (#60)
by GenerationY on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:37:10 PM EST

Especially in the region of geopolitical thinking. This is mentioned elsewhere so I'll throw you a bone, look up "Fourth International" "petit bourgois bloc", "partisan review and commentary" and "Max Schactman". Or ask Kristol the elder if you don't believe me. Be careful what you read though, on the internet discussion of the issue often ends up with "LOL Jews did 9/11" as the punchline (early warning alarm: if they mention Trotsky's real name was Bronstein).

Neoconservativism is not a rejection of the left by any means. If it is, its as much a rejection of conservativism itself. Its about as "conservative" as Stalinism was "marxist", c.f., "paeleoconservativism". What you have to realise is that the Necons could transfer to the Democrats without anyone noticing an interruption in service.

[ Parent ]

I play World of Warcraft to escape reality (3.00 / 2) (#64)
by Lode Runner on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:26:01 PM EST

and I see you read European Leftist magazines. That's cool; it's brainrot all the same. Not sure where you're going with Jews and the "petit bourgois bloc" [sic] except that you probably shouldn't be using grown-ups' words without first understanding them.

Anyone who's actually made an effort to understand what's behind today's ideologies knows perfectly well that neoconservatism is a broad rejection of most leftist tenets. Granted, they've kept the left's interventionist universalism and much of its faith-based anti-racism, but forget anything with the prefix "social".

Neocon ideology is American ideology, hence the resonance with the mainstreams of both the GOP and the Dems. The fringes claim this is so because the center is crazy, but then again the center has something the fringes don't, a system that by and large works.

[ Parent ]

Strange (none / 0) (#77)
by GenerationY on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:07:15 PM EST

I don't know why you are so insulting and then agree anyway.

Perhaps it depends what you mean by the left perhaps. I really see Neoconservativism as opposed to liberalism. It can do that from positions on the left or the right, it doesn't much matter (the theoretical left hate liberals probably far more than the likes of Anne Coulter do...they don't seem to have a voice in the US or are perhaps now on the bandwagon, but they certainly exist in other countries). The Neocons combine elements of both and neither I feel. Isn't their desire towards militarism and away from isolationism, thusincreased public spending and enlarged government equally in contravention of conservative thinking though?

Schactman was referred to by Trotsky as leading a "petit bourgeois bloc" within the Fourth Interntional btw back when he was publishing the "Partisan" (so no, I haven't read it, it folded in the 1930s). And he was right, the man ended up at the State Department backing "the senator for Boeing" Jackson (who had Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams etc. working for him when they were Democrats). But his views on foreign policy, as you note, make up a part of the Neoconservative world view.

My point on the jewish angle was merely that one should be careful looking into Schactman and Trotsky on the internet because a lot of antisemitic conspiracy types try to make something of it. The first few pages of a google search will probably just lead to that kind of irrelevant crap.

I'm kind of tired so I hope you will forgive any spulling mistooks that have crept in here this time.

I find it interesting you think of Neoconservativism as a distinctively American ideology. Can I ask you to explain why? I haven't really thought about it either way but I do wonder if it will spread.

[ Parent ]

I can be civil too, if I so choose (none / 1) (#85)
by Lode Runner on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:53:11 PM EST

Neoconservatism and classical liberalism (think free market, not free Mumia) are peas in a pod. One could argue that the pod was established by 18th-century European philosophers, but the triumphalism concerning a capitalist-democratic-libertarian-militarist order is pure mid-20th century US. Marx didn't see Ford coming, let alone Apple or Amazon.

The same history that has shown Americans that this order is beneficial to humanity is viewed differently by Europeans, whose experience with capitalism, democracy, liberalism, and militarism hasn't been so kind. There's no way you could, say, convince the average German that democracy would flourish merely by removing a totalitarian regime and letting people plot their own course... they have no frame of reference for it.

Will neoconservatism spread? That depends on the success of its projects.

[ Parent ]

Broader reflection (none / 1) (#178)
by Mason on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 03:19:19 AM EST

I hear a few of the guys that work for Ford are unionized.  It isn't Marx's vision, but damned if he wouldn't smile a little.

Neocons have already failed at everything they've tried in the past few years.  Due to Iraq, expect the US to be isolationist for quite some time.  Their attempts at picking a culture war haven't gone so well, gay marriage and social security will weather through whatever feces they're flinging.

Face it, after the cold war neocons were a radical, insane solution without a problem.  9/11 gave them a temporary access to power again, but unless their policies succeed in provoking more domestic attacks we both know that'll wane in time.  There's only so much they can do to provoke largely-inept jihadists without just looking like idiots.  Peace and prosperity will be the death of neocons, and so long as we have a democracy we'll only tolerate so much social sabotage.

They're a fart in the wind of history, and already the stench is fading.  Even at the peak of their power, everything they did had to be cloaked in liberal phrases and progressive justifications.  Yes it is cute that disgusting legislation can be snuck by with Orwellian names, but Lincoln was right about fools.

I really hope you didn't hitch yourself too firmly to their ideological post, because it'll be lonely until the next disaster makes people stupid for a decade.

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the pity (none / 0) (#301)
by Lode Runner on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:01:38 PM EST

but I've yet to see a neocon stand against gay marriage. I suspect you're conflating neoconservatives with the paleoconservatives who are indeed fighting a culture war against abortion, gay marriage, sodomy and the like.

Also, you neglected to consider Iraq's recent election, which any way you cut it is a resounding triumph for neoconservative ideology.

With Howard Dean and the moveon.orgers in ascedency in the Democratic Party, it's fair to say that the neocons are in little danger of being usurped anytime soon.

[ Parent ]

IAWTP (none / 0) (#315)
by Battle Troll on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:56:13 PM EST

I never in a million years thought that the Iraq election would be a success. Its success was an enormous boost, in my eyes, to the credibility of the notion of 'spreading democracy.'
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Oh, these things don't sound good to you? (none / 1) (#71)
by jongleur on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:27:02 PM EST

  • a legacy for our children
  • a healthy life with decent nutrition and health care for all
  • a healthy, responsible, properly-managed, robust, self-sufficient and sustainable economy
  • the right to a living wage, decent housing and safe neighbourhoods
  • moral regulation to temper the excesses of the untrammeled market and greedy and unethical big business
  • freedom from unreasonable harassment and detention by untrained and overzealous government bureaucrats
  • mutual respect for, and collaboration with, all democratic nations
From: here
--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
These are the same goals (3.00 / 2) (#78)
by Lode Runner on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:15:37 PM EST

the neocons drone on about trying to realize.

Thus far there's no evidence that the Kucinich fringe of the Democratic Party is any better equipped to reach these common goals than the neocons, let alone Clinton et al. Indeed you can be certain that Dennis Kucinich's longstanding policy of indulging, apologizing for, and ultimately accomodating religious fascists (other than Christians, of course) is a sure-fire way to not actualize a better future.

[ Parent ]

A clue (none / 1) (#153)
by pdrap on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:29:42 PM EST

Lakoff doesn't spend any time trying to prove he's right, contrary to what you THINK he says.

Read the books. He describes how politics uses the language to gain an advantage. A conservative reading his book would benefit just as much as a liberal.

Read the books. God I am sick of you spouting off about what Lakoff says, when you obviously haven't read the books.

(He does talk about why he specifically takes the liberal position, but that's the back of his first book. The first part has a lengthy explanation of why his theory has nothing to do with who is correct in their arguments. He is just teaching us how the language is used politically.)

Read the book. He doesn't say anything CLOSE to what you think he says.


[ Parent ]

Not intellectuals (none / 1) (#79)
by driptray on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:16:18 PM EST

Lakoff is talking about ordinary people, not intellectuals. Ordinary people haven't seen a Pilger documentary, they don't read Tim Blair or the Wall St Journal, and they haven't "known and rejected" leftist politics. People that do all those things are a tiny minority. Oridinary people are not particularly interested in news and politics. That makes them very susceptible to the way issues are framed.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

Ordinary people (3.00 / 3) (#83)
by Lode Runner on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:28:09 PM EST

do indeed read center-right blogs and editorial pages. Is Lakoff calling for full-spectrum discourse dominance in order to sway the un(brain)washed masses? I'm tempted to conclude that he's taken to heart the Chomskyists' ludicrous claims about the power of pervasive media bias, and that he merely wants to harness that energy for his own causes. But in the end, I think he genuinely believes that as people get access to a broader array of information (one that includes his message), they will move closer to his position on most issues. He's wrong, though; more knowledge != more left-leaning.

[ Parent ]
Similar Conclusions (none / 1) (#120)
by virg on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:27:39 AM EST

> I'm tempted to conclude that he's taken to heart the Chomskyists' ludicrous claims about the power of pervasive media bias, and that he merely wants to harness that energy for his own causes.

This is entirely reasonable, and I found myself thinking his goals match this relatively closely, although I'm not as quick as you are to reject the power of spin.

> But in the end, I think he genuinely believes that as people get access to a broader array of information (one that includes his message), they will move closer to his position on most issues. He's wrong, though; more knowledge != more left-leaning.

While I agree that more knowledge doesn't necessarily lead to more left-leaning politics, I find that more knowledge makes a person (whatever his or her politics) much less susceptible to hysteria, group-think and "gut feeling" actions. Circumspection may not be something that politicos like, but it's a requirement for progress as a society. The thing that drives me mad, and that I think his ideas address, is people who let others do their thinking for them by spin-doctoring. If you want to support the war in Iraq, I have no problem with that (I have heard a number of very rational and well-thought-out reasons for supporting the war), but if you're going to support it because you still believe they're responsible for al-Qaeda and their "New York skyline reconfiguration initiative", then something needs to be done.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Real discourse (none / 1) (#121)
by Znork on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:28:05 PM EST

"If you want to support the war in Iraq, I have no problem with that (I have heard a number of very rational and well-thought-out reasons for supporting the war)"

Indeed. I largely support the goals of the neocons, and I approve of an interventionist policy. I object to the war in Iraq not because it's 'wrong', but because it's horribly planned, based on the wrong precepts, and is going to end in a total screwup, setting democratic progress in the region back decades, possibly paving way for an islamic super-state.

And I object to the neocon methods of manipulation. The end may justify the means to some extent, but sometimes the means will corrupt you beyond recovery. In their fervor to spread democracy I fear they will both fail in the long term at spreading democracy and harm democracy beyond repair in the US.

Like communism was corrupted by rot and powergrabs, so are the neocons vulnerable to the same thing. While they may be fairly benign, once their methods are integrated deeply into the political apparatus of the US, the land lays open for far less benign manipulators.

[ Parent ]

Neoconservatism is not conservatism. (none / 1) (#98)
by Russell Dovey on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:14:41 PM EST

The most important facet of the neocons is their rejection of democracy. I can get along with conservatives (center-rightists or whatever you want to call them) because they, like me, believe that democracy is a fundamental part of any valid governmental system. Abortion, gay marriage, women's rights, etc: all are secondary compared to democracy. That's

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

that got truncated? (none / 1) (#101)
by Lode Runner on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:42:35 PM EST

anyway... I defy you to find me a single neocon who has rejected democracy. Last time I checked, democracy was the sine qua non of the neocons' proposed order.

[ Parent ]
George W Bush and his merry men. (2.00 / 2) (#128)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 01:03:13 PM EST

They rigged the vote in Ohio and Florida. That suggests a certain lack of respect for democracy.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Don't forget Chicago. (nt) (2.00 / 2) (#139)
by Skywise on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 05:05:24 PM EST



[ Parent ]
then which side do you support? (none / 0) (#374)
by Delirium on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 09:51:46 PM EST

The American "liberals" or "progressives" have rigged countless votes, perhaps most notably the "election" of John F. Kennedy.

[ Parent ]
Hang on, I only just noticed... (2.66 / 3) (#123)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:39:28 PM EST

"center-right" instead of "right-wing"?

You're trying to frame the debate to your own advantage! Gasp!

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

that cuts two ways: (none / 1) (#164)
by Lode Runner on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:54:08 PM EST

"right-wing" instead of "center-right"? For me, and for most of America, right-wing = Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Pat Buchanan, Barry Goldwater, William Buckley. When I see the neocons frothing about abortion or miscegenation, then I'll call them right-wing.

[ Parent ]
The real problem (none / 1) (#151)
by pdrap on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:25:19 PM EST

is that you obviously have NOT read or understood any of Lakoff's arguments. Lakoff hasn't said anything at all close to what you claim that he said.

I read his books, so I know WTF I am talking about.


[ Parent ]

proof by vigorous assertion of the day #21 (none / 1) (#167)
by Lode Runner on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 12:03:54 AM EST

And if YOU had read him, you'd've been able to provide an example of Lakoff's arguments that contradicts my claims, and also the article author's. Bullshit, called.

[ Parent ]
Suck it (none / 0) (#196)
by pdrap on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 11:47:16 AM EST

Suck it, you ignoramus.

Just read the fucking book and shut your mouth. You'll thank me later, because if you follow that advice you'll be less a fool than you would have been otherwise.

Lakoff doesn't say anything bad about conservatives. He specifically says that they are not wrong, and liberals are not right. He specifically says that his book is not about who is right and who is wrong!

Now, shut the fuck up!


[ Parent ]

Beautiful (none / 0) (#212)
by mrtaz65 on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 01:58:15 PM EST

Wow, well thought out rebuttal.

You should go into debate, your skills are staggering.

[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0) (#219)
by pdrap on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:41:17 PM EST

Thanks for the compliment. I've read the book, the other guy obviously has not. I gave him a heads up that he might want to check out what Lakoff says, and he accuses me of having not read the book.

When I confront someone like that, there's no point in arguing. I'll just crap in their mouth and laugh at them. Same result, except I'll have had a bit of fun.

Thanks again for the compliment, I really do appreciate it when someone else is amused by this. Of course, one nit that would have is that my comment was NOT a rebuttal, since it had no real arguments in it. It was simply venting at someone too dense to comprehend the sentence "I've read the book, and you should too."


[ Parent ]

If the only response you feel like... (none / 0) (#270)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:05:17 AM EST

...is to crap in your opponent's mouth, it's time to pull your pants up and just WALK AWAY.

Plato said that.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Sure (none / 0) (#322)
by pdrap on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:55:20 PM EST

That's another option. I just didn't choose that one this time.


[ Parent ]
Must be a different George Lakoff (none / 0) (#230)
by Lode Runner on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:16:32 PM EST

because the one I've read is much more judgemental about conservatives and liberals:
Unlike conservatives, they [liberals] believe in working for the public good and social justice, as well as knowledge and art for their own sake, which are what the humanities and social sciences are about.


[ Parent ]
Wow (none / 0) (#323)
by pdrap on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:01:59 PM EST

You can distill a whole book down to one sentence? Why not point out all the good things Lakoff attributes to conservates.

Lakoff's minor point: liberals and conservatives value different things in different priorities. The difference between them is not so much in the worth of what each side values, but that conservatives around the country can tell you right away exactly what it is that they value.

Lakoff's major point: Conservatives have gained power because they have interwoven the things they value into a coherent story (framework) that has been communicated consistently over a period of decades.

I just don't get what you are saying about Lakoff being judgemental. He's got his own opinions, but his ideas are distinctly non-judgemental. Picking a single statement out of the context of a book doesn't prove anything, right?

[ Parent ]

Lakoff's subtext: (none / 0) (#327)
by Lode Runner on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:56:38 AM EST

Conservatives have gained power because they have interwoven the things they value into a coherent story (framework) that has been communicated consistently over a period of decades. We liberals should get a framework going too. Let's spam the media with our ideas too so we can get our own set of dittoheads (see Air America, where I, George Lakoff, am a frequent commentator). I've demonstrated that we represent the forces of light, so conservative power must really boil down to discursive dominance, which we must wrest from them.

Here's the exact problem with Lakoff's argument: the marginalization of liberals doesn't stem from their inability to articulate a coherent set of values, but rather it comes their lack of a coherent set of values in the first place.

[ Parent ]

heh (none / 0) (#330)
by Battle Troll on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 08:02:07 AM EST

"I've demonstrated that we represent the forces of light, so conservative power must really boil down to discursive dominance, which we must wrest from them."

Very well put, and no wonder that this appeals to the BUSHITLER crowd.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

I agree. but (none / 0) (#335)
by Lode Runner on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 12:38:27 PM EST

the problem runs deeper than Ted Rall's fanbase. Take Josh Marshall, for instance. He's a fairly serious progressive, but when it comes to reforming Social Security all he has to say is that the Republicans are wrong. No suggested fixes, just railing against Bush.

[ Parent ]
I really think it's a social class thing (none / 0) (#345)
by Battle Troll on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 02:35:20 PM EST

Deep down, a lot of our boboisie can't imagine having to put up with any personal indignities. They really believe that capitalism - at least as "social democracy" - can exist without anyone having to scrub toilets at $5.50 an hour. Moreover, people who don't believe that are just bad, abusive daddies, and smugly angry tears will deal with them in short order.

I think this is what's splitting the Úlite progressive movement from labor. Blue-collar workers have to live in the real world, and the only people addressing the real world are right of center. rmg called the dailykos 'a welfare queen' (in the context of an attack on Limbaugh-style punditry,) and I'd say that's about right. You only have the liberty to believe, say, that Kucinich would run a better wartime administration than Bush if you are incapable of confronting the either the lack of military will in the Democratic base, or the inadequacies of Clinton-era foreign policy - in brief, if your first concern is not national security but that the right guys get to be in charge of it.

Not that Bush's record is exactly free from blemishes - in fact, his administration got a lot of things wrong - but I don't see the Democratic rogue's gallery presenting a superior alternative.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

$5.50 (none / 0) (#404)
by shinshin on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:05:09 PM EST

Deep down, a lot of our boboisie can't imagine having to put up with any personal indignities. They really believe that capitalism - at least as "social democracy" - can exist without anyone having to scrub toilets at $5.50 an hour. Moreover, people who don't believe that are just bad, abusive daddies, and smugly angry tears will deal with them in short order.

If by "$5.50" you mean "sub-poverty wages", then yes: most good progressives do believe that you can run a very successful capitalist nation while drastically reducing the number of people who live below the poverty line.

Why do we believe it? Because it is true, and because we proved it 70 years ago.

What really irks me about my fellow liberals is that they don't take conservative assholes like you to task for opposing things like a minimum wage, which any sane person knows should be indexed to inflation or the CPI.

I think this is what's splitting the Úlite progressive movement from labor. Blue-collar workers have to live in the real world, and the only people addressing the real world are right of center.

That's cute. In one breath you complain that any attempt by the $5.50/hour workers to improve wages would bring down our great nation, and in the next breath you say that it is we we are out of touch with the working class.

rmg called the dailykos 'a welfare queen' (in the context of an attack on Limbaugh-style punditry,) and I'd say that's about right. You only have the liberty to believe, say, that Kucinich would run a better wartime administration than Bush if you are incapable of confronting the either the lack of military will in the Democratic base, or the inadequacies of Clinton-era foreign policy - in brief, if your first concern is not national security but that the right guys get to be in charge of it.

No dutiful conservative hit would be complete without a dig at Clinton, eh? The Clinton, mind you, who presided over the longest sustained period of peace and prosperity in this nation's history? The president who actually did have a military plan about Bin Laden, which was promptly ignored by the current administration.

Look, your ideas might be interesting if they weren't so obviously tainted with the spiteful and lying right-wing talking points that you seemed obliged to recite.

By the way, Kucinich would have been better, not because he would have necessarily been a better wartime president (although it would be difficult to match the incompetence of the current one), he would have been better because he would not have lied to get us into a purely elective war in the first place. And you know this to be true.

Not that Bush's record is exactly free from blemishes - in fact, his administration got a lot of things wrong - but I don't see the Democratic rogue's gallery presenting a superior alternative.

The candidates in 2004 were pathetic, I completely agree. Fortunately we'll have 2009-2017 with Clinton II to help clean up the mess.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

you have no idea what my politics are (none / 1) (#408)
by Battle Troll on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:39:44 PM EST

I dislike the Republican party more than the Democratic Party; not that it matters, as I am not an American citizen, but I probably wouldn't have been able to bring myself to vote for Bush if I was. But that doesn't mean that I would want "Clinton II" either - we've been having fourteen years of Clintonism in Canada and it isn't pretty.

Why do we believe it? Because it is true, and because we proved it 70 years ago.

The '30's aren't coming again. Then, the USA was the only technologically nation not recently devastated by war. Now, 1970's era technology is freely available, which, combined with a huge cost-of-living gap between the USA and the now-modernizing Third World, means that American unskilled labor has very little to offer the world. It can't be competitive. This is why illegal immigrants are desperate to get those sub-poverty jobs that native-born Americans simply can't afford to do.

I don't what your particular solution is - protectionism? Confiscatory levels of taxation on the entrepreneurial class? - but ultimately, unskilled labor in America is a bad buy on the world market. Should the government help to uplift the poor? Sure, it doesn't do nearly enough. Can we create a classless utopian society? No.

in the next breath you say that it is we we are out of touch with the working class.

I'm working class. I reserve the right to tell you who's in touch with me. It's people who understand entrepreneurship and the essentially blue-collar nature of production, not Women's Studies profs or dot-commers. (It goes without saying that there are a lot of rats in the Republican Party and that they play up their supposed working-class roots in contradiction of their policies - allow me to remind you that I don't like them either.) The Democratic Party, however, is losing blue-collar voters, so whatever you think they ought to think about, for instance, a $15/hr minimum wage, you're obviously not very persuasive.

The Clinton, mind you, who presided over the longest sustained period of peace and prosperity in this nation's history...

Would that be the same Clinton who presided over the evisceration of the congressional Democrats and governed far to the right of his party? Or would that be the same one who presided over a largely useless intervention in the former Yugoslavia and ignored the Rwandan genocide? Or maybe the same one who did absolutely nothing effective against Islamofascism for eight years?

Look, your ideas might be interesting if they weren't so obviously tainted with the spiteful and lying right-wing talking points that you seemed obliged to recite.

You are amazing, do you know that? I subscribe to Harper's and the Atlantic, I get my news from the NYT and the Economist, and the only radio stations that I listen to are either classical-music stations with no news, or the French-language Toronto CBC station (AM 860.) The mere fact that my opinions seem like right-wing talking points to you shows the degree to which you have internalized the Democratic-Republican dichotomies as your political frame of reference. Your apparatchik-like inability to admit the shortcomings of your party or perceive the limits of your ideology ought to terrify you.

By the way, Kucinich would have been better, not because he would have necessarily been a better wartime president (although it would be difficult to match the incompetence of the current one), he would have been better because he would not have lied to get us into a purely elective war in the first place. And you know this to be true.

Even better - now I'm pro-Bush out of sheer wicked perversity!

An elective war, is it? All of a sudden, the progressives are in favour of a neo-isolationist foreign policy, are they? Or maybe a few more of those {cruel, immoral, even genocidal} sanctions would have brought Hussein to heel! The difference between the Iraq war and the Yugoslav wars is one of political will, namely the will to commit ground troops and massive amounts of money, and to suffer casualties. For what it's worth, I agree that the Iraq war wasn't actually forced upon the USA, as was WWII; but you have to be willfully naive to believe that the USA was going to be able to remain uncommitted in the Middle East. The neo-cons hoped that a large-scale committment would have beneficial effects, geopolitically, and I'm not convinced it hasn't. Certainly it's had humanitarian benefits for the Iraqis.

I don't mean to whitewash the many acts of criminal negligence and cupidity associated with the Iraq war, either, and if the occupation had only gone so far as to pillage the country (which it certainly has done,) I would say it was a failure. As it stands, I just don't know. I'm certainly not ready to write the whole thing off as a failure.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

will Kanuckistan CCP take me in (none / 0) (#413)
by Lode Runner on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 11:05:17 PM EST

if Kucinich ever gets real power in the USA?

[ Parent ]
Alberta is a great province (none / 0) (#414)
by Battle Troll on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 11:42:06 PM EST

At least for now. The oil tap is on, and the University of Alberta is a good research school.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
sounds like a nice place (none / 0) (#418)
by Lode Runner on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:35:11 AM EST

I won't be facing much competition either, because few, if any, academics will be fleeing the Kucinich Respublik with me.

[ Parent ]
jeez, man, you gotta go back upthread. (none / 0) (#430)
by Battle Troll on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 04:10:35 PM EST

Apparently, I didn't grow up on a farm, and I never subscribed to Harper's, because I disagree with shinshin. All my opinions are nothing but right-wing talking points, despite my never having once come into contact with a right-wing media outlet. I mean, I used to think people were exaggerating about the Michael Moore fanboys, but if anything, they didn't go far enough. I wouldn't have expected something like that even at dkos.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
it's too painful (none / 0) (#432)
by Lode Runner on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 04:55:45 PM EST

In college I used to be a smug, self-righteous Republican-hater just like shinshin. It took several years of direct experience living in Europe and the Middle East to open my eyes.

Anyway, there's nothing here I don't see every day in the faculty lounge. Caricaturing (and disimissing) serious, valid critiques of leftist discourse as rightwing claptrap has long been the hallmark of Ivory Tower political discussion. One department even took a subsidized trip to F911, though the planners apparently were careful to draw from non-government monies to pay for it.

[ Parent ]

Self-righteous Republican-hater (none / 0) (#435)
by shinshin on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:12:34 PM EST

In college I used to be a smug, self-righteous Republican-hater just like shinshin. It took several years of direct experience living in Europe and the Middle East to open my eyes.

Please spare me the "I used to be a liberal before I saw the real world". I've lived in Europe, too, and traveled quite extensively in the Middle East. It's eye-opening, but not in a way that would make any decent person become more right-wing.



____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
Fanboy, eh? (none / 0) (#436)
by shinshin on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:21:28 PM EST

Apparently, I didn't grow up on a farm, and I never subscribed to Harper's, because I disagree with shinshin.

I never said you didn't grow up on a farm (and, technically, I didn't say you never subscribed to Harper's, I just said that you didn't read it, or, at least, understand it). Does growing up on a farm give you some sort of mystical qualification here? If you must know, I grew up in rural America to parents who were a fisherman and a factory worker, and I had eight years of Protestant Christian elementary school. Does that somehow make me more qualified now?

All my opinions are nothing but right-wing talking points, despite my never having once come into contact with a right-wing media outlet.

I accuse you of lying. Looking over your use of language, the terms you are using come straight out of the right-wing media establish. Shall I compile a list for you? It's actually on-topic, since this article was essentially about how you people use language to distort.

I mean, I used to think people were exaggerating about the Michael Moore fanboys, but if anything, they didn't go far enough. I wouldn't have expected something like that even at dkos.

Look, you can't complain about my accusing you of having your ideas spoon-fed to you by some media force, and then in the next breath accuse me of the same. If you truly believe that my accusations are baseless, then it is intellectually dishonest for you to turn around and do the same thing.



____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
go away (none / 0) (#438)
by Battle Troll on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 09:07:10 PM EST

Does growing up on a farm give you some sort of mystical qualification here?

My uncles drive trucks, my dad drives a tractor, and I grew up doing manual labor. I won a scholarship at 19 and left home. I don't see how I could be any more working class short of actually chewing tobacco and working in a tire factory (the way two cousins do.) HTH.

I accuse you of lying.

Yeah, you do that a lot. I accuse you of being a worthless prick. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Just because I don't run around quoting Joy Gordon and Lapham's latest wank doesn't mean that Harper's doesn't continue to run some of the best investigative journalism ever printed. For example, their exposÚ on Hep C in prisons and the corrupting influence of for-profit management on prison medecine was first-rate. About 50% of the features in Harper's are great, and the others are usually trash and boilerplate, but that's worth my $12 a year (I live in New York State - it's $14 in Canada.) So in short, you are a jackass.

Look, you can't complain about my accusing you of having your ideas spoon-fed to you by some media force, and then in the next breath accuse me of the same.

The difference is that I didn't start out this conversation by saying you were brainwashed. I drew that conclusion from the breadth of the conclusions that you felt able to draw after hearing a few random opinions. I concluded that you were brainwashed by observing your behaviour, not on the simple basis of your opinions; it is certainly possible to hold your views without having to be brainwashed first. If this confuses you, I suggest you complain to your intro philosophy prof, who appears to have a lot to answer for.

Please go away. You make me tired and annoyed.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Annoyances (none / 0) (#440)
by shinshin on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 09:28:20 PM EST

Does growing up on a farm give you some sort of mystical qualification here?
My uncles drive trucks, my dad drives a tractor, and I grew up doing manual labor. I won a scholarship at 19 and left home. I don't see how I could be any more working class short of actually chewing tobacco and working in a tire factory (the way two cousins do.) HTH.

Fascinating. Now how about the question that was posed: "Does growing up on a farm give you some sort of mystical qualification here?"

I accuse you of lying.
Yeah, you do that a lot. I accuse you of being a worthless prick. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. [... namedropping snip ...] So in short, you are a jackass.

Your familiarity with Harper's doesn't go any way towards answering my accusation that you are lying when you claimed you were not exposed to, and strongly influenced by, the right-wing media.

Look, you can't complain about my accusing you of having your ideas spoon-fed to you by some media force, and then in the next breath accuse me of the same.
The difference is that I didn't start out this conversation by saying you were brainwashed.

When you begin a discussion by claiming that the "Úlite progressive movement" doesn't "live in the real world", when you randomly talk about the "inadequacies of Clinton-era foreign policy" (who, let me remind, presided of the longest sustained period of peace and prosperity in the Nation's history), when you talk about the "Democratic rogue's gallery", then you are asking for it. I'm perfectly willing to engage in reasoned debate, but it is obvious that you are only interested in smug cheap-shots and grotesque distortions of the beliefs of people who believe that maybe, just maybe, it isn't OK to make up a bunch of stuff so you have an excuse to bring about the deaths of 100,000 foreign civilians and 10,000 domestic casualties. I find anyone why defends that, and then talks about the "inadequacies of Clinton-era foreign policy", to be truly beneath contempt.

Please go away. You make me tired and annoyed.

I'm sorry you are tired. But you are doing such a good job in your role!



____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
good grief (none / 0) (#443)
by Battle Troll on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 10:03:20 PM EST

Your familiarity with Harper's doesn't go any way towards answering my accusation that you are lying when you claimed you were not exposed to, and strongly influenced by, the right-wing media.

You must absolutely slay at parties. All I can tell you is what I've told you already. I have never once listened to talk radio, or read a Murdoch paper (or even the Irrational Post.) You don't know anything about my politics on a wide spectrum of issues.

When you begin a discussion by claiming that the "Úlite progressive movement" doesn't "live in the real world"

It doesn't - it's a creature of the universities and also their captive. This argument does not me a Murdoch reader make.

"inadequacies of Clinton-era foreign policy" (who, let me remind, presided of the longest sustained period of peace and prosperity in the Nation's history)

What does that have to do with foreign policy?

people who believe that maybe, just maybe, it isn't OK to make up a bunch of stuff so you have an excuse to bring about the deaths of 100,000 foreign civilians and 10,000 domestic casualties

If this is really your perception of the Iraq war, I suppose it justifies a lot of your other views. But I think it's smug, na´ve, Manichaen, unworldly, apologetic both for Hussein and others, and worst of all, not "reality-based."

In any case, how many times do I have to ask you to leave me alone? I don't like you.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Grief? (none / 0) (#445)
by shinshin on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 10:22:31 PM EST

Your familiarity with Harper's doesn't go any way towards answering my accusation that you are lying when you claimed you were not exposed to, and strongly influenced by, the right-wing media.
You must absolutely slay at parties. All I can tell you is what I've told you already. I have never once listened to talk radio, or read a Murdoch paper (or even the Irrational Post.) You don't know anything about my politics on a wide spectrum of issues.

OK, I'll accept that. I still wonder where, then, you heard the term "Islamofascism" and why you feel compelled to use it, but since you have repeatedly ignored and talked around that question, it is obvious that no answer is going to be forthcoming.

"inadequacies of Clinton-era foreign policy" (who, let me remind, presided of the longest sustained period of peace and prosperity in the Nation's history)
What does that have to do with foreign policy?

If you don't know what "peace" has to do with "foreign policy", then I guess I just don't understand you. I would have expected better of a Canadian.

people who believe that maybe, just maybe, it isn't OK to make up a bunch of stuff so you have an excuse to bring about the deaths of 100,000 foreign civilians and 10,000 domestic casualties
If this is really your perception of the Iraq war, I suppose it justifies a lot of your other views. But I think it's smug, na´ve, Manichaen, unworldly, apologetic both for Hussein and others, and worst of all, not "reality-based."

It's certainly not smug. I guess you can make a case that it is na´ve, but after reading the equivalent of countless tomes on the subject from both sides, I respectfully disagree. Maybe I'm a little Manichaen. I'm absolutely not unworldly.

You can say all those things, but saying that I'm "apologetic both for Hussein" is really beyond the pale, and is a downright nasty thing for you to say, especially when you have no evidence whatsoever. Why should I have any respect for someone who would make such vile and outrageous accusations?

In any case, how many times do I have to ask you to leave me alone? I don't like you.

It is my practice, and my right, to respond to your accusations.



____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
All the Snowdens of yesteryear can't convince you (none / 0) (#415)
by shinshin on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 12:14:33 AM EST

But that doesn't mean that I would want "Clinton II" either - we've been having fourteen years of Clintonism in Canada and it isn't pretty.

I'm not familiar with this "Clintonism" term you are using, but if you mean "14 years of higher GDP growth than the previous 14 years", then I guess I don't understand your objection. That Human Development Index ranking of #4 really indicates that your nationwide abject misery brought on by "Clintonism" is exceeded only by that of 189 other countries (mine included). [Kindly skip the obligatory anti-UN rant that invariably follows any mention of an study that comes out of any organization whose name begins with "U" and "N" -- it's boring].

The '30's aren't coming again. Then, the USA was the only technologically nation not recently devastated by war. Now, 1970's era technology is freely available, which, combined with a huge cost-of-living gap between the USA and the now-modernizing Third World, means that American unskilled labor has very little to offer the world. It can't be competitive. This is why illegal immigrants are desperate to get those sub-poverty jobs that native-born Americans simply can't afford to do.
I don't what your particular solution is - protectionism? Confiscatory levels of taxation on the entrepreneurial class? - but ultimately, unskilled labor in America is a bad buy on the world market. Should the government help to uplift the poor? Sure, it doesn't do nearly enough. Can we create a classless utopian society? No.

Solution? What are you talking about? You can't in one breath say that the '30's aren't coming again, and in the next breath allude to some impending crisis that is going to wipe out our great capitalism. What specific problem are you referring to that needs some solution?

I do applaud your ability to find the opportunity to use "confiscatory levels of taxation" in the same sentence as "entrepreneurial class" ... 87 points for you on the Right-Wing Buzz-Phrase Scrabble score card!

in the next breath you say that it is we we are out of touch with the working class.
I'm working class. I reserve the right to tell you who's in touch with me.

Unlikely, but a nice response. Bravo.

The Democratic Party, however, is losing blue-collar voters, so whatever you think they ought to think about, for instance, a $15/hr minimum wage, you're obviously not very persuasive.

No argument here. We're a pretty pathetic bunch.

Would that be the same Clinton who presided over the evisceration of the congressional Democrats and governed far to the right of his party? Or would that be the same one who presided over a largely useless intervention in the former Yugoslavia and ignored the Rwandan genocide? Or maybe the same one who did absolutely nothing effective against Islamofascism for eight years?

I love that I can mention the name Clinton and it immediately touches off the usual irrelevant tirade that comes from people with your rhetorical indoctrination. I especially like that you use the conservative jargon-du-jour "Islamofascism". Hint: it's not a real term with any meaning whatsoever.

All that being said, if Clinton deserves to rot in hell for anything, I will concur that it would be for being cowed by whining and feckless Republicans into not doing anything about Rwanda.

Look, your ideas might be interesting if they weren't so obviously tainted with the spiteful and lying right-wing talking points that you seemed obliged to recite.
You are amazing, do you know that? I subscribe to Harper's and the Atlantic, I get my news from the NYT and the Economist, and the only radio stations that I listen to are either classical-music stations with no news, or the French-language Toronto CBC station (AM 860.) The mere fact that my opinions seem like right-wing talking points to you shows the degree to which you have internalized the Democratic-Republican dichotomies as your political frame of reference.

Your opinions are right-wing talking points -- I only hope that you are aware of that and you are just covering with an entertaining ruse. Even your vocabulary ("Islamofascism") is straight out of the Weekly Standard or some-such Rupert Murdoch rag. You can fancy it all up by hiding behind your dusty and unread copies of Harpers, but don't pretend that a shallow and brief exposure to liberal intellectual writings somehow inoculates you from the accusation that your views are more propaganda than substance.

Your apparatchik-like inability to admit the shortcomings of your party or perceive the limits of your ideology ought to terrify you.

You are under the bizarre impression that I don't think my party has shortcomings. They have more heart-breaking shortcomings than I could enumerate in the limited textarea provided to me by the K5 interface. Suffice it to say that spinelessness and the inability to win elections are high on my list of criticisms.

But enough about me, let's get back to you...

Even better - now I'm pro-Bush out of sheer wicked perversity!

I neither said nor implied any such thing.

An elective war, is it?

It was. Anyone who claims otherwise is a demonstrable liar.

All of a sudden, the progressives are in favour of a neo-isolationist foreign policy, are they? Or maybe a few more of those {cruel, immoral, even genocidal} sanctions would have brought Hussein to heel! The difference between the Iraq war and the Yugoslav wars is one of political will, namely the will to commit ground troops and massive amounts of money, and to suffer casualties.

First off, you are knowingly distorting the position of someone opposed to being against the Iraq war to be a neo-isolationist. You know damn well it's untrue.

Secondly, you don't really believe that "the difference between the Iraq war and the Yugoslav wars is one of political will", do you? The intervention in the Balkans stopped an active war and campaign of ethnic cleansing.

For what it's worth, I agree that the Iraq war wasn't actually forced upon the USA, as was WWII; but you have to be willfully naive to believe that the USA was going to be able to remain uncommitted in the Middle East. The neo-cons hoped that a large-scale committment would have beneficial effects, geopolitically, and I'm not convinced it hasn't.

If you are of the mindset to attribute everything good that happens in the Middle East to our noble and bold Iraqi adventure, then there's probably little anyone could say to change your mind. You're probably the type who thanks Bush for the Palestinian elections, but when someone mentions that it might be worrisome that Hamas won the majority of municipal seats, you denounce them as a nay-sayer and pessimist.

Certainly it's had humanitarian benefits for the Iraqis.

100,000 dead Iraqis would disagree with you if they could talk. Which they can't. Because they are dead. Because they were killed by Americans that were told that those Iraqis has perpetrated the September 11th attacks.

I don't mean to whitewash the many acts of criminal negligence and cupidity associated with the Iraq war, either, and if the occupation had only gone so far as to pillage the country (which it certainly has done,) I would say it was a failure. As it stands, I just don't know. I'm certainly not ready to write the whole thing off as a failure.

Nor am I. Just because I have a burning desire to hold the people who sent my countrymen off to die based on a lie accountable for their actions doesn't in any way mean I take a defeatist or artificially pessimistic view of how things will work out. I see this sort of association constantly made by the right-wing, and it is infuriating. Nothing that I wrote in any way indicates that I think that the whole thing should be written off, and you ought not make that suggestion.

Juan Cole recently wrote something I consider very insightful:

Cranky rich people hire sharp-tongued and relatively uninformed young people all the time and put them on the mass media to badmouth the poor, spread bigotry, exalt mindless militarism, promote anti-intellectualism, and ensure generally that rightwing views come to predominate even among people who are harmed by such policies.

I only wonder: how many of these people are actually aware of their being manipulated into spreading their virulent discourse, and how many are driven to do so through some mysteriously persuasive tactic of some Scaife think tank.



____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
plonk (none / 0) (#429)
by Battle Troll on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 04:07:10 PM EST

I love that I can mention the name Clinton and it immediately touches off the usual irrelevant tirade that comes from people with your rhetorical indoctrination... Your opinions are right-wing talking points -- I only hope that you are aware of that and you are just covering with an entertaining ruse. Even your vocabulary ("Islamofascism") is straight out of the Weekly Standard or some-such Rupert Murdoch rag. You can fancy it all up by hiding behind your dusty and unread copies of Harpers, but don't pretend that a shallow and brief exposure to liberal intellectual writings somehow inoculates you from the accusation that your views are more propaganda than substance.

So now I'm lying to you about what newspapers I read! What kind of person could possibly demean himself enough to do that? What have I ever said that could possibly warrant such a hysterical, irresponsible, petty, and bloody-minded accusation. Dammit, you little pissant, I even used to subscribe to Mother Jones and Utne (I let those lapse in college.)

I'm working class. I reserve the right to tell you who's in touch with me.Unlikely, but a nice response. Bravo.

I grew up on a farm, you wretched little fuck. If this is how the moveon.org crowd treats centrists, I hope you lot are enjoy losing, because that's all the Democrats are ever going to do so long as your ilk remains in the driver's seat.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

It's a pity... (none / 0) (#433)
by shinshin on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 05:20:01 PM EST

... that you didn't respond to any of my substantive points. I was genuinely interested in hearing your response, especially w.r.t. where you happened to pick up all the right-wing jargon and why you seem obliged to seed it throughout everything you write.

"wretched little fuck" isn't exactly the sort of response I would expect from someone who claims to claims to be interested an honest exchange of views.

What have I ever said that could possibly warrant such a hysterical, irresponsible, petty, and bloody-minded accusation

Defending the Iraq war and the liars behind it. Really, that's all I need, and no amount of wishy-washy "gee, but I really do like the Democrats more!" is going to make me detest pseudo-centrists like yourself any less.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

heh (none / 0) (#437)
by Battle Troll on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 08:56:43 PM EST

I was genuinely interested in hearing your response

Not bloody likely. What do you think, you can come in here trying to tell me which books I've read and then I'm going to want to talk to you?

"wretched little fuck" isn't exactly the sort of response I would expect from someone who claims to claims to be interested an honest exchange of views.

Calling me a liar about what I read didn't earn you any gold stars either. You wretched little fuck.

Defending the Iraq war and the liars behind it. Really, that's all I need

Exactly: if I'm not with your party, I'm against it. I didn't like this any better from you than from the Republicans.

Take your plonk and fuck off with it. I'm done with you.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Namecalling and such (none / 0) (#439)
by shinshin on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 09:08:58 PM EST

Not bloody likely. What do you think, you can come in here trying to tell me which books I've read and then I'm going to want to talk to you?
Calling me a liar about what I read didn't earn you any gold stars either. You wretched little fuck.

The fact that my suggesting that your views have been influenced by your exposure to modern right-wing media causes such a frantic, angry, and altogether irrelevant response simply demonstrates that I've struck a nerve. If you really wanted to back up your claims, you'd tell me where you were exposed to, and why you feel obliged to recite, such propagandistic and incorrect phrases as "Islamofascism".



____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
hint: (none / 0) (#441)
by Battle Troll on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 09:43:16 PM EST

Calling people liars is no way to make friends.

Please go away. I dislike you.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

I know... (none / 0) (#442)
by shinshin on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 09:49:25 PM EST

... that it doesn't make friends. But it needs to be done more often. One criticism I will make of the left-wing in America is that they are far too willing to accept as reasonable the gross distortions and fabrications of the right-wing.

It's the Tyranny of EvenHandedness, and I'm sick of it. I'm no longer willing to pretend that "reasonable people can disagree" about some things, and when people make stuff up, I'm no longer willing to say "well, I guess you can look at it that way".

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

go away (none / 0) (#444)
by Battle Troll on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 10:07:29 PM EST


--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
ps, sorry for the boilerplate (none / 0) (#347)
by Battle Troll on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 03:10:50 PM EST

I was venting.

As for the more serious progressives, perhaps the problem is that they aren't accountable for anything and aren't in danger of winning much more than the Berkeley dogcatcher elections; it's easy to carp when you don't have to fear responsibility yourself.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Different argument (none / 0) (#341)
by pdrap on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 01:14:19 PM EST

Well, that's a much different argument than what you put forward earlier, which might merit a separater discussion. I think that Lakoff made a good case, specifically outlining the coherent values that liberals share. But on this point you are free to disagree, since your statement is one of disagreement about his conclusions, rather than what he said in the first place.


[ Parent ]
no, I've been consistent (none / 0) (#412)
by Lode Runner on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 11:01:58 PM EST

My earlier remarks are a corollary of what I've said here.

[ Parent ]
Wrong (none / 0) (#451)
by pdrap on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:39:18 PM EST

Sorry, but in the first place you were claiming that Lakoff was saying that liberal values were better than conservative values. In the second place you're saying that liberals don't have a coherent set of values.

These are different things. If you think they are not, then my impression of your confusion is justified.


[ Parent ]

Forces of light? (none / 0) (#350)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:00:21 PM EST

Why yes, I do believe that my political stance is the right one. Otherwise, I would hold a different position. I believe in certain things, and I think they should happen.

What are you trying to imply here, that "forces of light" is an insult among the conservatives? You're more like the forces of darkness, is that it? You think of yourselves as evil?

Bullshit. Just like us, you think you're on the right side, and you want things to be a certain way. Nothing wrong with that!

The challenge, for both of us, is to convince our fellow human beings that we are right, to listen to their views, to help them out by poking holes in their arguments, and to question the validity of our own to make sure we're not deluding ourselves.

So, thanks for trying to poke holes in my arguments, I appreciate it.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Circle of Life! /nt (none / 0) (#411)
by Lode Runner on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:55:32 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Coherent set of values (none / 0) (#405)
by shinshin on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:12:02 PM EST

the marginalization of liberals doesn't stem from their inability to articulate a coherent set of values, but rather it comes their lack of a coherent set of values in the first place.

This is a lie, but it is a compelling one that conservatives have had a lot of success with recently. Liberals have a very strong sense of coherent values, but you don't hear much about them, because they have been largely achieved: race and gender equality, social welfare and safety nets, health and safety regulations, environmental protections.

The conservatives have a stronger image of having a message, because they haven't accomplished very many of them. The problem with the conservative messages is that the more people hear about them, the less they like them (point in case: observe the numbers on the Social Security phase-out plan and how they have changes in the last couple of months).

You can only hide for so long behind jingoism, wars, and your repugnant bigotry. People eventually catch on, just sadly not fast enough (especially with them dying in the rate they are dying in Iraq).

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

people catch on, alright. . . (none / 0) (#410)
by Lode Runner on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:53:55 PM EST

. . .millions of them, who voted in a fair election for the first time in the history of their culture, because of people like me and despite of frankly anti-liberty leftist apparatchiki like you.

Liberals have a very strong sense of coherent values, but you don't hear much about them, because they have been largely achieved: race and gender equality, social welfare and safety nets, health and safety regulations, environmental protections.

I disagree on three counts.

First, most of these goals are nowhere near realization. Sure there is a veneer of equality but structural racism and sexism aren't going to be rooted out by affirmative action. In the social welfare paradise, you find the kind of segregation you'd expect in 1931 Mississippi.

Second, none of these lofty goals are the exclusive domain of today's self-proclaimed progressives. Herbert Hoover pursued them all! Indeed progressivism has some pretty conservative roots (by today's standards); after all, Teddy Roosevelt was as much a progressive as FDR.

Third, the paternalist interventionism that underlies the left's espousal of these goals is not unto itself a coherent set of values.

If Hillary Clinton is smart--and she is--she'll push moderate regulation in order restructure some aspects of society so as to maximize opportunity for everybody in the country. Back in the '30s the left embraced this; now they only embrace whatever goes against the Bush Administration.

[ Parent ]

You disagree on three counts (none / 0) (#416)
by shinshin on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 01:00:43 AM EST

. . .millions of them, who voted in a fair election for the first time in the history of their culture, because of people like me and despite of frankly anti-liberty leftist apparatchiki like you.

You know, when you call me an "frankly anti-liberty leftist apparatchiki", it makes me doubt that you are willing to enter a serious and rational conversation. Also, this is a bit irrelevant, since I don't think we were talking about Iraq -- are just still itching to re-fight the thread in which you were exposed as a liar? 'Cause I'd be happy to...

First, most of these goals are nowhere near realization. Sure there is a veneer of equality but structural racism and sexism aren't going to be rooted out by affirmative action. In the social welfare paradise, you find the kind of segregation you'd expect in 1931 Mississippi.

Structural racism and sexism have been rooted out by affirmative action (and similar government programs) -- at least to the extent where they are no longer inseparably ingrained in the culture in various parts of the country. As someone who purports to live in a Red State (and, therefore, a former Slave State), how about you go up to an older black person and ask them if they think that government intervention in race relations was helpful.

Second, none of these lofty goals are the exclusive domain of today's self-proclaimed progressives. Herbert Hoover pursued them all! Indeed progressivism has some pretty conservative roots (by today's standards); after all, Teddy Roosevelt was as much a progressive as FDR.

Sure. So? Only a fool blindly adheres to their party line when it strays from their beliefs. If the Republicans switched from being the party of bigots, war-mongerers, and the unscrupulous wealthy, then I'd change parties tomorrow.

Third, the paternalist interventionism that underlies the left's espousal of these goals is not unto itself a coherent set of values.

Can you give me a specific example of the "paternalist interventionism" you deem so offensive? Health and Safety regulations? Child Labor laws? The EPA? The Americans with Disabilities Act?

If Hillary Clinton is smart--and she is--she'll push moderate regulation in order restructure some aspects of society so as to maximize opportunity for everybody in the country.

I'm not exactly sure what "moderate regulation in order restructure some aspects of society so as to maximize opportunity for everybody in the country" is code for, but I'm pretty sure it is something. I just hopes that she brings our country on par with the rest of the industrialized world and let's everyone have health care.

[...] now they only embrace whatever goes against the Bush Administration.

Bad in principle, but in practice, it's a pretty good rule of thumb. Most things Bush had done are bad to a greater or lesser extent.



____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
I'm ready to rumble anytime (none / 1) (#417)
by Lode Runner on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:22:12 AM EST

And I certainly see no evidence that I'm a liar. Plenty that you're a willfully foolish Saddam apologist, but none that I'm a liar. Maybe you're correct that nothing constructive can come of our conversation. I mean, what can somebody who insists that Saddam was only responsible for a few thousand deaths possibly contribute to reasoned discourse?

The last thing in the world you want to do is patronizingly lecture me about race relations. Things are still bad down South, but Blue states with their persisting de facto segregation have nothing to be proud of. What's more, nations that have actually implemented a real honest-to-goodness social welfare net have segregation worthy of Jim Crow; e.g. Sweden, which is supporting its welfare state by essentially enslaving immigrants who stand roughly zero chance of integrating. I'd also argue that there's an enormous difference between the government intervening to secure the civil liberties of blacks by imposing equality and the government's attempts to bring about social justice, whatever the hell that is.

    As someone who purports to live in a Red State (and, therefore, a former Slave State),

I'm from a former slave state (same as John Edwards), but not all red states were slave states. I'm a blue state Democrat these days. Even voted for Kerry. And I'll be trying my damnedest to push freaks like you and all the other dKos/moveon/michael moore fanboys back into the Green Party where you belong.

    How about you go up to an older black person and ask them if they think that government intervention in race relations was helpful.

Been there, done that. Older, rural, southern blacks by and large detest affirmative action because it threatens what they have fought for: equality and respect. These aren't people who believe they're entitled to anything and they don't want your patronizing help. Sorry, but that's how religious nuts tend to be.

    Can you give me a specific example of the "paternalist interventionism" you deem so offensive? Health and Safety regulations? Child Labor laws? The EPA? The Americans with Disabilities Act?

Child Labor laws were enacted primarily due to pressure from religious groups outraged at the treatment of children in the "Dark, satanic mills". (thanks, Henry)

But to answer your question, Affirmative Action comes to mind. Let's face it, the same liberals who impose quotas on schools won't submit to the scalpels of black surgeons, because they know how the black surgeon likely got to that position. Do you grasp how unfair it is for someone who is black to be thus judged no matter how brilliant he or she is?

And my tax dollars going down the UN suckhole? Ugh. Kick 'em out of Turtle Bay, I say.

    Most things Bush had done are bad to a greater or lesser extent.

That's, like, your opinion, man. Call me when you have a credo.

[ Parent ]

Covering all the bases (none / 0) (#434)
by shinshin on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 05:59:13 PM EST

And I certainly see no evidence that I'm a liar. Plenty that you're a willfully foolish Saddam apologist, but none that I'm a liar.

It is truly weird that you continue to refuse to admit it. You lied about what a book said about Iraq. The thread is well-documented. Do we really need to re-hash it?

Maybe you're correct that nothing constructive can come of our conversation. I mean, what can somebody who insists that Saddam was only responsible for a few thousand deaths possibly contribute to reasoned discourse?

My numbers came from the US State Department. Yours came from your imagination. I continue to assert that the US military killed many more Iraqis (100,000) than did Saddam in the last years of his brutal regime (which numbers in the thousands).

The last thing in the world you want to do is patronizingly lecture me about race relations. Things are still bad down South, but Blue states with their persisting de facto segregation have nothing to be proud of. What's more, nations that have actually implemented a real honest-to-goodness social welfare net have segregation worthy of Jim Crow;

"persisting de facto segregation"? You are insane.

e.g. Sweden, which is supporting its welfare state by essentially enslaving immigrants who stand roughly zero chance of integrating. I'd also argue that there's an enormous difference between the government intervening to secure the civil liberties of blacks by imposing equality and the government's attempts to bring about social justice, whatever the hell that is.

That's a rather clumsy segue into a rant about how much you hate the prosperous Western European countries, but I'll bite: tell me, please, how Sweden is "enslaving immigrants"?

I'm from a former slave state (same as John Edwards), but not all red states were slave states.

This map disagrees. Le plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose.

I'm a blue state Democrat these days. Even voted for Kerry. And I'll be trying my damnedest to push freaks like you and all the other dKos/moveon/michael moore fanboys back into the Green Party where you belong.

Kindly skip the "I'm not a complete monster; I voted for Kerry!" I don't care. You are an apologist for Bush and his war, and no matter how you claim to vote, your views are contemptible.

Been there, done that. Older, rural, southern blacks by and large detest affirmative action because it threatens what they have fought for: equality and respect. These aren't people who believe they're entitled to anything and they don't want your patronizing help. Sorry, but that's how religious nuts tend to be.

Oh, bullshit! Affirmative action does not threaten their "equality and respect". It's a popular theme among far-right-wing pundits and columnists these days, but the problem is that it's just not true. There's simply no evidence of it. What is it you are fond of saying? "Proof by vigorous assertion is no proof at all"?

Child Labor laws were enacted primarily due to pressure from religious groups outraged at the treatment of children in the "Dark, satanic mills". (thanks, Henry)

Yes. Progressive religious people have been responsible for a lot of the better decisions this country has made over the years. Your point? Are you suggesting I am somehow anti-religious or something?

But to answer your question, Affirmative Action comes to mind. Let's face it, the same liberals who impose quotas on schools won't submit to the scalpels of black surgeons, because they know how the black surgeon likely got to that position. Do you grasp how unfair it is for someone who is black to be thus judged no matter how brilliant he or she is?

Accusations of hypocrisy without a shred of actual evidence are nothing but noise. I don't know of a single one of my liberal friends who objects to their black doctor. You simply cannot glide through any American medical school without being qualified, no matter who you are. Is there some epidemic of this phenomena that I have missed, one that the complete abolishment of all affirmative policies will solve? If so, can you provide me with some further information about this?

And my tax dollars going down the UN suckhole? Ugh. Kick 'em out of Turtle Bay, I say.

Specifically, why? The most intriguing thing I find about you people is the bizarre, irrational hatred of all things UN. Do you dislike the WHO and their complete eradication of polio throughout the world? Or perhaps you hate the idea of a central place for diplomatic negotiations to take place? Or the work done by the UNDP? Or maybe you think those little children that UNICEF feeds are going to grow up and be terrorists that are going to threaten your insignificant little mid-western paradise?

I am very curious to know if you really understand the reasons you hate the UN and are able to enumerate them, or if you are just following the right-wing pack that doesn't even understand what the UN does, let alone why it should be changed. I'm going to submit an article about it in the near future; I hope you will participate in the discussion.



____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
"center-right"?? (none / 1) (#157)
by shinshin on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 09:27:19 PM EST

If these nuts are "center-right", I shudder to think what is considered "far right" in America.

By the way, everyone should be aware that Lode Runner, like the murderous neocons for whom he so glibly shills, is a serial liar. HTH.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

when all else fails, smear (none / 1) (#165)
by Lode Runner on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:59:10 PM EST

Though you didn't exactly try to rebut any of my substantial points, in this or any other discussion. FWIW, probably the only worse liars than the Bushies are their enemies.

[ Parent ]
Rebuttal? (none / 1) (#169)
by shinshin on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 12:14:06 AM EST

Substantial points? There are none! It has been demonstrated that you haven't even read the book currently under discussion, so what the hell are you talking about? Are your non-stop hysterical rants about "Chomskyists' ludicrous claims" and so on actually supposed to stimulate debate?

I have news for you: pretending to have read intelligent books doesn't actually make you smart. And the Weekly Standard book review is not sufficient background reading to enable you to hide your ignorance for more than a couple of paragraphs.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

reference please (none / 0) (#231)
by Lode Runner on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:22:53 PM EST

It has been demonstrated that you haven't even read the book currently under discussion,

Where? Not by that one guy who simply stated that I hadn't read Lakoff and offered no proof? You've certainly demanded more evidence when it comes to other arguments.

[ Parent ]

more evidence (none / 0) (#233)
by shinshin on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:00:08 PM EST

It is obvious that you haven't read it because you make your typical assertion of "Lakoff ... isn't marginal because [the Right Wing is stupid], he's marginal because [the Right Wing is smart]". It's a particularly boring boring (and untrue) observation, but you are entitled to make it (and you do, frequently).

The thing that makes it apparent that you haven't read the book is that you seem to think that Lakoff's personal political leanings and why he is "marginal" have anything at all to do with the subject of the book or the subject of this article. You act as if "oh, he's just a crazy lefty" has anything to do with a discussion of his ideas.

It's a very, very short book. You should give reading it a shot.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

in a little more (none / 0) (#249)
by Lode Runner on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 10:53:52 PM EST

than twice the time it took you to craft that post, you could've actually read Lakoff. And if you had, you'd've seen that in every single liberal-conservative clash, the liberal is cast as rational and humane, the conservative cast patronizingly as emotional or superstitious. He's actually fairly diplomatic, but only the progressive choir is fooled into thinking it's a balanced account.

Offtopic: My copy of Metaphors We Live By is signed, but I still think it's superficial.

[ Parent ]

For Christ's Sake... (none / 0) (#250)
by shinshin on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 11:01:49 PM EST

How many times does it need to be stated: It's not a question of whether Lakoff is a Lefty (he is), it's the fact that his Leftiness is not the point of the book. Various people have pointed this out to you over and over, and you seem to think that incessantly pointing out his personal political biases is somehow insightful. It has nothing to do with the topic, which is why your posts are irrelevant and suggest that you didn't read the book, or, if you did, that you didn't understand it.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
The only way (none / 0) (#299)
by Lode Runner on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:52:52 PM EST

you could possibly believe what you claim about Lakoff is if you took him at face value. Of course, being credulous requires actually reading him, which I strongly suspect you haven't.

You're either an idiot or a liar, which'll it be?

[ Parent ]

Reading (none / 0) (#300)
by shinshin on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:58:32 PM EST

First off, your statement is nonsensical. I'm not "claiming" anything about Lakoff. I'm saying this his personal political leanings are not the point of the book, nor of this article. How many times do you need to hear this before you get it? What specific thing do you think that I am claiming that is refuted by the book?

Second, don't you call me a liar you miserable little right-wing bastard. One of us is a proven liar, and it ain't me, chump.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

tell it to the publishers, (none / 0) (#302)
by Lode Runner on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:11:34 PM EST

who open their description of the book with the following:
Don't Think of An Elephant! is the antidote to the last forty years of conservative strategizing and the right wing's stranglehold on political dialogue in the United States.
The elephant is the mascot of which major American political party?

[ Parent ]
You have an uncanny ability ... (none / 0) (#313)
by shinshin on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:53:16 PM EST

... to continually miss the point. Methinks it is intentional, and you are just trying to obfuscate your follies.

Show me, specifically, how that counters anything that I've stated.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

I'm afraid (none / 0) (#319)
by Lode Runner on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:32:54 PM EST

I don't follow your argument. I was busy rebutting what I thought was a claim that the book in question isn't designed to promote left-wing ideology.

[ Parent ]
It isn't (none / 0) (#324)
by shinshin on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:51:01 PM EST

The books isn't "designed to promote left-wing ideology". It is an instruction manual on how to promote an ideology. The fact that it is obviously aimed at left-wing ideologies is secondary. Find/Replace a few choice words, and it could just as easily be Rove's or Gingrich's handbook.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
I rest my case (none / 0) (#326)
by Lode Runner on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:34:33 AM EST

Find/Replace a few choice words, and it could just as easily be Rove's or Gingrich's handbook.

The operative here is "replace". Left- and right-wing ideologies may be structurally similar, but in its current form Lakoff's book promotes the left flavor.

For your argument to be valid you'd have to change the book. For mine, you don't.

Could a rightwinger benefit from reading this? Yes. Is the book designed to promote leftist discourse? Yes. These are not mutally exclusive conditions.

[ Parent ]

What a load... (2.60 / 5) (#65)
by Skywise on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:40:21 PM EST

"Framing" is just another way of value shifting arguments and has been used by politics of all sides for countless hundreds of years.

Though it can be bait and switch (Think of the "Chewbacca defense") it's often a matter of emphasizing an underlying argument/value.

A case in point, abortion. Progressives will say that it's ultimately about the right of a woman to decide what to do with her body. Conservatives will say that it's ultimately about human life being taken to term. Hence this gets boiled down to "Pro-Choice", "Pro-Life". That's "framing" the argument.

Ultimately what this article is all about is s "reframing" of the "vast right wing conspiracy" argument. There are plenty of liberal think tanks as well:

Heartland Institute

Tides

Rockridge Institute

and of course the traditional:

NOW

Greenpeace

Note that the book implies there are no liberal think tanks. That's framing the impression that liberals are lost. But why is that? Well, Tides gave money to form to the Rockridge institute to the tune of about half a million dollars. Who is one of the founders of the Rockridge institute (and receives the money from Tides? Why, George Lakoff. Who founded the "liberal think tank" in 2003 to "Reframe the public debate to make a progressive moral vision more persuasive and resonant." (The book was written in 2005).

Now, in my humble opinion, liberals are losing arguments because the reality of what the public will take on as an ideology has been passed and the "great conservative take over" is one part swing correction from the previous 8 years of the Clinton Administration and 1 part just plain stupidity on the part of the Democratic Party which is simultaneously running interference for its more liberal base while pandering to big money donors who have more conservative ideals... Thus legitimizing anything Republicans have to say.

You can frame the arguments all you want and claim it as the first stage in taking back the White House and come up with reworded political ideologies. News flash, people LIKE progressive ideas like socialized medicine and feeding the poor. But they no longer believe that these ideas are workable because the Democrats had total control of the US Government not 10 years ago and DIDN'T DO IT. (And Al Gore said that Social Security was in crisis trouble not 5 years ago... but now his team is saying that's all a myth.) So all this invective comes off as more pseudo-intellectual spin doctoring. And that's what's REALLY been pissing the US people off.

Correction (none / 0) (#66)
by Skywise on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:44:22 PM EST

That should be "Quarter of a million" dollars not half a million.  (I misinterpreted 280,000 over 2 years)

[ Parent ]
Couple of points (none / 1) (#76)
by Benny Cemoli on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:53:47 PM EST

Yeah, in one sense this whole "framing" thing is just another way of saying "use terms that reinforce your positions". But by the same logic we can say that "Moby Dick" is a book about a nut chasing a fish. It's a bit of an oversimplification.

What we're seeing is the conscious, belated realization that "movement conservatives" have been much more effective at presenting their positions than "progressives". Historically, the Democrats have been much more of a coalition-style of party; unions, minorities, farmers, etc. FDR put together an impressively long-lived Democratic majority by piecing these groups together, but Reagan effectively pulled that coalition apart and the Democrats have yet to articulate any sort of viable replacement. One of the hazards of being a collection of special interests.

I think political "swing corrections" take place on a much larger time scale than you envision. Frankly, it's not like the Clinton years were a hotbed of liberal activism ... he cut back welfare, he bombed his fair share of places around the world, and he spent most of his time in combat with a radical GOP majority in the House. Very little of the leftist agenda, such as it is, got passed during Clinton.

There is a larger sort of swing in motion here, however. In simplest terms, Joe Sixpack used to vote Democratic because the Republicans were a bunch of thieving fat cats and the Dems were the party of the little guy. The swing exemplified by Nixon's Southern strategy and Reagan's blue-collar appeal has pushed the Democrats into being the party of Acid, Amnmesty, and Abortion ... a bunch of freaks out of touch with any sort of value system.

The worm will turn yet again after Joe realizes that the Republicans are in fact the party of thieving fatcats.

"the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."
[ Parent ]

(Impressed, I decide to do add-on to yours.) (3.00 / 3) (#102)
by Peahippo on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:08:58 AM EST

Once more, we are being pulled like taffy between two fundamentally evil groups of people ... one group of which the parent article tries to completely ignore.

The Neo-Conservatives took a significant plurality of power after the Neo-Liberals paved the way with their decade of mismanagement.

Bush could only have been elected after a horrific Presidency like Clinton handed us. And when you point this out, the Neo-Libs pop out of the woodwork with their own playbook, and the language of the debate gets set onto the designed brain-dead course from such memorable phrases as "one guy got a blowjob, the other guy started a war".

Still, there's little need to blame the front men involved, since in the last election about 114 million people (over 99% of the popular votes cast) voted for the left- and right-wing of the bird of prey that's been eating away at America's middle class. Over 99% of the votes were cast for the American Corporate War Party. We can only blame ourselves now. We are getting what we deserve, and the next Democrat elite (globalist, anti-labor, pro-corporation ... EXACTLY like the Republican elite) continues the process of destroying the American general prosperity.

I'm voting +1SP on this. The world needs to see what sneaky fuckers the Neo-Liberals really are.


[ Parent ]
Indeed (none / 0) (#103)
by Znork on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 03:33:21 AM EST

Taking over the Republican party was really a brilliant move of the neocons. The Democrats already were fairly receptive to many neocon goals, and any Democrat opposition would be limited to worthless debating points, useful for distracting the internal conservative opposition and the public.

Thus they destroyed their only credible opposition from within, while, courtesy of the defective US election system, ensuring that the only real policy to vote for is theirs.

[ Parent ]

Question (none / 0) (#110)
by Benny Cemoli on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 09:31:35 AM EST

Who would you consider to be a neo-lib? And what differentiates them from the, err, paleo-libs?


"the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."
[ Parent ]

Kos (nt). :) (none / 0) (#113)
by Skywise on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:15:15 AM EST



[ Parent ]
The neo-libs are a reaction. (none / 0) (#125)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:41:45 PM EST

The neo-cons were the action.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

The Neo-Cons were a reaction (none / 0) (#130)
by Skywise on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 02:25:40 PM EST

The libs were the action.

[ Parent ]
Heartland isn't liberal (none / 0) (#115)
by ensignyu on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:29:23 AM EST

Just a note -- the Heartland Institute is not a liberal think tank (in the political sense of the word), it's a conservative/libertarian one.

[ Parent ]
My bad. (none / 0) (#245)
by Skywise on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 10:39:30 PM EST

5 minutes on Google does not research make!

[ Parent ]
Socialized medicine is certainly not progressive (none / 0) (#238)
by kurtmweber on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:44:00 PM EST

In fact, it's distinctly regressive--a return to the abject slavery of the past.

Yes, it's true.  Collectivism is nothing more than slavery.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]

What is socialised medicine? (none / 0) (#271)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:07:07 AM EST

Well?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Here's what it is (none / 0) (#421)
by kurtmweber on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 09:20:19 AM EST

A scheme by which individuals are forced, at gunpoint, to pay to take care of others, whether they want to or not.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
Seriously... (none / 0) (#423)
by Shajenko on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 01:16:34 PM EST

When was the last time someone has held a gun to your head? Even if the police did come for you, they wouldn't pull a gun on you unless you threatened them with violence.

Can the hyperbole, it just makes you look kooky.

[ Parent ]
unless you threatened them with violence... (none / 0) (#447)
by kurtmweber on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 09:12:51 AM EST

Which is something I'd have every right to do, since they'd be coming at me to take away from me something they had no moral authority to take from me.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
Seems to me... (none / 0) (#449)
by Shajenko on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 10:13:48 AM EST

You're one of those people who you claim aren't human.

[ Parent ]
No, I'm not (none / 0) (#461)
by kurtmweber on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 08:29:37 AM EST

I'm only willing to use violence against those who are not themselves human.  Initiating violence against other humans makes one cease to be human.  Initiating violence against non-humans does not.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
Exactly... (none / 0) (#462)
by Shajenko on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 01:20:22 PM EST

...how the Nazis thought. And the KKK.

[ Parent ]
Context-dropping alert! Context-dropping alert! (none / 0) (#465)
by kurtmweber on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 08:52:21 AM EST

The Nazis held that one was less than human because of his genes, faith, or lack of mental ability.  I, however, realize that one is less than human only because he chooses to initiate violence or fraud against the person or property of another without his consent.

By your (anti-)logic, anyone who builds a fire in his backyard to roast hot dogs is as bad as the KKK because, after all, the KKK also builds fires--they just apply them towards different purposes.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]

Bleh (none / 0) (#466)
by Shajenko on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 11:01:03 AM EST

The Nazis held that one was less than human because of his genes, faith, or lack of mental ability. I, however, realize that one is less than human only because he chooses to initiate violence or fraud against the person or property of another without his consent.
So your rationale for mass murder is different. So what?

By your (anti-)logic, anyone who builds a fire in his backyard to roast hot dogs is as bad as the KKK because, after all, the KKK also builds fires--they just apply them towards different purposes.
No, you have the same purpose as hate groups, just a different rationalization. It's like if these backyard fire-builders used it to intimidate some group of people, like Democrats, that don't happen to be the same group of people the KKK intimidates.

[ Parent ]
What Doesn't Count? (none / 0) (#424)
by Western Infidels on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 02:19:00 PM EST

A scheme by which individuals are forced, at gunpoint, to pay to take care of others, whether they want to or not.

Virtually every government function I can think of could be honestly described this way. Civilization itself could be described as a system that coerces all members to follow the same set of ground rules, for the benefit and protection of the weaker members (meaning you and me - the strong ones, natch, don't need the state's protection).

[ Parent ]

Common fallacy--civilization/society != government (none / 0) (#448)
by kurtmweber on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 09:14:41 AM EST

And anyway, the LEGITIMATE functions of government involve the use of coercive force not against actual humans, but against those which were once human but have since renounced their humanity due to a volitional act of theirs--such as murderers, rapists, thieves, burglars, contract-breakers, batterers, muggers, etc.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
Please (none / 0) (#470)
by Western Infidels on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 08:39:59 PM EST

I didn't equate government and civilization1.

If you have very strong objections to "A scheme by which individuals are forced, at gunpoint, to pay to take care of others, whether they want to or not," you're going to end up throwing away a lot more than a few social programs.

[1] Although I do believe they are inextricably entwined, as you so deftly point out when you assert that a government's use of force is justified - against those who have violated the civilization's standards of behavior. I don't think you can separate them as easily as typing "!=".

[ Parent ]

Gunpoint, fine. (none / 0) (#426)
by Russell Dovey on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:31:32 PM EST

Okay, so:
  1. What's wrong with forcing people at gunpoint to help their fellow human?
  2. What does that have to do with slavery, ie forcing people to work without payment or the option of quitting? You can quit the US if you like; no-one's stopping you leaving.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

And here's what's wrong with it (none / 0) (#446)
by kurtmweber on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 09:11:18 AM EST

What's wrong with forcing people at gunpoint to help their fellow human?

EVERYTHING! An individual exists for his own sake, not for the sake of others. If he wants to help someone else, that is his decision and his decision alone.

What does that have to do with slavery, ie forcing people to work without payment or the option of quitting? You can quit the US if you like; no-one's stopping you leaving.

It IS slavery. I shouldn't have to choose between being left alone to serve my own interests or giving up my home and property. When one individual is forced to serve the interests of another, with the threat of the loss of what is already his to begin with if he refuses, he is made into a slave. Slavery is an issue of coercion, not compensation.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
Er... (none / 0) (#260)
by Western Infidels on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 01:31:13 AM EST

...the Democrats had total control of the US Government not 10 years ago...

Uh are you referring to 1995, the year after the republicans seized control of Congress with the (carefully worded and framed) Contract With America?

[ Parent ]

Excuse me... (none / 0) (#263)
by Skywise on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:13:19 AM EST

10 years and 1 and 3/4 months.  

[ Parent ]
God, what a dumbass "scientist" (2.50 / 4) (#86)
by LilDebbie on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:27:54 PM EST

It took him that long to figure out how the PNAC took over the country?

Not to piss on your parade, but you can't win back your territory using our methods; they require support from the corporations, which you do not and will never have. I'd tell you what might work, but that would be aiding and abetting the enemy, and sad as the left's performance is lately, it's not worth giving up ground in order to have a worthy enemy.

Guess it's back to self-pitying and wasted effort for you then.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

Trolling gives you back hair (none / 0) (#176)
by Mason on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:53:43 AM EST

It's true!

Nothing gives me the giggles as much as cons who get so cocky over a few stolen elections that they try to convince others that they themselves are Machiavellian political wizards who know every secret to subverting and corrupting a democracy.

I mean, any of you could've pulled it off, you just let Rove handle things because you pity fat kids.

[ Parent ]

Au contraire (none / 0) (#197)
by LilDebbie on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 11:54:36 AM EST

Rove is the undisputed Master of the Dark Side. I say "we" because it is still a team effort and Rove is the coach.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Leftist Propaganda (1.55 / 9) (#87)
by thelizman on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:29:15 PM EST

Well this is a new one - the 'neo-cons' have apparently been around for thirty years. This is particularly interesting since most 'neo-cons' are barely older than 30 or 40 as is. In fact, I challenge anyone to find a reference to 'neoconservatives' more than 10 years old. Thirty years ago was the era of the 'goldwater conservatives' and before the birth of 'reagan conservatives'.

Which proves only one thing - the left is full of shit. They can't sell the same tired propaganda Marx conjured up while scumming it in the cafe culture of paris in the 19th century, so instead of moving on and trying new philosophies they are trying to repackage themselves. The progressive label is stolen from a movement which had absolutely nothing in common with the collectivist aims of the progressives of this era. When neo-progressivism fails, I wonder if they'll start calling themselves Grangers, Populists, or Free Silver next.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
typical of the right. (none / 0) (#89)
by mpalczew on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:01:42 PM EST

instead of responding to what is said, you troll.
Most of what is said in the artcle is true.  The thesis was, The right spends far more money on research and thus has been doing better.  Furthermore, he went on to show some of the methods.
He says this all started about 30 years ago.
Just because they weren't called neo-cons, doesn't mean they weren't neo-cons.

> the left is full of shit.
some guy tells what his ideas are about what is going on and all of a sudden it reflects on everyone.

> most 'neo-cons' are barely older than 30 or 40 as is
Bush/Cheney/Rummy and the rest of the gang are certainly looking old for their age then.  
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]

So Stuff It (none / 0) (#91)
by thelizman on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:40:15 PM EST

instead of responding to what is said, you troll.
You know, dodging is a poor way to counter an argument. The point remains that "progressivism" is the latest label for an ideaology that is fighting for a share of political power without actually addressing its own failed philosophical underpinnings. This book does nothing but renew the same tired tactics of demogoguery, scare-mongering, and marginalization. The term "neoconservative" is a word made up during the 90's by collectivists who didn't want to face the fact that conservatism was a mainstream political ideaology which persisted inspite of attacks 'from the left' which sought to mischaracterize it. Of course, if you don't get that, than you'll continue to make the same mistakes over and over, and I'm fine with that. I'd prefer to have skilled political opponants who can engage in open and honest debate. Instead, I have you - a name calling knee jerk reactionist.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
lolrorz (3.00 / 2) (#105)
by mettaur on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 06:46:32 AM EST

name calling knee jerk reactionist.
This has to be the best example of PCKB I've ever seen on k5.
--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
not familiar with the acronym PCKB /nt (none / 0) (#122)
by mpalczew on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:33:36 PM EST


-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]
Pot Calling Kettle Black nt (none / 0) (#126)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:43:12 PM EST


"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

the right should control their anger (none / 0) (#124)
by mpalczew on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:40:12 PM EST

>>instead of responding to what is said, you troll.
> You know, dodging is a poor way to counter an argument.
Yes I agree, that is why I was pointing out that the person should try to argue about the arguments that are presented instead of, the type of stuff that follows.

> This book does nothing but renew the same tired tactics of demogoguery, scare-mongering, and marginalization.

now that is reactionist, and completly unconstructive.  

> The term "neoconservative" is a word made up during the 90's by collectivists

The term is actually "neocon", neoconservative is an amelioration.
Furthermore there are plenty of traditional conservatives that are at odds with neocons.  
Conservatism is supposed to stand for a small government, not for a government small in certain things but big in other things.

> Instead, I have you - a name calling knee jerk reactionist.

Well, I glanced over our past posts.  You sir, are way ahead of me on the name calling. Though knee jerk reactionism is far more subjective.
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]

The Left Should Get A Clue (none / 0) (#140)
by thelizman on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 05:12:44 PM EST

...I'm trying to have a discussion with an individual who is capable of nothing more than parroting and issuing boilerplate responses. If you can't even argue the point - that this author is proposing nothing but business as usual - then don't bother replying. I, for one, am done feeding the troll.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
right-wing hypocracy is everywhere (none / 0) (#144)
by mpalczew on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 06:35:43 PM EST

>  I'm trying to have a discussion with an individual who is capable of nothing more than parroting and issuing boilerplate responses.

You're points are so trite and meaningless that boilerplate responses is all they require.  You do nothing but spout off about how angry you are and how stupid everyone else is to disagree with you.  When that becomes tiresome it's back to the usual name calling while at the same time accusing others of doing just that. All while talking about how unjust the world is.

It is not I that first ventured off the point.  

First you say
"The point remains that "progressivism" is the latest label for an ideaology that is fighting for a share of political power without actually addressing its own failed philosophical underpinnings."
Then you say
"If you can't even argue the point - that this author is proposing nothing but business as usual"

How can I possibly stay on point if you insist on changing it with every response?

You are illogical, and your mind wonders.  You only understand anger and view every dissagreement as idiocy.  A while back you mentioned you would stop replying to me because it was MY mind that wondered.  Perhaps you should stick to your word rather than spouting sensless crackpotted anger.

However, if you want to trully argue this latest point of yours.

>that this author is proposing nothing but business as usual

He is suggesting more money for progressive research and think tanks and so on.  
He is also suggesting that progressives treat traditional conservatives and neo-cons differently.
Also he shows examples of the rhetoric tricks the right has been using and explains what to watch for.

-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]

You know.... (none / 0) (#215)
by thelizman on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:05:32 PM EST

You're points are so trite and meaningless that boilerplate responses is all they require.
And this should be as far as this argument goes; as soon as you willfully confess to being intellectually lazy, I should have rested on my laurels. But something about gnawing feeling that I can save you from your own stupidity keeps driving me here, so alas...
You do nothing but spout off about how angry you are and how stupid everyone else is to disagree with you.
This is patently false, and is exactly the kind of statement I'd expect from someone of your limited scope. I never talk about how angry I am, because I'm not an angry person. In fact, I'm a mildly amused person most of the time. I season my rhetoric with profanity and insult because it seems to attract the greater amount of attention from semi-evolved shit-flinging monkeys like yourself. Also, not everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, nor do they get called such. I have a great resevoir of respect for people like Mike Pence, who while being on almost the completely opposide side of the planet from me in terms of political sentiment, is nonetheless articulate and versed in his philosophy. What I typically rail against the the soulless meatbags... yes, like you... who either lack the intelligence or the creativity to offer the leanest cut of insight or hint of facility to the tenants which the proclaim adherence. That is where I most often invoke the stock phrase 'Lenin's "useful idiots"'.
First you say [quote of my writings prior]. How can I possibly stay on point if you insist on changing it with every response?
You'll forgive me for not playing to your microwave mentality (yet another one of my patent stock terms), but I do expect you to actually follow a conversation in whole and know when to differentiate between instances of a point and the overall theme. Alas, the effort to sum it up for you is beyond the scope of a mere comment, and really deserves an entire article. You are certainly not worth the effort, particularly in light of your already confessed intellectual laziness.
He is suggesting more money for progressive research and think tanks and so on. He is also suggesting that progressives treat traditional conservatives and neo-cons differently. Also he shows examples of the rhetoric tricks the right has been using and explains what to watch for.
And all these things fall squarely into the 'business as usual' category. First, you have to realize that 'progressivism' is not a new movement or a new philosophy. It's just relabelled socialism, which itself is nothing more than Communism Lite™ - a repackaged form of Marxist-Leninist theory marketed to be more palpable to the proletariat. That is why I've taken up the use of collectivism as a key term, because it can readily invoke the three aforementioned movements without negative connotations, and this should at least allow the opportunity of a more rational discussion.

With that in mind, "funding progresive research and think tanks" has been going on for years, and even got considerable funding under Roosevelt and later Johnson. Treating conservatives and neoconservatives differently is just another way of saying that you should redefine the opposition in order to marginalize them. As for "rhetoric tricks" of the right, this is simply the same refusal to acknowledge the oppositions arguments as a way of not having to deal with them on matters of principle. In short, what this author proposes is the same thing that collectivists have always done; avoid the issue, create division, then exploit division for political gain.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
well, now that that is over (none / 1) (#228)
by mpalczew on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:14:48 PM EST

I could argue the first couple points for hours, but as you say "intellectually lazy", I'll just call it all crap and mental masterbation. Now for the points you made.
First, you have to realize that 'progressivism' is not a new movement or a new philosophy. It's just relabelled socialism, which itself is nothing more than Communism LiteTM - a repackaged form of Marxist-Leninist theory marketed to be more palpable to the proletariat.
Or more simply liberalism, but that's a bad word now, just like right-wing.
treating conservatives and neoconservatives differently is just another way of saying that you should redefine the opposition in order to marginalize them.
I think there's a huge difference between conservatives that want to
  • balance the budget
  • make the government smaller(including justice dep, and military)
  • conserve liberties(e.g. gun control, free speech)
  • conserve environment
  • have a conservative foreign policy
and the "conservatives" in power right now. There are only a few of such conservatives left. I only got to vote for one. Perhaps you view it as marginalization, but I see a big difference. These days both parties grow the government, because true conservatism is self-defeating(politically).
In short, what this author proposes is the same thing that collectivists have always done; avoid the issue, create division, then exploit division for political gain.
The author proposes that these techniques have been used against progressives and that he should start using them back.
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]
The Label vs the Reality (none / 0) (#285)
by thelizman on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:16:49 AM EST

Or more simply liberalism, but that's a bad word now, just like right-wing.
Liberalism has nothing to do collectivism, except that collectivists absconded with that label for marketability as well. A true liberal believes in limited government and a free market system. The full term is "Manchester Liberalism". American liberalism is...'just relabelled socialism, which itself is nothing more than Communism LiteTM - a repackaged form of Marxist-Leninist theory marketed to be more palpable to the proletariat.'
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Regarding your last point. (none / 0) (#272)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:14:53 AM EST

I advocate disengaging from neoconservatives and engaging with conservatives, because I don't want to have anything to do with neocons.

They are anti-democratic in the extreme, and they see it as a virtue. Why should I care what they have to say? Why should I respect their opinion when they're not prepared to respect those of other people, let alone the people themselves?

Conservatives, on the other hand, largely believe in democracy. So I can get along with them, even though we disagree on many issues.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

The Question Is... (none / 0) (#284)
by thelizman on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:13:09 AM EST

...how do you define a 'neocon', because everybody seems to have their favorite definition, and few of them seem to agree. Even the wikipedia entry acknowledges this, and with such a loose definition around the term it is easy to simply invoke the label upon an opponant. Conservatism is very mainstream and more and more Americans are coming to identify themselves as conservative instead of liberal simply because their perception of what the ideaology entails (which is to say that they were never truly liberals either). You can safely blast a 'neocon' without alienating the voters who identify with the conservative movement.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Good point. (none / 0) (#297)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:38:47 PM EST

In that case, my own definition of a neocon might be apposite:

One of the specific bunch that has taken over the US government executive, and their intellectual mentors.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

That works (none / 0) (#306)
by thelizman on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:47:26 PM EST

...and it quite nicely proves my point... you know... the one about neocon being just a label that can be tossed about.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
All words are merely labels. (none / 0) (#307)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:55:21 PM EST

I find it infuriating that no-one else uses English in exactly the same way I do. Why can't you people just read my mind, that's what I do! It's so simple. (Not my mind, the... oh forget it.)

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Labels (none / 0) (#392)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 12:12:54 PM EST

When I hear "liberal" I think of the Big Government nannyism that has been associated with it, and can't understand how anyone could be for that.

Other people hear "liberal" and think of the support for civil rights and can't understand how anyone could be AGAINST it.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]

I hear liberal... (none / 0) (#401)
by thelizman on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 06:54:07 PM EST

...and I think how clueless people are as to what a liberal is supposed to be.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
I suggest you do a bit of reading (none / 0) (#141)
by lurker4hire on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 05:42:13 PM EST

The history of any contemporary political ideology is complex, however neoconservatism does have roots that go at least 30 years. I found a twenty year old reference to the actual term 'neoconservative' in the title of a book written by an early neoconservative. ISBN 0465068723.

I am more familiar with the history of neoconservatism in Canada rather than the US, but a brief review of the this wikipedia article seemed to give a decent sense of the various opinions regarding the usage and history of the term.

[ Parent ]

Challenge accepted (3.00 / 3) (#146)
by tordia on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 06:54:17 PM EST

How many of these people are younger than 40?
  • Elliott Abrams
  • Kenneth Adelman
  • John Bolton
  • L. Paul Bremer
  • Stephen Cambone
  • Linda Chavez
  • Richard Cheney
  • Eliot Cohen
  • Douglas Feith
  • Larry Franklin
  • Francis Fukuyama
  • I. Lewis Libby
  • William J. Luti
  • Harold Rhode
  • Condoleezza Rice
  • Donald Rumsfeld
  • Abram Shulsky
  • Paul Wolfowitz
  • David Wurmser
  • Dov Zakheim
  • Leo Strauss
  • Lynne Cheney
  • David Frum
  • David Horowitz
  • Robert Kagan
  • Jeane Kirkpatrick
  • Charles Krauthammer
  • Irving Kristol
  • William Kristol
  • Michael Ledeen
  • Philip Merrill
  • Dennis Miller
  • Oliver North
  • Richard Perle
  • Norman Podhoretz
  • Daniel Pipes
  • Ronald D. Rotunda
  • Michael Rubin
  • Mark Steyn
pulled from: wikipedia

Rummy and Cheney are definitely older than 40. I believe they've both been involved in politics at the national level for 30 to 40 years.

As for references to neoconservatism from more than 10 years ago. All I did was search Amazon for books with neoconservative in the title:

  • The Neoconservative Mind: Politics, Culture, and the War of Ideology - 1993
  • The neoconservatives: An endangered species (The Heritage lectures) - 1988
  • Reflections of a Neoconservative: Looking Back, Looking Ahead - 1986
  • American Government and Politics: A Neoconservative Approach - 1982
  • NEOCONSERVATIVES P (Touchstone Books (Paperback)) - 1980

I also found this link, which mentions a book review of Daniel Bell's The New American Right in the September 1956 issue of the American Journal of Sociology:

This is a curious book: it contains sociological analysis of a high order but also a special kind of neo-conservative political pleading.
So here we have a reference that is almost 50 years old.

The reality based community wins again!

[ Parent ]

Rummy and Cheney (none / 0) (#223)
by Norwegian Blue on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 03:28:11 PM EST

I don't think Rumsfeld and Cheney should be seen as neoconservatives. That said, whose idea is it to compare the age of neoconservatism to the age of current neoconservatives? Leo Strauss has been dead for 30 years, and Irving Kristol is in his 80's.

[ Parent ]
+3, Hysterically Funny (none / 0) (#206)
by Western Infidels on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 01:22:23 PM EST

I challenge anyone to find a reference to 'neoconservatives' more than 10 years old. Thirty years ago was the era of the 'goldwater conservatives' and before the birth of 'reagan conservatives'.

The whole subject here is how the neo-cons have been changing the language to control how people think and accept new ideas.

And your argument against this is to say "Look at the language - it's been changing!"

[ Parent ]

Examples of Conservative Trickery (3.00 / 2) (#100)
by RaveX on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:55:38 PM EST

Republican spinmaster Frank Luntz's lessons for Republicans have just been leaked (warning: 8 mb d/l), and they're all about the same thing you're talking about: controlling the language of the debate. The Center for American Progress has also been dissecting the document on their weblog. It's really a useful document for argumentation regardless of your political affiliations.
---
The Reconstruction
Interesting, well worth a read n/t (none / 0) (#119)
by brain in a jar on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:16:38 AM EST


Life is too important, to be taken entirely seriously.
[ Parent ]

Ummm... (none / 1) (#156)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 09:07:49 PM EST

You know, I'd trust Moulitas with my life but after looking at that howler of an introduction - Is there any evidence that these are authentic? ThinkProgress just assumes they are real but offers no reason to think so. I tried to look up references on DK, but the search button appears to be broken.

I mean, I just can't imagine a document written by Republicans for Republicans to begin by more-or-less saying they didn't deserve to win the election.


I never said that.
[ Parent ]

I feel confident that they're authentic (none / 0) (#180)
by RaveX on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 03:32:04 AM EST

From everything I've seen, I see no reason to doubt their authenticity.  There's really nothing all that incriminating in there, so I don't see much motive for forgery.  Honestly, I think most of what they say falls into one of two camps:
  1. Overblown.  Some of the "analysis" of this report involves taking phrases like "the trick is..." and blowing it up into "When will someone confront Luntz on TV about this and ask him why he thinks it is acceptable to use 9/11 to 'trick' the voters?"
  2. Fact.  Let's face it, Bush really had a lot of important indicators going against him, and he won the support of the majority of voters anyway.  The report merely acknowledges these things, and points  out how to frame issues in the most advantageous light.  It never explicitly endorses lying, only emphasizing the most convenient facts.  Is doing that intellectually honest?  Probably not... but it's not strictly dishonest-- it's "bullshit," which, at least according to Frankfurt, is neither truth nor lie; more importantly, it's something in which all politicians engage.

---
The Reconstruction
[ Parent ]
You may be right (none / 0) (#190)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 09:56:32 AM EST

but with recent scandals I think I'll reserve judgement until someone gets Luntz to admit or deny that the document is his.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]
Luntz memo on environmentalism (none / 0) (#425)
by Norwegian Blue on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:25:11 PM EST

An older Luntz memo was also leaked a while ago.

LuntzResearch_environment.pdf.

The document advises on "words that work" and "words that don't work" when talking about environmental issues..

To effectively communicate the conservative agenda.

To deceive the listener into  supporting their agenda.

To avoid the listener turning away because of an unfortunate choice of words

To use language that is internally consistent and does not confuse.

To win

(homework: add 5 more. handwritten and legible.)

[ Parent ]

-1: Lack of differentiation between... (none / 1) (#104)
by spectra72 on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 04:09:30 AM EST

Neo-Conservative and Conservatives. The weblog you pointed to doesn't even mention Neo-Conservatives, yet you dive right in. The stuff you pointed to details how the conservatives have shaped the language and the debate. Newsflash! Neo-conservatives are different. And no, they are not just conservatives+++, although that seems to be the internet code word for whenever someone wants to insult anyone even sounding remotely like a Republican voter, as if being a neo-conservative is something to be ashamed of (oh well, no one wants to admit to being a liberal anymore either). Neo-conservatives are not especially sneaky or secretive about their true motives, quite the contrary, they're probably one of the most prolific groups out there in terms of writing about their goals. Please do try to keep in mind that they are first and foremost a FOREIGN policy group, their website doesn't even mention any domestic issues. So any attempts to paint neo-conservatives as having an overt position on abortion, christian fundamentalism and gay marriage rights is absurd. Sure, individual members may have their own opinions, but only on a personal level (or a Republican level) but not on a neo-conservative level.

Congratulations (none / 0) (#116)
by virg on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:31:19 AM EST

You just proved his point. He framed the debate by "confusing" conservatives and neo-cons, and you just spent a bunch of time saying, "I'm not a neo-con", which just leads people to think about ways that you are a neo-con. The discussion about conservatism has been effectively derailed into you defending yourself.

> So any attempts to paint neo-conservatives as having an overt position on abortion, christian fundamentalism and gay marriage rights is absurd.

It's not absurd, it's spin doctoring. See how it works? The fact that you're trying to defend conservatism against neo-conservatism in these points simply proves that he's put them together in the public perception, and the fact that you feel the need to call him out on it proves that you think he did an effective job. As pointed out in the article, the conservative/neo-con connection is the elephant that you're telling us not to think about. Nixon said, "I'm not a crook" and you say "I'm not a neo-con". In short, because the two terms are being used together, listeners are led to think about the two, and naturally to draw conclusions about similarities. Since most neo-cons are conservative in general, listeners connect their own dots and conclude that conservatives are mostly neo-cons, and so the debate is framed in that regard and you have to spend your effort dealing with it instead of directing the debate in your own way.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Way to go virg... (none / 0) (#158)
by spectra72 on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:12:05 PM EST

I never said "i'm not a neo-con". Quite the contrary, you've got it completely backwards...I'm defending neo-conservatism, I think it gets a bad name when it gets lumped in with plain old conservatism. Furthermore, to be perfectly frank, I don't think the author of this story is as clever as you are giving him credit for either. You can try to read the tea leaves of this story all day long if you like, but I'll take the simpler explanation.

[ Parent ]
Backwards or Forwards (none / 1) (#220)
by virg on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:41:45 PM EST

> I never said "i'm not a neo-con". Quite the contrary, you've got it completely backwards...I'm defending neo-conservatism, I think it gets a bad name when it gets lumped in with plain old conservatism.

Whether I have it backwards or not is irrelevant. If you're defending conservatism from neo-cons or neo-cons from conservatism, you're arguing within a frame that was handed to you, and moreover, no matter which side you defend you still end up arguing in terms of how they're similar, which is bad in either case. If you're trying to point out the differences, all you're doing is talking about them in the same discussion, which ties them together all the more.

> Furthermore, to be perfectly frank, I don't think the author of this story is as clever as you are giving him credit for either.

Considering the whole article is about spin and framing, it's disingenuous to assume that the simpler explanation is that he's spinning accidentally, especially since it worked exactly as he described in the article.

> You can try to read the tea leaves of this story all day long if you like, but I'll take the simpler explanation.

Nice work on framing the discussion there, but merely pointing it out removes its power when the parent article is about what you're trying to get away with. It requires no voodoo for me to see you've been had, and that you're trying to dump the sucker punch on someone else.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Heh (none / 1) (#204)
by Western Infidels on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 01:14:38 PM EST

One of the main points of the linked book excerpt is that various types of conservatives (social, fiscal, neo-, etc) have banded together and are acting as one, to pursue some of the goals of each sub-group. And that the Progressives need to do the same. In this context, it doesn't make much sense to make the distinctions you're making.

What is the neo-conservative website, I wonder? Do you mean the Project For The New American Century? I wouldn't be so quick to classify them as open, honest, and foriegn-policy-oriented. The neo-con patron saint Leo Strauss was a moralizing kind of guy, who believed the ignorant masses should be frightened into correct moral behavior. Adopting a foriegn policy that makes the world a more dangerous place fits hand in glove with this view.

[ Parent ]

Frames? or Analysis? (none / 1) (#106)
by OldCoder on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 07:50:25 AM EST

What is a frame? Is it an analysis? A prejudice? A spin? A codeword? Is "Social Security" a frame or a name? Lots of folk like to write about the "Terms of the debate". I find it ambiguous. Arguing about the terms of the debate is like arguing "I should have won the argument because you should have given me makeup credit because I don't know how to argue". I think.

Also on identity politics: Lefties tend to shy away from that because it feels like racism. Conservatives are a little more daring in their expressions of uni-culturism and identity politics beacuse they aren't quite as frightened of being racists.

On the "Strict father model" and the Tax Cuts. This argument is trying to explain why masses of people voted for rich-only tax cuts. First persuade me that this is what they voted for. I think a lot of working class people voted for Bush on foreign policy grounds, not because they wanted tax cuts for the wealthy. The Lefts terrible response to terrorism/9-11/al-Queda was their losing issue. The idea that you can deal with all of that on a crime and law enforcement model (rather than a military model) is a loser.

--
By reading this signature, you have agreed.
Copyright © 2004 OldCoder

Perhaps you should have read the review first (none / 0) (#111)
by harrystottle on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 09:41:42 AM EST

then you might have understood the article

Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
Frames AND Analysis (none / 0) (#114)
by virg on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:19:38 AM EST

> What is a frame? Is it an analysis? A prejudice? A spin? A codeword?

It can be, and often is, all of these things to some degree.

> Is "Social Security" a frame or a name?

It's both, and it's a perfect example of using the name of the program to frame the debate about it. Think about what else could be used to describe that particular program. Call it "social security" and it calls up mental images of a program designed to give people security. Call it "Forced contribution retirement plan run by the government" and it spins entirely differently, since nobody likes being forced to contribute money to anything. They both mean the same thing, and they both fit the program, but one has a much more positive connotation, and so it makes a better sound bite.

> Lots of folk like to write about the "Terms of the debate". I find it ambiguous. Arguing about the terms of the debate is like arguing "I should have won the argument because you should have given me makeup credit because I don't know how to argue". I think.

Framing the terms of the debate forces the debaters to address certain terms. It's not so much a matter of knowing how to argue as being forced by the terms to argue in a certain way. A good example is the abortion debate. By addressing edge cases like partial-birth abortion, the debate can be guided into when in the gestation cycle the legal break point should be. Late term abortions should be outlawed, they say, and then the right-to-choice camp is forced into the debate of where the break point should be, and not whether there should be a break point in the first place. In doing this, the right-to-life camp forces the right-to-choice camp into either admitting that some abortions should be illegal, or arguing that aborting a child three days from birth should be legal. Neither of these positions is very attractive, nor very tenable, and thus the frame of the debate moves away from the original argument toward the right-to-life side.

Another good example of this is the gay movement-NAMBLA debate. By connecting gay men in general to NAMBLA, the frame of the debate is set. The implication in connecting homosexuality to pedophilia is that anyone who believes that people should be allowed to express their sexuality freely would molest children. While this is patently untrue, gay men are left with the difficult position that their "perversion" should be acceptable, while at the same time admitting that other perversions aren't acceptable. The reasoning that gay men are consenting adults ends up getting conveniently left out of the debate because the gay men have to spend so much time demonstrating that their unusual sexual tendencies are acceptable. Just as Richard Nixon saying "I'm not a crook" led folks to think about whether he was or not, gays saying "I'm not a pedophile" makes people consider whether they are, where that connection would never have come up without the mention of NAMBLA in the debate.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
I take issue with your absurd suggestion (3.00 / 2) (#112)
by A Bore on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 09:56:49 AM EST

I've noticed your attempt to create a "frame" in this very article with the downright wrong suggestion that somehow "neo-cons" are dominating political America.

This misconception is echoed in many of the posts below your article, somehow the Dems are being taken down all over the place, the republicans are in ascendancy, the Dems are incompetent, reeling, flailing widely in a death grip, spiralling down the plughole, hand to mouth, foot IN mouth etc. etc.

Let's actually look at the FACTS. In spite of a republican dominated media landscape, two supremely uncharismatic democrats WOULD HAVE GOTTEN ELECTED IF THE POLITICAL PROCESS ITSELF HADN'T BEEN SUBVERTED IN FLORIDA AND OHIO. Just read blackboxvoting.org for chrissakes. These people aren't winning, they are CHEATING.

Paint your opponent as some sort of pathetic loser and you're more than halfway to winning. Attack their credibility and no-one will vote for them. Congratulations, under the guise of offering advice you've DONE EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO. And you've even pointed out exactly how you've been hoodwinked!! "Watch out for this", you have said, perpetrating it still further. How naive can you get?

Let me put it this way. (none / 0) (#127)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:54:15 PM EST

Neocons do not control the West absolutely, but they do dominate its political, economic and cultural landscape.

There are many fighting against them, but they fight in reaction to the neocon agenda instead of picking their own battles. Therefore, even when you oppose the neocons, they influence your actions.

CTS is quite right to be furious with us about this. We must start making the neocons react to us, instead of us reacting to them.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

No, *we* (none / 1) (#134)
by Skywise on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 04:38:28 PM EST

must stop spin doctoring topics until *we* get our way instead of coming up with real solutions to problems *we* have been harping about for years and then when *they* actually implement a solution *we* claim there was never such a problem and accuse the *neo-they* of using trickery to dominate a process which is what *we* were doing all along.

[ Parent ]
Which political landscape? (none / 1) (#145)
by Raindoll on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 06:46:37 PM EST

I don't see the neo-cons dominating the West. I see them being the US government and ridiculing themselves over the airwaves over there.

The political landscape in the major western-European countries is dominated by socialist-democratic parties, not by conservatives. The conservatives are also not as extreme as in the US either.

[ Parent ]

you have expand... (none / 0) (#217)
by SnowBlind on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:28:49 PM EST

err... rather narrow, your view. They ment the Western United States.

Even then, it is a little ignorant. California is gerrimandered into a Democratic Party state, otherwise it would be fairly split. But Oregon and Washington are squarely D Party. Washington is kinda in play but not really.

Reality is that there is a growing split in USA, with areas outside cities being completly devorced from those inside the cities. Any map showing who voted for what party shows city = Demo and Rural = Repub.

Me? I am not real fond of the Republicans as they are now, but the Democrats seem taken over by radicals and bomb throwers.

There is but One Kernel, and root is His Prophet.
[ Parent ]

No, I meant Europe, US, Australia, Britain (none / 0) (#351)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:06:00 PM EST

That's the West.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

but they don't dominate there (none / 0) (#373)
by Delirium on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 09:49:29 PM EST

Europe is mostly run by social democrats.

[ Parent ]
Yeah. (none / 1) (#155)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:37:18 PM EST

That explains why all the people charged with vote fraud after the 2004 election were democrats, and why the Washington state governor's race is also at risk of being overturned because of extensive voter fraud - on behalf of democrats.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]
Sorry? (none / 0) (#381)
by A Bore on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:25:56 AM EST

all the people charged with vote fraud after the 2004 election were democrats

I take it you mean this?

Governer race at risk of being overturned because of extensive voter fraud?

[ Parent ]
Some news (none / 0) (#117)
by whazat on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:04:35 AM EST

I'm suprised by this article in the new york times (registration etc).

I had assumed that the President always got soft-ball questions due to innate respect for his position. Not shills around him that asked nice questions that allowed him to frame the debate in his terms.

actually it's been for a long time (none / 1) (#132)
by mpalczew on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 04:30:46 PM EST

any reporter that asks too pointed a question gets kicked out of the pressroom never to return.  You must have forgoten about the guy who asked "Has your administration commited any mistakes?".  Also during the campain trail only bush supporters were allowed to see bush, not so with Kerry.  It's typical of the Bush culture, though I'm not sure if it extends to all republicans.
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]
Partisan hacks are hardly new. (none / 1) (#152)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:26:25 PM EST

The one thing that amuses me about whole Gannon thing is that I don't know anyone who had ever heard of him before he was "outed" by the blogs - and other than the fact that Talon News is a right wing web site I have yet to hear what, exactly, made him a "fake" journalist.

People act like he somehow controlled the news that got reported during the conferences but - seriously - do you expect me to believe that the other reporters dutifully printed whatever Gannon asked? Drudge has had day passes to WH press briefings, too, - what makes him a "serious" journalist and Gannon a fake? If Moulitas showed up at a press briefing, should the White House bar him for being "fake"?

Do you really want Congress, or Karl Rove, setting official standards on who is, or is not, a journalist?

Clinton was famous for "charming" the press into going easy on him, Reagan was famous for pretending he couldn't hear their questions and thus he got away with only answering the ones he liked.

Really, the only presidents in recent memory that had a truly bad relationship with the press were Nixon and Carter - Nixon because once the blood was in the water, everyone wanted to be the next Woodward or Bernstein and Carter because, well, once blood was in the water, everyone wanted to be the next Woodward or Bernstein.


I never said that.
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#203)
by Western Infidels on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 12:57:37 PM EST

...other than the fact that Talon News is a right wing web site I have yet to hear what, exactly, made him a "fake" journalist.

Gannon/Guckert was using using an alias, something that isn't so terrible in and of itself, but the White House has denied knowing about it, which is patently absurd. Something is clearly Up. It's also been demonstrated that Gannon was allowed to these briefings before he even had a news outlet - there are photos of him in the press room before Talon News was even up and running. So he was a fake journalist in the sense that he had no journal, if you see what I mean.

People act like he somehow controlled the news that got reported during the conferences but - seriously - do you expect me to believe that the other reporters dutifully printed whatever Gannon asked?

Press conferences don't last forever. Softball questions from ringers like Gannon consume time that could otherwise be used for serious questions, and in that way act to limit access by serious reporters. It's not a precise, fine-grained form of control, but it definitely is a control.

Drudge has had day passes to WH press briefings, too, - what makes him a "serious" journalist and Gannon a fake? ... Do you really want Congress, or Karl Rove, setting official standards on who is, or is not, a journalist?

You've got it all back to front. Not just any Joe is allowed in to the White House press briefings. So someone is already setting standards on who is or is not a journalist. And they're picking Drudge and Gannon. Instead of asking the question "Why not invite Drudge and Gannon?" perhaps we should ask "What makes Drudge and Gannon the best choices to consume The President's limited time?"

[ Parent ]

It's not really the time-sucking. (none / 0) (#222)
by DavidTC on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 03:01:40 PM EST

Several times, when the questioning got extreme, they'd call on Gannon and he'd ask a completely irrelevant question. Sometimes a softball one, sometimes a somewhat useful one, but it was always a topic change, to keep reporters from following up to an evasion to the previous question.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]
Yes. (none / 0) (#239)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:44:17 PM EST

And if you actually followed what other WH reporters have said, they don't need Gannon to do that, they often use the foreign press for the same purpose, because the foreign reporters want to ask questions relevant to their own readers rather than questions about (for example) Social Security or Monica Lewinsky.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]
And that's important how? (none / 1) (#246)
by DavidTC on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 10:44:07 PM EST

I mean, yes, there are all sorts of tricks of ignoring the important questions. If it goes really south they can just refuse to answer questions or even end early. That's not really the point.

I was just saying, even when he asked real, vaguely important questions, he was still operating for the benefit of the administation instead of the press he was a hypothetical member of. (Note when I say 'for the benefit' I don't mean 'employed by', just to clear that up in advance.)

So just in case anyone thought they could show some 'hardball' questions he asked, I was kinda preemptively asking for a log of the questions leading up to that, because the odds are damn good they were piercing questions on another topic entirely, and he was called on as a distraction.

Likewise, if anyone thinks they can show 'softball' questions from real reporters (There's a list out there somewhere, in an conservative article I read.), I challenge them to come up with more important questions that weren't being asked.

The foreign press can, and indeed is, used that way, but that's not their purpose in being there. They just have different priorities, like paying very little attention to domestic policy. (Duh.)

So if people start asking hard questions about how social security privatation is supposed to help anything, they can just ask a foreign reporter who probably only has the vaguest idea of what 'social security' is, and be damned sure the question won't be about social security. There's really nothing anyone can do about that, sans seperate briefings for various types of the press. (Although I always thought it would be great if the members of the press would just refuse to ask a question unless the previous one was answered. But that only works if they all agree on what 'answered' means.)

And sometimes it's them asking the tough questions.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Feh. (none / 0) (#248)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 10:52:26 PM EST

How's that tinfoil hat you're wearing?

Come on - I've followed all the blogs, and I've read the articles and there are only three hard facts in this whole "scandal":

  1. The left-wing blogs don't approve of Gannon.
  2. They have utterly failed to produce any hard evidence linking Gannon to Bush except #1.
  3. Because they don't approve of Gannon they have destroyed his life and his livelyhood.
Bah. Because of your irrational hatred of Bush, you ruined a man's life for appearing to like Bush - and yet the left are the first ones to scream "McCarthy" when you get a whiff of a hint that someone doesn't like your opinions.


How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]
I'm Curious (none / 0) (#258)
by Western Infidels on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 01:04:05 AM EST

What conceivable revelation, fact, or discovery would raise this to the level of a real scandal, in your opinion?

What if it came out that Gannon was up to his ears in debt, until he started his White House gig? What if it was discovered that the bloggers had been tipped to Gannon by the White House itself? What if it came out that Gannon was Bush's lover? Heck, what someone found photos of Bush and Gannon eating Iraqi babies (rotisserie-style) together?

I mean, would anything convince you there was a problem? Think about it.

[ Parent ]

Frankly (none / 0) (#259)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 01:23:37 AM EST

If you can show me that Gannon or Bush broke a law, then I will be interested. Otherwise, unless you could convince me that Gannon had suborned the other journalists so that they were all parroting the lines he fed them, I cannot conceive of any harm he has caused.

More to the point, (and the real point) I cannot conceive of (a) what law was broken or (b) what law the left would want to have passed to prevent repeats of this incident.

Is Kos looking to have the Senate confirm all reporters who work at the white house? Is that what we want?

Seriously - not one White House pool reporter has complained about Gannon being in the pool or accused him of being a shill - and several have been horrified to see him run out on a rail by Kos and Atrios.

So who am I to believe in this story? The men and women who worked with Gannon every day, or the bloggers who accuse him of actually planting the forged documents that caused "Rathergate"?

Your hypotheticals are amusing, though - are you saying Atrios and Kos were tipped off about Gannon by Karl Rove?

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Interesting (none / 0) (#262)
by Western Infidels on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:01:00 AM EST

So, an event or situation is only newsworthy if a crime is involved. In fact, it's only newsworthy if a crime can be proven. And the ethics / values / character / morals of our elected leaders are beyond question - as long as those leaders stay within the letter of the law.

Do you believe the OJ Simpson case (the first one, anyway) was also not a genuine scandal, since no crime was proven? And how exactly do you suppose any more serious matters in the Gannon case will be discovered if the story is buried for lack of the ludicrously hard-core courtroom-grade proof that you're insisting on?

[ Parent ]

Nice of you to put those words in my mouth for me. (none / 0) (#281)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:49:34 AM EST

It saves me so much trouble.

So, an event or situation is only newsworthy if a crime is involved. In fact, it's only newsworthy if a crime can be proven.

Excuse me - where did I use the word "proof"?  Also, where did I say "newsworthy"? I said, IIRC, "if you could show me, I would be interested." - which you still  haven't done, by the way.

So, an event or situation is only newsworthy if a crime is involved. In fact, it's only newsworthy if a crime can be proven.

Actually, ethics and values are of immense importance to me - which is one of the reasons I think the left's treatment of Gannon is so abhorrent. Where are the ethics in calling a man's mother and making death threats?

But - as to our leaders' ethics - I am intensely interested in those, which would be why I know so much about the Gannon case. For example - I know that the other members of the White House press corps do not agree that Gannon was a "plant" and are upset to see one of their members destroyed because his politics are unpopular.

So, who should I believe - you, a random conspiracy theorist on the web, or the men and women who worked with Gannon every day of the week?

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Doing My Best To Understand You Here (none / 0) (#402)
by Western Infidels on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 08:10:12 PM EST

Excuse me - where did I use the word "proof"?

Your remark about "breaking a law" implies some pretty high-grade proof, whether you meant it that way or not.

Where are the ethics in calling a man's mother and making death threats?

So it was "The Left" as a whole that did this, was it?

Does ethics have anything to tell you about judging a whole group based on one or two members?

...as to our leaders' ethics - I am intensely interested in those... I know that the other members of the White House press corps do not agree that Gannon was a "plant" and are upset to see one of their members destroyed because his politics are unpopular.

Are you referring to the White House press corps as "our leaders?"

Why on Earth would other members of the press corps know one way or the other who Gannon worked for, or what his true motives were, or whether he received preferential treatment in getting a press-pass based on his politics? Is there something they teach in journalism school that makes a journalist con-proof? Do you imagine the other journalists have super powers that allow them to see the motives in men's hearts?

How do you know what the other members of the press corps thought? If it was something from a web site, why not post a link? If you've discussed the matter face-to-face, why not say so? If some other channel, why not tell us about it? All we're hearing from you is that you have been convinced, through methods not specified, that there's nothing there. And that this should damn well be good enough for us, too.

And I'm still a trifle fuzzy on how Gannon was "destroyed," frankly. He asked flamboyant questions in the news conferences and he posted nude photos of himself on a world-wide computer network. I'm not a psychologist, but would I be completely off-base in thinking of this as attention-seeking behavior? Isn't attention what he got? You refer to Gannon as "outed" - it was honestly my assumption that a man advertising his services as a male prostitute was pretty much all the way out already. Am I wrong about that?

Don't abuse the word "conspiracy" - and me - by referring to me as a "conspiracy theorist." (That, whatever your protests earlier, is definitely a framing technique.) I'm not what you think of when you say those words, and through this whole thing I've merely suggested that the matter bears looking into, not that there is sure to be a massive cover-up that must be exposed.

[ Parent ]

Um... (none / 0) (#292)
by DavidTC on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:48:41 AM EST

...the 'bloggers', whoever the hell they are, are not accusing him of that. The Senate looked into it, and apparently figured out he'd learned it from the leaky Post, and everyone's happy, except Gannon, who got fired because he was outed, or at least associated with homosexuality, and his homophobic employers fired him.

Gannon is a dead story to the left. They found out who he was, he apparently didn't have anything to do with the Plame leak, he wasn't taking payments from the administration, it's over.

There was a nice conspiracy there for a bit, where this 'reporter' working for GOPUSA managed to know about the leak before 'anyone' knew about it, but I think everyone has, at this point, decided he got it from the Post, and there's no story there.

It's now only a story to the right, who's trying to pretend the left went and delibrately destroyed this person, instead of accidently discovered homosexual domains linked to him in the process of finding out who he was. (Which wouldn't have happened if, like a real journalist, he'd been using a real name, or it at least had been known.)

Of course, in the universe of the lefts, having homosexual domains associated with you is not some incredible crime that requires you get fired from your job. But, hey, people on the right can live in whatever universe they want.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

You know (none / 0) (#294)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:38:38 PM EST

I agree with almost everything you aid except your first and last sentences.

It you think the people who instigated this "scandal" - the members of Daily Kos and Eschaton - are done with Gannon then you are mistaken. A quick overview of their message boards is proof of that. If you think that Gannon's sexuality was irrelevant to them - why did they take such glee in outing him? Why did they place phone calls to his mother to harrass him?

And why are Western Infidel and others on this board still droning on about it?

Actually - I'm going to pick on you for one other nit. How much do you want to bet we can dig up 4 or 5 nationally recognized journalists who aren't using the names they were born with? I am absolutely certain that there are reporters out there who changed their names for the same reason John Mellencamp and Norma Jean Mortensen did.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Gannon... (none / 0) (#338)
by DavidTC on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 12:54:27 PM EST

...asserts that his family was harrassed a week before anyone knew who he was. Which sound less like the 'left harrassing' him,and more like 'him making shit up'. We know when the bloggers figure out who he was, they operated in public, unless there's some sort of grand conspiracy going on where the bloggers plot their moves on some secret blog and then use the public one as a stage to make them look innocent. Which isn't impossible, but is going to require some proof.

As for reporters not using the name they were born with: Sure. Plenty of them. I point to Emmanuel Goldstein of 2600 as an obvious example, although you can argue if he's a 'real' journalist or not. I'm sure some of the big media companies have someone, too.

And in all cases, we know their real names. They just don't use them.

There is one legitimate reasons to keep your real name a secret if you're a journalist: You're involved in the overthrow of the government, or uncovering of extremely powerful people, and you're afraid they'll show up at your door and haul you away.

Anything less than that, we need to know who you are, so we can judge how trustworthy you are. We need to know Mr. Fake Name isn't reporting on X, in between his day job as Mr. Real Name, the PR guy for X. Or Mr. Fake Name2 isn't really Mr. Fake Name1, the journalist caught accepting a bride to kill a story and discredited.

And while I don't normally read the Daily Kos, I did go there just to look for Gannon. The only reference I could find under their front page, and their diaries front page (Their search is apparently broken.), was a reference to a diary about the Chicago Tribune article about how Clinton had reporters asking softball questions also. No reference to 'Gannon owned gay domains' at all, just a reference to mainstream media talking about biased press room operatives.

As for Eschaton, there's a link to here , which, despite making fun of everything, is mainly about the 'crendentialling' of Gannon and how the entire system has been subverted.

As for individual people...the left is not responsibly for individual people who claim to hold their views, anymore than the right is responsible every time a gay man is beaten to death by someone claiming to hold their views. Saying 'look at this person on the left' doesn't really say anything about the intent of the people who discovered the domains.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

ROTFL. (none / 0) (#352)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:06:23 PM EST

...asserts that his family was harrassed a week before anyone knew who he was. Which sound less like the 'left harrassing' him,and more like 'him making shit up'. We know when the bloggers figure out who he was, they operated in public, unless there's some sort of grand conspiracy going on where the bloggers plot their moves on some secret blog and then use the public one as a stage to make them look innocent. Which isn't impossible, but is going to require some proof.

You got cites for that? Because the people claiming that they hadn't released the name are great candidates for being the ones who made the phone calls.

As for reporters not using the name they were born with: Sure. Plenty of them....And in all cases, we know their real names. They just don't use them....We need to know Mr. Fake Name isn't reporting on X, in between his day job as Mr. Real Name, the PR guy for X. Or Mr. Fake Name2 isn't really Mr. Fake Name1, the journalist caught accepting a bride to kill a story and discredited.

Right. Sure. Okay. Please explain how Gannon's real name was "secret" since he was using it to apply for press passes. Oh, and while your at it, please explain how you know which journalists are using pen names and which are not - I hadn't realized there was a registry.

And while I don't normally read the Daily Kos...(Their search is apparently broken....

Google is your friend..

As for individual people...the left is not responsibly for individual people who claim to hold their views, anymore than the right is responsible every time a gay man is beaten to death by someone claiming to hold their views. Saying 'look at this person on the left' doesn't really say anything about the intent of the people who discovered the domains.

Thanks for putting those words in my mouth. I'll remember them the next time I'm blamed for the war in Iraq. Or, you could just point to where I blamed "the left" for anything.

As for Eschaton, okay, perhaps they weren't as active on this issue as I thought. Feel free to substitute Americablog, since they are the ones posting the X-rated pictures.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Hrm. (none / 0) (#362)
by DavidTC on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:25:15 PM EST

You got cites for that? Because the people claiming that they hadn't released the name are great candidates for being the ones who made the phone calls.

Well, because it all happened in public, there were no names to 'release'. No one knew how he was, and then, over a span of a day or so, they have figured it out by linking him to the domain names. (I don't know how I'm supposed to cite something that, by defination, had to happen in secret, much less how I'm supposed to cite the absence of it.) Possibly a few people figured it out a few hours before everyone else, but no one was even looking a week earlier.

The idea that people somehow knew all these a week in advance and carefully staged the discoveries by half a dozen people in a public blog is pretty absurd, and is going to require some evidence. If they knew who Gannon was a week earlier, why wouldn't they just tell people? So they could make harrassing phone calls that had no point and only would serve to warn him someone had located him? What, exactly, is your theory here? This was all a way to make harrassing phone calls without getting caught?

Gannon really is just lying there. Frankly, I'm wondering why you believe someone with no evidence making assertations about things that, as far as any objective observer can tell, happened in public in a way that is inconsistent with his assertations.

Right. Sure. Okay. Please explain how Gannon's real name was "secret" since he was using it to apply for press passes. Oh, and while your at it, please explain how you know which journalists are using pen names and which are not - I hadn't realized there was a registry.

I didn't at any point say there was a list. I said, if a reporter is using a fake name, he will tell you his real one. And if he doesn't, it's fair game to find it out. There's nothing the slightest bit wrong with that.

And while it's still not clear what kind of press pass Gannon had, White House security certainly knew who he was. So? Apparently, White House security rarely overlaps with left-wing bloggers. I don't know how you got 'Someone should know his real name.' from what I said. I assert that everyone should know reporter's real names.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

You do keep harping on that point. (none / 0) (#371)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 09:43:57 PM EST

Okay - neither of us has any real evidence about who had Gannon's name when, so I'll stipulate (for now) that he made up the threatening phone calls. Which is interesting since, according to interviews he gave, the phone calls are why he resigned - and not, as you assert, was fired.

But I'm still bemused that you keep in with this idea about "real" names. Please, enlighten me - what is a "real" name? Federal law lets a person call themselves anything they want, as long as it isn't to aid in the commission of a crime - and these names are "legal". Many, many people regularly go by names other than the ones they were given at birth and these other names are considered quite legitimate, whether you call yourself "Andre Norton", "Sue Denim" - both authors - or, two of my favs, "Chip Monk" and "Lettuce Gotobed" who were two minor figures in the 1960's.

You have no legal or moral right to know what Chip's "real" name is. If you find out, great, but the idea that he should somehow be compelled to tell you who he is is, frankly, an invasion of his privacy. The idea that the White House somehow failed in an ethical duty by not informing the public that Gannon was the pen name for Guckert is positively Orwellian.

Come - let's accept this as you say: Let's postulate that Gannon was a deliberate plant by the Bush administration. Even in that case - why, exactly, does the use of a pen name matter? Does he have a criminal record? No. Is he a CIA agent? No. Did his presence in the press conferences violate any laws? No.

And I can't help but think that if Kerry had been president, and Gannon's sexuality had been outed by the Freepers, you would be defending him instead of justifying his mistreatment.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

You guessed it. (none / 0) (#385)
by DavidTC on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:28:48 AM EST

'Harrassing phone calls' is a traditional refuge of figures from both sides that have been publically embarrassed. It probably sounds better than 'Everyone's making fun of me and no one takes me seriously anymore'.

If you're getting harassing phone calls, the police are the proper place to take that to.

That said, I don't doubt there were four or five idiots who called him up. (But not at the time he claimed.) His number was in the whois records, so anyone who used whois to verify the domains were registered at the same address got it. If you're in the newspapers, people are going to call you...that's why you screen your calls. (And I don't understand how resigning is going to magically stop any calls. The way to stop calls is to get an unlisted number and disconnect the old one. Um, duh.)

People calling his mother? I seriously doubt it, unless she shares his phone.

Does he have a criminal record?

That was it, right there. A right slanted 'reporter' who was possibly involved in the Plame leak.

And I didn't say all public figures should have their names known. I said all reporters should. Part of the standard we hold reporters to is 'No conflicts of interest' or, at least 'No unstated conflicts of interest.'. That requires knowing their real name. It's that simple. (Like I said, the only exception is when there could be retaliation by the people you are reporting on.)

As for defending Gannon...well, he was claiming he wasn't gay, and I was right there along with him, saying having some domains with the intent of operating gay porn doesn't make you gay. Now, I have no idea what I should be defending him for. According to him, he wasn't fired, so I can't demand he be unfired. The gay accusations are apparently true, as are the prostitutes ones.

However, you're mistaken about what had happened if Gannon was on the left...if he was, the right would have had a field day with him being gay, and demanded he be removed from the press room, and yes, I would have probably defend him. (I dunno, a prostitute...) The story would have played out quite a bit differently, though.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

First of all. (none / 0) (#290)
by DavidTC on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:35:21 AM EST

Let me state I have no sympathy for someone who works for an organization that spreads hate who is then a victim of said hate. If you don't want your career destroyed because you might be gay, don't help for an organization that, duh, fires people who might be gay, expecially if that's part of their political agenda.

Although I notice no one is standing up for Gannon and demanding that Talon News hire him back.

As for him being outed, I know you're just read right-wing claptrap on it, but you can go to the Daily Kos and read what happened. It's there, posted in real time, as it happened. No need to speculate about motives.

People started wondering who the hell this person was asking questions in the press room under a false name. This was in the days immediately following Maggie Gallagher and Armstrong Williams. You remember them, right?

So, what part of this, exactly, was unethical? I lay out the whole process for you:

Was it unethical to, in the days after two reporters fail to disclose government payments, to start wondering about other reporters? Was it unethical to realize that a reporter in the press room who is seemingly biased was operating under a fake name?

Was it unethical to attempt to track down who this person really was? (Guesses included Poindexter's son and various other people with 'too famous' names.)

Was it unethical to use the domain name, the one hard item linked to 'Gannon', to look up other domains registered at that address? (Yes, the concept of following him was discussed, and immediately shot down. Like I said, it's all happened in public on the Daily Kos. You can go read it.) Was it unethical to post the results of this search?

Where exactly, was the ethical boundardy crossed there? Yes, if the intent had been to get him fired, sure, there'd be a somewhat valid complaint. Otherwise, point out something that was crossing the line there, because I sure as hell aren't seeing it.

At the time of the posting of his domain names, no one even knew those were his! They were just registered at the same address as his domain name was, which turned to to be his house.

It seems to me the only unethical thing done was his firing, and the left bloggers didn't do that to him. Get out and protest that.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

LoL. Nothing like being pigeonholed. (none / 0) (#295)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:51:09 PM EST

Let me state I have no sympathy for someone who works for an organization that spreads hate who is then a victim of said hate. If you don't want your career destroyed because you might be gay, don't help for an organization that, duh, fires people who might be gay, expecially if that's part of their political agenda.

Cites please. I'd love to see evidence that Talon news "spreads hate". Or did you mean Bush? In that case, please provide evidence that Bush is more hostile to gays than, say, Clinton.

Although I notice no one is standing up for Gannon and demanding that Talon News hire him back.

Then you haven't been reading all the blogs.

As for him being outed, I know you're just read right-wing claptrap on it, but you can go to the Daily Kos and read what happened. It's there, posted in real time, as it happened. No need to speculate about motives.

Where do you think I learned he had been outed? Between him and Atrios you can find page after page of gleeful bile over how he "deserved" what he got.

People started wondering who the hell this person was asking questions in the press room under a false name. This was in the days immediately following Maggie Gallagher and Armstrong Williams. You remember them, right?

Except, of course, the other reporters in the press pool who weren't worried about it and don't see a connection between him and Armstrong and Gallagher.

Was it unethical to, in the days after two reporters fail to disclose government payments, to start wondering about other reporters? Was it unethical to realize that a reporter in the press room who is seemingly biased was operating under a fake name?

Please provide cites of relevant laws defining a "fake" name. I'm sure Prince, Sting, Slash and Madonna will be enlightened that they have "fake" names. I'm sure Hector Ramirez and Samuel Clemens will be delighted to learn they were being unethical when he worked as a reporter under a somewhat different names.

Was it unethical to attempt to track down who this person really was? (Guesses included Poindexter's son and various other people with 'too famous' names.)

Short answer, no.

Was it unethical to use the domain name, the one hard item linked to 'Gannon', to look up other domains registered at that address? (Yes, the concept of following him was discussed, and immediately shot down. Like I said, it's all happened in public on the Daily Kos. You can go read it.) Was it unethical to post the results of this search?

Short answer: no.

Where exactly, was the ethical boundardy crossed there?

That would be right at the point they started posting gay porn and claiming it was Gannon. No - wait - I'm wrong. The line was crossed earlier when the harassing phone calls were made to Gannon's employer and mother.

Yes, if the intent had been to get him fired, sure, there'd be a somewhat valid complaint. Otherwise, point out something that was crossing the line there, because I sure as hell aren't seeing it.

Then you haven't been paying attention.


How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Posting gay porn? (none / 0) (#339)
by DavidTC on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 01:02:35 PM EST

What? What on earth were you talking about? Gay porn?

And the harrassing phone calls to his mother happen first, before the rest of the action, according to Gannon. Ergo, the line was crossed when the left, despite not having any idea of who Gannon was, managed to call up his mother and call her names.

Of course, that makes no sense at all, so we are forced to conclude that Gannon is a liar.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

what am I talking about? (none / 0) (#344)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 02:34:13 PM EST

Gosh, I have no idea.

Oops. No gay Gannon photos here.

Obviously, the Gannon gay porn thing is a myth.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

My God. (none / 0) (#365)
by DavidTC on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:44:29 PM EST

He really was a gay prostitute. I honestly had no idea.

You realize those are his pictures, right? Ones that are mostly still on the internet, at least, up as of two weeks ago. They weren't posted by bloggers, they were archived by bloggers.

Hell, I thought all the 'gay prostitute' stuff was just an exaggeration. I thought he just had some involvement with homosexual domains, possibly even intending to operate a gay porn site, but actual prostitution?

Now the question arises: How the fuck (no pun intended) did a prostitute get access to the press room? Damn, there actually is a story there.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

A prostitute in the press room? (none / 1) (#367)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 07:59:12 PM EST

Apart from the President, you mean?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

You are sad, small man. (none / 0) (#372)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 09:46:46 PM EST

  1. Last time I checked, Bush isn't in the habit of asking reporters for there sexual history, and the security checks for the press room are limited to a criminal background check.
  2. Have you ever heard of photoshop?


How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]
So. (none / 0) (#382)
by DavidTC on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:06:26 AM EST

1. Being a prostitute is a criminal matter, at least in states he was operating. Are you honestly saying the white house's background check are so incompetant that a bunch of bloggers beat them?

I suspect it's much more likely security was told to let him through. Especially since he managed to get in before 'Talon News' ever existed.

2. No one ever gets to post any pictures ever again, because they might be fake?

Well...are they fake? It's trivial to check, you know...see how old they are. And, of course, it's all been verified by the guy who made Gannon the USMCPT web site.

Unless, like the right apparently believes, this is all some clever plan to destroy him, secretly put in motion months ago. For no apparent reason.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

"The right", huh? (none / 0) (#387)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:59:11 AM EST

Aren't you the one who accused me of believing everyone on "the left" believes the same and behaves the same?

As for proving whether or not pictures are faked - you are funny. I can put any time stamp I want on a file, that proves nothing.

But, in any case, we still come back to that background check: Guckert has never been charged or convicted of any crime, let alone prostitution. So, no, I wouldn't expect a trivial background check like the one done on the press pool to find those pictures.

I mean, you're talking about a check that is done in a single day - it's not like the 12 month check they did on me when I applied for a job that had a TS clearance, is it?

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

OT: Press coverage of Gannon (none / 0) (#399)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:00:04 PM EST

BTW - the front page of the Philly Inquirer has an "analysis" type article of Gannon - it leads off with your side of the debate although I think it's pretty even-handed over all.

The only point I'd try to dispute (about the article) is the oft repeated claim that he simply cut-and-pasted press releases. While I'm not fond of the practice, a quick comparison of my company's press releases and the articles written about it show that the same thing goes on all the time. I wish I had the tools to figure out if this only happens in business news or if political journalists do the same thing.

I love the closing quote: "If the White House was going to plant a reporter, don't you think they'd have picked someone better than me?"

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

You smegging hypocrite. (none / 1) (#309)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 04:20:49 PM EST

Look, hounding someone out of their job for being gay, even when he's a registered homophobe, might seem all clever and "poetic-justice" to you, but to me it seems like dirty, honourless shit-flinging.

Why the hell should anyone respect you if you condone such tactics? Repeat after me: THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

It would not be okay to bribe Diebold to fix the election for the Democrats, and it's not okay to call someone gay to get them fired.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

No one got anyone hounded out of his job. (none / 0) (#333)
by DavidTC on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 12:20:22 PM EST

I don't know how blogs could do that anyway. They just randomly uncovered his domains while tracking him down. (Like I said, those domains were uncovered before anyone know 'Gannon' actually lived at that address. That's how you track down someone who registers domains under a fake name...you find other domains at that address, and hope you can track one of thems family, which the left notably didn't do.)

See, the problem is that some people have some fundamental misconception, where you think 'being linked to homosexual domains'=='losing your job'. The person at fault there is the person who fired you, not bloggers who just started laughing at what this right-wing reporter was apparently doing in his spare time.

All the bloggers did was come across the truth. Yes, there are some cackling with glee, some demanding his removal (But why on earth a right-wing news site would start listening to left-wing bloggers is bit beyond me.), but those people actually had nothing to do with outing him. Like I said, you can read the Daily Kos and watch what happened.

The reason he was removed is not because of hypothetical 'hounding', it's because he was suddenly an embarrassment to the right, and the only reason he was an embarrassment was because of their stance towards the gay. The right did this to themselves, by villifying gay people, and Gannon did it to himself, by working for the right under a fake name that invited people to wonder what he was hiding. (Like I said, the left thought they were tracking down a Plame leak. And it wasn't crazy...he's confirmed he had the memo when only the Post and Times was supposed to have it. It's just the Post was leaky.)

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Stupid software. (none / 0) (#340)
by DavidTC on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST

I lost a line in there somewhere:
you can track one of thems family, which the left notably didn't do.

Should be something like:

you can track one of them. It's better than calling up the house and harrassing his family, which the left notably didn't do.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

You know, I still don't see any of this as (none / 0) (#237)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:39:12 PM EST

evidence of a scandal. First, your proof that Gannon was a plant is all circumstantial - at best. Second, the fact that Gannon usually threw "softballs" is not evidence of any collusion. All the presidents have picked and chosen who gets their passes. That's one of the reasons you don't see partisans like Kos there.

That's the real reason the MSM haven't jumped all over Gannon - most of them don't think Gannon did anything wrong. One of ABC's reporters (Terry Moran) was quoted as saying that Gannon was hardly a Bush shill - that Gannon was clearly even more conservative than Bush and often attacked Bush positions from the right.

So, given that the reporters who shared the briefings with Gannon don't think there's a scandal here - why should I get het up by a string of conjectures pulled together by DKos fanatics? Particularly when they went after him with tactics that should make Kos hang his head in shame?

Here's a quote from Wolf Blitzer of CNN: I used to be a White House correspondent for many years, sat through numerous briefings. There are plenty of journalists that wear their politics on their sleeve, liberals, conservatives. What's wrong with journalists having these kind of views, being advocacy journalists, if you will?

Here's another quote from Moran: "Whatever the ostensible rationale, it seems clear to me that `Gannon's' personal life was investigated and targeted by some bloggers because they did not like the ideas he expressed in his questions. That is chilling to me,"

So, not only do the other WH press not agree with Gannon being "outed" - they are disturbed and concerned about the chilling effect this could have.

I honestly think that if Kos & Atrios hadn't humilated Guckert by airing his sexual history so publicly that he would still be there in the briefing room and people wouldn't be thinking twice about the claims that he is a "plant".

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Framing Again (none / 0) (#257)
by Western Infidels on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:47:40 AM EST

Ah, I see you've been studying your framing. For example:

First, your proof that Gannon was a plant is all circumstantial - at best.

Of course, I never claimed to have proof that Gannon was a plant. Heck, I never even said I believed he was a plant. What I said was that there are real questions and irregularities about his presence in the press room, an important issue you haven't even bothered to address.

And because I stink at this sort of thing, I'm forced to waste my time wrestling with your absurd distortions instead of doing something more constructive, like highlighting the larger issue: That this administration has a long track record of packing the jury box, so to speak, when it comes to press relations. Deflecting charges about Gannon doesn't change that, but it does distract.

I think you made a mistake with the word "circumstantial," though. It brings up too many bad associations, in a "Hey, I was cleared of them charges," or an "I am not a crook" sort of way.

[ Parent ]

Absurd distortions? (none / 0) (#261)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 01:35:51 AM EST

Of course, I never claimed to have proof that Gannon was a plant. Heck, I never even said I believed he was a plant. What I said was that there are real questions and irregularities about his presence in the press room, an important issue you haven't even bothered to address.

I see. And you accuse me of "framing". What "real questions" are there? What "irregularities"? You certainly haven't asked any, and all I've seen are wild speculation without any facts to back them up.

And because I stink at this sort of thing, I'm forced to waste my time wrestling with your absurd distortions instead of doing something more constructive, like highlighting the larger issue: That this administration has a long track record of packing the jury box, so to speak, when it comes to press relations. Deflecting charges about Gannon doesn't change that, but it does distract.

Snort. Again - you accuse me of "framing" the discussion? Here you are, raising nebulous charges about mysterious press tampering yet you do not make a single statement that can either be proved or disproved. Exactly what has Gannon distracted us from? Especially given that people - including you - are complaining that no one is answering your "real questions" about Gannon. Make up your mind - is Gannon a distraction or a cover up?

I think you made a mistake with the word "circumstantial," though. It brings up too many bad associations, in a "Hey, I was cleared of them charges," or an "I am not a crook" sort of way.

Nice. Sorry, but that's the way proof works. Rumors are not considered proof. Claiming that there are "real questions" - without ever actually asking them - is not considered proof. Circumstantial evidence is considered poor evidence precisely because it doesn't actually show any connections.

On the other hand,  I really enjoyed the Nixonian insinuation that I am somehow a part of this vast right wing conspiracy to cover up Gannon while using him to distract - despite the fact that I haven't voted for a Republican in 16 years now.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Again: (none / 0) (#264)
by Western Infidels on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:24:24 AM EST

The question is:

The White House's position has been that they didn't know who this man was, but they gave him a press pass anyway. That is, they didn't even know his name. How is that possible?

It is possible that there's nothing there. Won't hurt to look. I do believe I deliniated this originally.

Exactly what has Gannon distracted us from?

Well, if we knew that, then it wouldn't have worked, would it?

Seriously, I meant that defending Gannon distracts from the series of similar stories about Bush shills (like Armstrong) that have been accumulating. If nothing much comes of Gannon, the whole "Bush shills" meme will eventually fall in the "hype" frame, and will be discredited through a strictly emotional process.

[ Parent ]

Answers (none / 0) (#278)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:34:38 AM EST

The White House's position has been that they didn't know who this man was, but they gave him a press pass anyway. That is, they didn't even know his name. How is that possible?

Errr... Actually, It was  Bush who supposedly didn't know Gannon's name. Why would he? On the other hand, Scott McClellan - whose job it is to interface with the press at the White House - did. From the Washington Post: Pretty much every day, Gannon got cleared into the White House briefing room by a press office that knew his real name. Press Secretary Scott McClellan frequently called on him during the mid-day briefings, using his fake name.

It is possible that there's nothing there. Won't hurt to look. I do believe I deliniated this originally.

Yes, and as I've noted, the question has already been answered.

Exactly what has Gannon distracted us from? Well, if we knew that, then it wouldn't have worked, would it?

Holy crap! It's the UFO cover up! "We don't know what they're hiding, but they're obviously hiding something because, well, just look at them pretending to be normal!

Seriously, I meant that defending Gannon distracts from the series of similar stories about Bush shills (like Armstrong) that have been accumulating.

Okay. So, Gannon deserves no defense because trying to preserve the reputation and career of a man falsely accused is "distracting" from actual minor politcal scandals. Admittedly, Armstrong screwed up - possibly Maggie Gallagher as well. But they directly took money from the administration creating (at the very least) the appearance of a conflict of interest. I don't see the connection with Gannon,

If nothing much comes of Gannon, the whole "Bush shills" meme will eventually fall in the "hype" frame, and will be discredited through a strictly emotional process.

LoL. And whose fault would that be? The Gannon "scandal" was created by Atrios and Kos who want, badly, to duplicate the sort of media attention that the right got with Rathergate. This lust caused them to attack a man, not because he's a criminal, but because his politics are different from theirs. That's sad.

Oh - and speaking of distracting from more serious scandals - have you been keeping up the recent convictions for election tampering in Ohio and Washington State?


How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Correction (none / 0) (#280)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:36:21 AM EST

Looking that post over - in the last sentence I more or less said that there had been convictions for election tampering in Washington - that is completely false. The conviction was in Ohio. There have only been accusations in the Washington case.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]
Jeepers (none / 0) (#403)
by Western Infidels on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:05:05 PM EST

So, Gannon deserves no defense because trying to preserve the reputation and career of a man falsely accused is "distracting" from actual minor politcal scandals.

I never said Gannon deserved anything, and certainly not that he deserved no defense. It's odd that you're talking in such legalistic terms when essentially no one even suspects he's guilty of a crime. Gannon is "a man falsely accused." You want someone to "show me that Gannon or Bush broke a law." Atrios and Kos "attacked" Gannon "not because he's a criminal."

There is no judge, there is no jury, there are no charges. And none are required. Atrios and Kos, whoever they are (I guess I've heard of Kos) are, surely, free to write about, even to speculate on the situation, yes? If Gannon truly feels that his career has been deliberately wrecked, there are legal remedies, yes?

I do think it was appropriate, in a thread supposedly about framing, how a violent enough reaction to the Gannon case could in fact defuse the whole media-manipulation concern in the public mind.

And whose fault would that be?

Are we discussing fault? Politics and fame don't work like a courtroom.

Oh - and speaking of distracting from more serious scandals - have you been keeping up the recent convictions for election tampering in Ohio and Washington State?

I have not, because low-level tampering of this sort happens in every US election. Heck, it probably goes all the way back to ancient Greece. So I wouldn't characterize these as "more serious scandals" myself. Centralized, systematic, yet deniable manipulation of the media from the top, on the other hand, is relatively new to the country and the world, and IMHO, scarier.

Let me guess, you're going to ask me about my tinfoil hat next, right?

[ Parent ]

old news. (none / 0) (#154)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:35:22 PM EST

There's also no actual proof that Gannon was under Bush's control.

As far as I can tell, the real scandal here is that a group of bloggers ruined a man's life by making threatening phone calls to his family and, when that didn't work, outing his sexual history in hopes of embarrassing Bush.


I never said that.
[ Parent ]

Note (none / 0) (#229)
by whazat on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:41:46 PM EST

I didn't say he was Bush's shill just a shill. Posing as an independent reporter in televised briefings whilst having an agenda.

For all I know this has been happening in American briefings and is the norm. The american press has always seemed quite tame towards the politicians, from what I have seen. I just was naive enough to not think that this was one of the reasons.

[ Parent ]

*blink* *blink* (none / 0) (#234)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:09:49 PM EST

Okay. Here's the thing. I find it much easier to believe that all reporters have an agenda - even if only subconciously - than I do believing in the myth of the "objective" reporter.

You're right - the American media has long cultivated the image of the detached, objective, observer as opposed to (for example) the British press. I find the British attitude more honest.


How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

I agree that reporters have an agenda (none / 0) (#244)
by whazat on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 09:15:59 PM EST

I should have said partisan agenda. I think that the best interviewers and questioners have the agenda of being antagonistic, Paxman and co don't really care whether the politician they are interviewing is one party or the other as long as they can make them squirm a bit. An example of Paxman in action is here.

The partisan or issue bias in the british press is less obvious in the face time that we see of politicians and more within the editorials and coverage of "news" that is chosen to be within the media. There is no such thing as friendly interview, the bias is within what subjects are not chosen to be worthy of interviews.

I'm not sure if this bias is better. It possibly gives the UK less respect for its politicians of all parties than the US. But also ironically I also think it supports the status quo. The liberal democrats (our third party) do not get that much air time because they are generally unoffensive and have little power (whilst probably being ideologically closest to the BBC and other leftish organisations of media), so we don't actually know what they stand for.


[ Parent ]

Doesn't this mean Democracy is dead? (none / 1) (#133)
by JahToasted on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 04:32:18 PM EST

Instead of rational discourse about the issues we have major political parties manipulating people into supporting their agenda.

This isn't democracy, its a fuckin reality show.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison

How many people understand? (none / 0) (#175)
by Mason on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:46:36 AM EST

Really, what percentage of voters do you think are well-informed enough, now in America or at any other time and place, to make truly informed decisions about affairs of global economics, diplomacy, and social policy?

Democrats have tried for a long time to do things the way you want them done:  explain to people how voting Democratic is an ethical thing to do, that'll improve the world and be in their own best interest.   That doesn't sell very well when compared to the neo-con brand worldview.

People want simple answers to complex problems.  You want a world populated with smarter people.  I want an America that doesn't act insane.

So let's try this:  We present the progressive worldview to people in a palatable way, so they vote on it and America stops acting insane.  People won't have to furrow their brows trying to understand tricky things, since we'll present a worldview of our own that they can accept, even if they don't understand all of it.  Then, we'll have a healthy society where people can be educated enough to act more often in their own enlightened self-interest.

And we'll all be happy.

[ Parent ]

My point is... (3.00 / 2) (#198)
by JahToasted on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 11:54:56 AM EST

manipulating voters in a democaracy isn't ethically different than a coup d'etat. You are making an end run around the democratic process to accomplish your objectives.

You say that once you've got what you want you will stop manipulating and go back to trying to win elections using ethical means. But I somehow doubt that will happen. Even if both the Democrats and Republicans decide to stop manipulating people, someone else will come along and use those methods.

Reminds me somewhat of the situation in Jamaica. In the 70s one of the parties wasn't doing so well, so they decided to arm their supporters (with the help of the CIA of course) to intimidate people into voting for them. So then the other party had to arm their supporters. End result: Kingston, Jamaica is one of the most dangerous cities in the world, The government is extremely corrupt. This is 30 years later. Neither party is willing to give up their unethical practices because they will lose if they do.

As an aside, Eddie Seaga (the guy who originally brought in the guns) is finally out of politics, so there is some hope that things may eventually improve.

But I digress... My point is that you are going down a slippery slope when you decide that doing something that is undoubtedly unethical is acceptable because the other guys are doing it.

Yeah, I know it is really bad what these guys are doing, and I understand the attitude that we must do whatever it takes to get them out of power. But sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

Language is manipulation (none / 0) (#458)
by Mason on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:20:57 AM EST

The languages we speak are just as good at rendering illogical structures as logical ones.

So if all you're doing is promoting a cohesive worldview, it is not a completely logical or honest act.  Any sort of rhetoric is fundamentally manipulative in intent.  Did you really think that people ever objectively evaluated issues in a rational manner?

Just rate for us, please, the relative mendacity of a Democrat framing a debate in his favor (e.g. "anti-choice") versus, say, Bush and crew painting an elaborate vision of Iraq as a WMD-toting 9/11-collaborator.  Neither is strictly limiting themselves to objective truth and solid logic, but only one is telling lies.

[ Parent ]

The Way Things Are (none / 1) (#202)
by Western Infidels on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 12:25:52 PM EST

Instead of rational discourse about the issues we have major political parties manipulating people into supporting their agenda.

Sadly, that is mostly what politics has always been about. It is rational discourse without subterfuge that is rare, and manipulative games and hidden agendas which are common, and it's been that way since before Machiavelli wrote about it.

The rise of the neo-cons, and whatever response that may eventually emerge from other parties, isn't really such a sea-change in that regard. The neo-cons are merely dramatically more organized and cohesive than the other parties right now.

[ Parent ]

You're right of course (none / 0) (#210)
by JahToasted on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 01:55:34 PM EST

But what bothers me is that everyone seems to have just given up on democracy. It seems wrong to to just throw up your ahnds and say "the people are too stupid for us to engage them directly, we need to manipulate them into voting for us."

Yeah there have always been grey areas, shady dealings etc, but there was always the light as well, that pure dream of democracy. I always thought of myself as a pessimist because I thought the greyness was much greater than the light. This article makes me believe that that light has been extinguished totally and now there is nothing left but grey.

I used to think the lawyers were the worst parasites on our society. I think they need to step aside, the marketers have just surpassed them in vileness.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

I don't understand (none / 0) (#221)
by lostincali on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:59:44 PM EST

Why is your confidence in people so low, that you consider them to be "manipulated" into voting a certain way, instead of "convinced" into voting that way.

Democracy isn't dead... The majority chose a candidate (Bush) that was to their liking, despite opposition from a large minority who deeply opposes him.

IF anything, I'd think the left would be complaining that there's TOO MUCH democracy, and that we need more compromise to accomodate the minority left.

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

Well... (3.00 / 2) (#225)
by JahToasted on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 04:15:04 PM EST

Convinced means you know the candidates' platforms and you vote for the candidate you like the most.

Manipulated is when you vote based on lies, or the candidate that looks better on TV. Or because some windbag on TV or the radio told you he was the best. Or you like the state he comes from more than the state the other guy comes from.

It seems like there is an effort to construct a fantasy world that is favourable to your party and expose the electorate to that fantasy world and hide the real world from them.

Its kinda like Plato's cave (or the matrix if you prefer the contemporary version). If all you see are shadows on the wall of the cave, you will vote for the guy who promises to make prettier shadows. Then you elect him, he makes the pretty shodws to entertain you, and then does all kinds of nasty things while you are distracted. You are so enthralled by the pretty shadows you are completely ignorant that the cave is about to collapse and your elected leader is doing nothing about it.

Even if someone comes and tells you the cave is about to collapse, you would say "That can't be true, if it were so, I'm sure the shadows on the cave wall would indicate it to us somehow." You reject anyone who tells you about anything beyond the shadows on the cave wall, because that's all you know.

If the people in the cave were fully aware of the world outside the cave, they might elect someone who is able to deal with that world better. But if all you know is the cave you elect the person that gives you the best shadows on the wall. The person that is able to give you the best shadows and the person that is able to deal with the world and deal with the imminent collapse of the cave is not necessarily the same person.

If you limit the information people have to decide on their leader you make it impossible for them to make the best choice. The people won't vote in the best person, and the cave will collapse.

That's what I mean by democracy being dead. The American Democracy is a zombie. There are still elections and it seems animate, but its brain is rotten. The rest of the world just keeps their distance and hopes they don't get bit.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#253)
by Western Infidels on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:16:21 AM EST

It's sad, but if it means democracy is dead, it probably also means that it died thousands of years ago - in ancient Greece, shortly after it was invented. The problem of the masses voting with gut instincts and "values" is just human nature, and as such is as old as the species.

I think it just means that the Utopian ideal of democracy was never realistic. It can still be a better system than most, but it's probably never lived up to the hype.

[ Parent ]

+1 submit to queue nt (none / 0) (#273)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:20:54 AM EST


"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 0) (#321)
by lostincali on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:55:14 PM EST

We've heard this before. In fact, there's always some group or person claiming that they see the real truth of their situation, and that everyone else has been misled.

Here's my problems with your theory.

1) Candidate's platforms: I'll agree , most voters don't know the candidates entire platform. In fact only a tiny minority follows politics really closely. I don't think this is that big of a deal.

a) Single-issue voters: there are a lot of people who vote on a single issue that is of the most concern to them. Why should I believe that this is somehow illegitimate?

b) Broad-Based Platforms: Most people don't agree 100% with the candidate they vote for. In fact, politics is a game of many compromises. Most people pick someone they find most favorable (given a very diverse range of criteria for favorability), and stick with him, despite the parts they hate.

(ie Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich)

2) Voting on impressions: Why should I believe that the stated platform is the single qualifier for a desireable politician?

If someone votes for Bob because they see him as having a better image than Joe, how is this illegitmate? If Bob's better image means he's a better politician, and therefore will be able to work the system better, maybe Bob is the best candidate after all.

You make it sound like there is some kind of information control going on. In reality, people are free to find all the information they want to about their chosen candidates. They are free to use whatever selection criteria they find best. Just because very few follow politics very closely doesn't mean the system is somehow broken.

Alot of what you're describing is just the nature of politics--not some great malfunction.

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

Yeah, I'm not so naive to (3.00 / 2) (#397)
by JahToasted on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 02:21:53 PM EST

think that this hasn't always happened. But it seems like the marketing aspect of politics has gotten so sophisticated as to completely eclipse the real issues. There has always been ignorant voters. But at what point does that ignorance reach a critical mass so that you get to a situation like Brave New World. It's like people don't really care who the world controllers are as long as they get their orgies and soma (or reality shows and monday night football).

Yeah Kennedy's win over Nixon may very well have been due to the fact that he shaved just before the debate while Nixon shaved the morning before. But if that was the case it would have been due to maybe 5% of the voters being completely clueless. But still 45% had a legitimate reason for voting for him (like 79% of all statistics, theses are made up on the spot). What happens when the percentage of clueless voters increases? well if its 10%, then you only need to convice 40% of the voters. As the number of clueless voters increases you get smaller and smaller minorities able to grab power simply by fooling the clueless.

At a certain point its no longer about who can convince into voting for your party, but who you can fool. So basically those who can mass produce soma win, doesn't matter how competent they are at being world controller, as long as they can keep soma production up.

The problem is there won't be a reichstag fire to mark the end of democracy. There won't be and point we can say "that was the day democracy died". It will just simply fade away.

You know why every president except roosevelt served at most two terms? Because George Washington retired after two terms. He could have won another term. He could have been president for the rest of his life. So why did he quit after two terms? Because he believed that was what would be best for democracy. And that is what made the US into a democracy. Not the Constitution. Not the American Revolution. Not your elections, you congress or your senate. The US was a democracy because the people in power believed in democracy.

Now we see both parties basically saying "the people are stupid, lets just give them more soma than the other guys, then we'll win". The people in power have given up on democracy. But don't worry, the media industry will be sure to put a happy face on the police state that is now inevitable.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

let me tell you what jews do (3.00 / 3) (#137)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 04:52:49 PM EST

they fart, they piss, they laugh at the wrong time during a joke, they say insensitive things to their girlfriends without realizing it, etc.

in other words, they're just human beings

they are not some collective of agent smiths from the matrix you fucking paranoid schizophrenic racist shitstain


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

i don't know any jews (none / 1) (#183)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:29:24 AM EST

i don't care about jews

i don't love jews, i don't hate jews

i don't care about israel

i could care less if israel disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow

i just don't give flying fuck about jews!

understand where i am coming from asswipe?

and yet i fully support invading iraq

!?

holy shit! is it possible the earth doesn't revolve around jews!

unpossible!

;-P

you really are a racist shistain

no really:

YOU

ARE

A

RACIST

go ahead and rationalize it any way you like fucktard

YOU'RE STILL A RACIST TURD

no REALLY

want to know a racist scum

LOOK IN THE MIRROR, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE

FOR EVERY PROBLEM YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT, CONSIDER YOURSELF A CONTRIBUTOR

REALLY


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Man, its not Jews as a whole, or even israelis, (none / 1) (#205)
by PowerPimp on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 01:18:50 PM EST

Its the fact that there are forces in our government that try and prompt action against our own self-interest in order to further Israeli interests.  There have been people like this in the government for ages, but this administration has placed a few particularly insidious people up at the top.  

Its not about their Jewishness, CTS, Jews are not a monolithic group.  Its about their ideology. the fact that many of them are Jews just evokes a convenient, defensive frame when people try and define the neo-cons.

in that vein... OMG T3h j3??z
You'd better take care of me God; otherwise, you'll have me on your hands...
[ Parent ]

like i said shitstain (none / 0) (#211)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 01:55:58 PM EST

us policy in the middle east makes sense even if israel was a lake and all jews lived in new zealand

IMAGINE A WORLD THAT DOESN'T REVOLVE AROUND JEWS

WELCOME TO REALITY YOU PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIC FUCK


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Man, cts must be a JEW. (none / 1) (#274)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:22:07 AM EST

no foreskin.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0) (#337)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 12:53:51 PM EST

Am I missing something?  Did circletimesquare give his account to Eric or trogdylate?

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
We vs. them (aka the neo-cons) (2.75 / 4) (#142)
by trezor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 06:04:54 PM EST

The whole setting with us vs. the neo-cons show all that is wrong with the USian democracy.

Two parties only for crying out load! I'm not too scholared in european politics in general, but I'd doubt you find too many countries having so few parties represent the opinion of the whole freaking country.

In Norway we have at least 7 parties (if not 8. I cant remember exactly) elected into power. And there are more parties than that which simply didn't make the cut. And thats in a country with measely 4 million people.

To me, two parties in one of the largest countries in the world just seems absurd. A two-party system just reaks of predictable confrontational behavior in place of what should have been co-operation. After all it's the voice of the entire people that should be heard, not just the majority.

Your problem is not the neo-cons. It's your two-party system.


--
Richard Dean Anderson porn? - Now spread the news

Don't waste your breath... (none / 1) (#182)
by Smokin Juan on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 04:13:22 AM EST

on the two party system. If it's not on the television, us'ians don't care. Unfortunately, the two party perpetrators are pretty adept at keeping it off of the television.

from a previous post:
*And take comfort in the fact that the over all result of voting scheme held in the us was no different than that which was held in Iraq pre-invasion. After all, it's not as if the third and fourth largest political party was completely blacked out (Google search of "news:Badnarik Cobb arrested") of the media. Two presidential candidates arrested at a televised presidential "debate" without a single fucking peep from the media because they [the media] were too busy propping up the busted republicrat system. And people dare mention the idea of "spreading democracy."

[ Parent ]
In the last Australian federal election (none / 1) (#188)
by mettaur on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:13:29 AM EST

There were over 60 parties or independents on the senate ballot paper. There was barely room in the polling booths for the bloody thing. The Australian system encourages this sort of thing because of preferences (long but excellent explanation: http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/howpreferenceswork.htm

While this is generally a good thing (as you can vote for whoever you want without "throwing your vote away" on a minor party), a nutter was recently given a senate position after he got less than 2% of the primary vote.


--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
You know... (none / 0) (#218)
by DavidTC on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:29:39 PM EST

...I think I'd like at least one outright nutter as a senator. Maybe up to five.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]
We've talked about that before (none / 1) (#192)
by tordia on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 10:05:43 AM EST

About a year ago to the day, in fact:

The Fork in the Road: A Political Morality Play in One Act

Unfortunately the conversation wasn't very productive. Apparently the Democrats and Republicans have successfully convinced a large portion of the US populace that the only feasible democracy is one with 2 parties.

[ Parent ]

Worse (none / 0) (#360)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:20:07 PM EST

They've jiggered the legal system to make creating a viable new national party nearly impossible.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]
Yours or theirs, propaganda destroys truth! (2.80 / 5) (#143)
by ariux on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 06:18:35 PM EST

Summary of link and article: "The right (sometimes) uses lying propaganda to promote their preconceived worldview. So let's become ruthless fanatics and beat them to the bottom!" You are debating politics, not policy, and it makes me cringe for my country.

You can't trick people into believing the truth. If you have to trick them to get them to agree with you, it's a sign that YOU SHOULD ASK YOURSELF WHETHER YOU ARE RIGHT!

Naive beyond words (2.75 / 4) (#174)
by Mason on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:37:03 AM EST

Do you really think that most people can recognize truth when it is presented to them?  Most Americans have no doubt heard dozens of times that there was no tie between Iraq and 9/11, yet something like 40% still believe in it.  Most believe in UFOs, psychic powers, and religion (although there are surprisingly few adult Santa or Easter Bunny believers).  The closest they'll ever get to truth is a heart attack or car accident.

There is just as much "truth" to strict paternalism (hoping you all read the linked article) as nurturism, in a basic sense.  Take gays.  From the strict paternalistic mindset, gays are selfish hedonist children who don't understand the responsibilities of life.  And if you punish people hard enough for being gay, in time there wouldn't be very many openly-gay people around.  Sure it wouldn't be pretty, lots of people getting hurt over something that isn't a very big deal, but Father knows it is for their own good.

So you can't really talk about truth or falsehood since we're discussing overall worldviews.  To defend gays with absolute truth, liberals would have to take on the falsehood of fundamental Christianity's worldview.  Truth is on the side of progressives here, but few men in history have been strong enough to really take on an entire organized religion.  So the fundamental irrationality of most of humanity really excludes truth from entering into the debate, since if a Democrat went around telling people, "You should be nice to gays, since you only dislike them based of the misinterpreted ancient dictums of an entity which we have no reason to believe ever existed", well, he might have a few electoral problems.

[ Parent ]

this only highlights an unfortunate truth (3.00 / 4) (#147)
by speek on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 07:41:51 PM EST

For any discussion to be useful in furthering knowledge and/or understanding, all parties involved must be intellectually honest enough to:
  1. Do their best to find flaws in their own reasoning and
  2. Do their best to help strengthen others' arguments
In other words, if those involved are just out to "win" the argument at any cost, the cause is already lost.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees

Knowledge and understanding aren't enough (none / 0) (#173)
by Mason on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:15:56 AM EST

When the people we're in a political struggle with are working hard to keep evolution out of biology textbooks and any number of similarly irrational acts, I think progressives are far enough ahead in the "knowledge and understanding" arms race to set their sights on more realistic goals.

Such as, why aren't more people swayed by truth and knowledge?  That is the noble purpose of this book, and American liberals really need to understand it.  Otherwise, we might as well all just take a Hunter and remove the stains of knowledge and understanding from increasingly-monochromatic American quilt.

[ Parent ]

why people aren't swayed by truth (none / 0) (#317)
by speek on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:53:40 PM EST

Because truth (nor knowledge) doesn't walk up to you and say "here I am!" If you think it does or it has, then I'd say you've just swallowed some propaganda or some dogmatism, or deluded yourself into thinking you know something that you don't.

Put more simply, without some compassion and well-deserved humility, you won't be attaining any of those realistic goals.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Now that's what I call an optimist (none / 0) (#409)
by QuickFox on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:40:35 PM EST

In an online discussion you're saying that a discussion won't work unless everybody is intellectually honest.

Sheesh.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.<
[ Parent ]

make it easier for yourself (none / 0) (#150)
by krkrbt on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:23:50 PM EST

instead of wandering around in the dark, trying to influence people who've already been successfully hypnotically indoctrinated, why not learn the mind-control technology those evil bastards have been haphazardly using against their political adversaries?

Learn how to influence someone.  First learn how to do it overtly (say, by asking if they'd like to be hypnotized), then learn how to do it without telling them what you're doing.  

Milton Erickson was all about "conversational hypnosis".  Bandler & Grinder used their modeling process to figure out how Dr. Erickson did what he did so well.  

So, study classical hypnosis, but more importantly, study Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP - "the science of subjective experience").  
NLP Comprehensive puts out some very good books/training courses.  How to effectively reframe was covered in the classic NLP books from the 70's (and in many newer books too).

Cuts both ways! (3.00 / 2) (#160)
by redelm on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:51:14 PM EST

It's an interesting model -- framing framing as it were. But the nurturant/authoritarian model can be carried further: Progressives are very authoritarian towards corporations and their owners. Neocons are nurturant towards that group.

A better question is who/when to nurture and whom to discipline. Corporations have most likely been under-disciplined. They are immature and short-sighted irrespective of the individuals who populate the organigrams. However, I suspect the wealthy have been under-nurtured. With their economic power, I doubt anyone thinks it's necessary to do more than bribe them.



Finite amount of power (2.66 / 3) (#172)
by Mason on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:10:30 AM EST

The problem with considering progressives "authoritarian toward corporations" is that this is a nation of humans, not corporations.  The legal status of corporations as individuals is based on fraud, feel free to look into Supreme Court case Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886).  So a nation can only be authoritarian toward its citizens, and corporations were never legally given that status.

And it is similarly false to consider corporations "immature and short-sighted", as these are human characteristics.  Corporations are as amoral as virii and have similar life-cycles.  They exist only as money-making ventures, and that isn't a value judgement.  Expecting them to be capable of anything more is largely naive.

There exists a finite amount of authority over the individuals in a society.  It can either rest in the hands of a democratic government built with inherent protection of human rights, or be ruled by corporate fiat.  We made our choice two-hundred and twenty years ago, and are under no obligation to give monarchs/theocrats/corporatists a do-over.

[ Parent ]

Excellent (none / 1) (#200)
by Western Infidels on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 12:13:18 PM EST

I was about to make the same (corporation != person) point.

I'd go even further, though. Even discussing "friendliness" toward corporations is to anthropomorphize them, and to buy in to the Conservative frame.

Here's an alternative frame: Corporations are just legal machinery. Maybe that association with lawyers, mechanics, and drudgery could change some people's perspective.

[ Parent ]

Better frame (none / 1) (#247)
by guidoreichstadter on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 10:45:44 PM EST

Corporations are not just legal machinery, they are legal machinery designed to emulate a human psycopath. Contract fiduciary duty to shareholders means that corporate officers and agents cannot take any path that they calculate to lead to less than maximal profits. Thus they must legally take all possible opportunities to pollute, exploit and manipulate people consistent with maximizing profits. A human being expressing this behavior and motivation would be considered psychopathic.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
Agree, But (none / 0) (#255)
by Western Infidels on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:26:25 AM EST

I think the successful framings seem to be the ones that distill their misdirection down to just two or three words. Like: The War On Terror, Family Values, Compassionate Conservative, Faith-based, Clear Skies, PATRIOT Act, Personal Accounts, Free Trade, Welfare Reform, Peace With Honor, and The Final Solution. How to work that sense of malevolence into a two or three word neologism for corporations, I don't know, but it would be more effective that way, I bet.

[ Parent ]
For internal consumption (none / 0) (#296)
by guidoreichstadter on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 01:06:20 PM EST

I see framing (and this is an opinion based on no review of the relevant literature) as having two basic components- one is as a communicative tool, and the other is as an aid to critical thinking. For communicative purposes, perhaps the ideas may be effectively presented in the kind of shell you indicate. But also, framing has to do with your own ability to model the world mentally by creating new conceptions of features of reality. We've been influenced by propaganda in the way we think about things like democracy, power, responsibility, the state, community, corporations, family, morality since day one. Part of a successful strategy of challenging the dominant ideology is de-colonizing your own mind of the concepts that have been implanted in it by self-serving, powerful interests- reframing your own view of the world. For example, understanding the how the constitutional structure of the dominant corporate forms as intentionally setting up a simulation of a very one-sided kind of human psychology as the controlling force in corporate behavior makes it easier to understand why corporations act the way they do, what we can expect about the future, what kinds of measures would be effective in modifing corporate behavior, and ultimately, what kind of changes in the structure of corporate organization and control would be necessary to alter the fundamental nature of the global economy.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
Legitimate targets & uses of power (none / 0) (#232)
by redelm on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:39:58 PM EST

Deeply ironic that one organizational entity (S.Clara Cty) should argue that another SPR, has no rights. A self-nullifying argument!

Read SCCvSPR, you'll see that corporations were legally given personhood by that 1886 SCOTUS decision. Court decisions are precedents just as binding as law. Or perhaps RoevWade, Miranda, etal aren't legal either?

Legality really doesn't matter. History has shown that oppression begins with the denial of rights. It is always safer to grant more than fewer.

A few other small points: A nation is more than it's people. It is also it's land, villages and cities and everything there. Corporations included as part of "freedom of association". The nation most certain can be very authoritairian towards it's corporations -- look at the IRS & EPA if nothing else. Corporations were not the enemy in 1776, so don't need a do-over.



[ Parent ]

Corporate Personhood (none / 0) (#305)
by Mason on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:44:58 PM EST

If you read the actual decision, you'll note that the SCOTUS decision has no mention of changing the legal status of corporation's individuality.  The legal clerk who summarized their decision wrote those bits into the summary, and they've been taught as law ever since.

And interestingly, these fraudulent asides on the personhood of railroad corporations were written by Court Reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis, a former president of a railroad company.

Here's a passable article on the topic.  

Were you really not aware of all this?

[ Parent ]

Stare decesis vs overturning (none / 0) (#311)
by redelm on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 05:09:33 PM EST

I wasn't aware of these precise (polmetical) details, but I am aware of general sheninigans in the late 19c.

The particulars are hardly important, however. If SCOTUS wanted to overturn itself, it would. Just like recently over gay rights, overturning it's 1985 decision. If SCCvSPR was an error, or interpreted wrongly, it could have. It didn't, and irrespective of the comments or methodology, every subsequent decision upheld corporate personhood.



[ Parent ]

How is that not important? (none / 0) (#457)
by Mason on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:09:06 AM EST

You didn't know about it.  Nobody knows about it.  So nobody is calling for corporate personhood to be revoked, since no one really knows how it came about in the first place.

And do you really expect the SC to rule on something like this?  It undermines much of the validity of the court for it to admit that we have a rich legal heritage that is partially based on fraud.  Not to mention how little the corporations that have exploded in size under the protection of this judicial fiat would care for its reversal.

There are a million excuses for why SCCvSPR is allowed to stand.  None of them are sufficient.  America fought corporatism for a long time and lost.  The America that Lincoln resolved would never perish, perished.

[ Parent ]

shenanigans and responsibility (none / 0) (#316)
by Flippant Chicken on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:56:53 PM EST

Deeply ironic that one organizational entity (S.Clara Cty) should argue that another SPR, has no rights. A self-nullifying argument!

I think there are many legal differences between governmental entities and private entities.

Read SCCvSPR, you'll see that corporations were legally given person hood by that 1886 SCOTUS decision. Court decisions are precedents just as binding as law. Or perhaps RoevWade, Miranda, etal aren't legal either?

I think the story here is that if you examine the Justice's written opinions, and the final opinions, it appears that "corporate personhood" was inserted by a clerk and not a Justice. In which case it is based on shenanigans and not law.

Corporations included as part of "freedom of association".

Sometimes, but just as often corporations are simply paper constructs. Corporations have been granted many special rights above and beyond individuals or other organizations. Increasingly limited liability amounts to an increasing license to be above the law (as applied to individuals). I am not allowed to dump my trash on your property, but the power company is allowed to rain mercury down on all of us.

The nation most certain can be very authoritairian towards it's corporations -- look at the IRS & EPA if nothing else.

Nations certainly can, but the IRS and EPA are pretty bad examples. The IRS is as much a pox on individuals; probably more so if you consider the number of tax credits and loopholes which are only available to corporations. And the EPA is necessary to enforce some degree of responsibility for pollution (which also applies to both individuals and corporations).

Pollution costs. My family and my community are poisoned by pollution. Our property is devalued and in some cases destroyed. Getting just compensation is difficult and expensive. I think the EPA is preferable to all of these cases ending up in court. Though something tells me that the cost of adhering to EPA regulations is actually much less than actually paying for all of the damage caused by pollution.

Corporations were not the enemy in 1776, so don't need a do-over.

Well, the trading companies which played a huge role in the colonization were the enemy to some degree. Concentrations of wealth and power can lead to some individuals or organizations abusing the rights of other individuals and groups. Democratic governmental institutions, checks and balances, and the rule of law are supposed to balance that out; to protect all of our rights.

The modern corporation has helped to erode equal protection. Individuals are much better off if they shield themselves behind a corporation or two. They really have advantages from a tax, credit, and bankruptcy perspective. Most of us just do not have the wealth and knowledge required to exploit the system.

Not to say that corporations are all bad. Limiting liability enables public investment. But limiting liability also suspends the rule of law to some degree. It means you are not responsible for what your money is doing. It enables majority stock holders to command great power without facing responsiblity for their actions. And it can make the other investors less likely to object it immoral conduct because they stand to directly profit. I could own 51% of Death Squads, Inc., and the likelyhood of me seeing the inside of a prison cell are small. If however I controlled a couple of trusts which owned 51% of a couple of investment banks and brokerages, which managed funds which owned 51% of Death Squads, Inc., the likelyhood of anyone ever figuring out that I was behind it is even more remote.

[ Parent ]
Corporations are not under-disciplined. (none / 0) (#251)
by guidoreichstadter on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 11:02:09 PM EST

Rather, they are constitutionaly organized to pursue socially irresponsible behavior. The officers and agents of absentee-owned, capital-controlled corporations are bound by a contract fiduciary duty to maximize profits for the corporation's owners (shareholders). They cannot legally take voluntary socially responsible action unless it is calculated to increase profits, because spending resources on such projects would be a violation of their contract to the owners. Case in point- if there is no law prohibiting a form of pollution, the corporate officers are legally obligated to engage in that form of pollution if it is calculated to increase profitability. This inherent motivational property of the corporate form leads all corporations to externalize the costs of their actions onto others as much as legally possible.

Legally "disciplining the corporation" must be seen in this context- it will not change the motivational structure of corporate actors, but merely place s constraint on their actions- a constraint that they will continue to be constitutionally motivated to evade or reverse given the opportunity. Even when there are laws to modify corporate behavior, the institutional drive to maximize profits at the expense of all other values will often lead corporate agents to break the law when the costs of doing so are calculated to be offset by the gains made thereby.

I suggest that a more effective approach to this problem of our global economy is to place ownership and control of the corporation in the hands of its workers and the community. In place of profit maximization, the guiding prerogatives of the corporation should stem from the democratic decisions of the workers of the corporation, moderated by the influence of the larger community. The corporation would thus retain the need for profitability, but its agents and directors would be accountable to the people, not to an abstracted principle of maximizing profit.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]

Are corp officers evil? (none / 0) (#388)
by redelm on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 11:03:06 AM EST

Currently, corp officers have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits. But what happens if they're given some defenses and long-term obligations? That they could be sued by shareholders for _not_ taking care of long-term interests, including reputation in the community.

There are employee-owned companies (Avis car rentals), but why do you think they are any better? Employees like bigger bonuses/dividends. And what happens if the corp needs capital beyond what it can raise from employees, leasing & loans?



[ Parent ]

Yes, but (none / 0) (#334)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 12:34:22 PM EST

Well, it is fair enough to say that corporations are underdisciplined children.  But to a conservative their success is proof that they are not underdisciplined so the argument tends to fail.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
"If it ain't broke?" (none / 0) (#343)
by redelm on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 02:21:21 PM EST

... is an argument used by people who've already decided not to fix it. Those people can and will tinker with things working reasonably well. [Alcohol] Prohibition and the current drug Prohibition are cases in point.

Corporations have generally been a success, but far from universally Enron was a failure, causing primarily shareholders & some employees to suffer. Union Carbide was a egregious failure towards the community of Bhopal, India. McDonalds (boiling coffee) and many others have failed their customers. Even more have failed their shareholders by corporate blunders.



[ Parent ]

What a steaming pile... (2.30 / 10) (#162)
by cosmicv on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:31:22 PM EST

How friggen condesending and deluded... Yes, Im right and everyone else is wrong. Look how insane this sounds.

<snip>
Can you constantly think carefully about how to tell people the truth, how to trick them into believing the truth instead of believing charming lies
<snip>
Yeah, all those stupid people just need to be set right by you -- cause your always right.

<snip>
reframe the arguments of the neo-cons to show exactly how inconsistent and untruthful they are when expressed in neutral terms.
<snip>
Naturally, its you who will be using neutral terms - after all, you couldnt be biased right?

<snip>
Don't constantly qualify your arguments because you think you might be wrong; this just turns people off, since it makes you look indecisive and weak. If you don't believe your own words, why should they believe you? Instead, be SURE.
<snip>
He means ACT sure, even if you have no clue if you are right or not.

<snip>
You are capable of changing the world, but speaking the truth isn't enough. You've got to cleverly fight the war of words, remembering that the people you're trying to influence aren't going to believe you just because you are right.
<snip>
Yeah, you have the monopoly on truth...not them! No way Im wrong...

Did it ever occur to you that maybe theres just not some secret illuminati conspiracy going on to control everyone's mind (except yours of course, your too smart for them). How very self-deluded weve become in our nice little hermetically sealed world (which the author suggests you continue to uphold - when he said "stop being baited into bickering with them"). For god sakes, dont actually throw your ideas into an arena where you may face competition and actually have to defend yourself.

<snip>
As I said above, we must trick people into believing the truth.
<snip>
LOL!

It's about beating them at their own game (none / 1) (#166)
by syncrotic on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 12:00:50 AM EST

I think you're completely missing the author's point. It's not about who's right and who's wrong - after all, there wasn't a single mention of what the issues actually are.

The artcle supposes that you're a Liberal (for whatever definition of liberal you care to use), and that you want your political ideology to dominate national politics because you think it's right. You could replace every mention of "Liberal" with "Conservative" and the article would work just as well.

The point is simply that Liberal idealogy can regain national dominance by using the same social manipulation and persistence that neo-cons used over the course of the last three decades.

[ Parent ]

I understand (3.00 / 3) (#170)
by cosmicv on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 12:59:05 AM EST

But the condensation was just so thick you needed a chainsaw to cut through it.

The very idea that "the masses are so stupid because they didnt agree with me" reeks of delusions and psychosis. I also agree that both sides do this nonsense, but rarely do I hear it so explicitly stated without the person who states it not seeing their own bias... Noone should take this drivel seriously... I can see the author twisting his Snidely Whiplash mustache as he deftly manipulates the poor stupid masses using half his genius tied behind his back.

[ Parent ]

Hello there (2.00 / 2) (#342)
by CptFunk on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 02:08:04 PM EST

intelligent man of the masses! At the risk of making you hate my liberal ass some more.. I must point out that condensation is when vapor turns into liquid. I believe you intended to say condescension. A concept perfectly illustrated by my post. If I can help you in grasping any troublesome socio-political concepts just let me know. It is my observation that the Democratic leadership is corrupt, albeit to a lesser extent than our current Republican leadership. In my experience there are no absolutes, but on the continuum of truth the Democrats cause me less cognitive dissonance. Another observation of mine is that conservatives tend towards more grammatical mistakes in there online postings. Taken together this information lends support to my theory of an ignorant right wing base. Please note the difference between ignorance and stupidity. I believe the ignorance is actually caused by a myopic selfishness. I do not make a habit of online bickering but the irony was just too tempting. Enough! I've got pretty young ladies waiting to be tied to traintracks!

[ Parent ]
Correction noted... (none / 0) (#361)
by cosmicv on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:24:56 PM EST

But Id hardly take a spelling error to imply your a super-genius or that someone else would be any less smart then you. I really love it when people start shouting how smart they are, and generally apon probing, it seems they might know 1 or 2 fields well. Get them out of their element, and their mostly putty in the hands of Joe Sixpack. Besides, shouting from the rooftop about how smart one is, is pretty much a sign of mental sickness.

And I note you didnt take affront to the actual substance of my post, only its presentation. Fair enough, I understand your reluctance. Evasion is a valid tool when connecting with ideas that might disturb you.

Im also gathering that you seem to think Im a conservative - and you couldnt be further from the truth. Im am not either a conservative or a liberal. So, if you need a lesson in trying to judge people, which you seem to do quite poorly, let me know.

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the feedback. (none / 0) (#171)
by Russell Dovey on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 01:49:58 AM EST

Here's the bit you didn't quote:

"Instead, be SURE. Think through what you're saying, and do the research necessary to make sure you're right. You can then write with full confidence that what you're saying is true."

Any questions?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

And you missed my point... (3.00 / 2) (#194)
by cosmicv on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 11:17:59 AM EST

To anyone outside your mindest, its quiet obvious your level of bias blinds you and binds you.

The right and the left make this same mistake over and over... oh, and in case your wonderng, Im not either, Im an anarchist - so I think both you liberals and conservatives are screwed. Also, Ill go the extra mile and say that Im biased too, but at least I have the balls to admit Im bias in my own particular direction. You think your objective and right, with the same fervor as any fire and brimstone southern baptist.

Now, as to the topic at hand, your premise is that the average joe is stupid and needs to be tricked into believing the "right" way, which you naturally have a monopoly on. Let me offer you alternative views, which of course youll dismiss without any serious thought on why the left is losing.

Possibilities:
a. People get more conservative as they age, baby boomers are the largest population segment - so elections start going conservative when they get older.

b. The internet is allowing free flow of information and the masses actually are hearing the liberal line and just simply dont like it!

c. Frothing rabid maniacs are taking over the democratic party and most people dont want to have anything to do with it.

d. Natural evolution of philosophy and ideas are starting to show the gaps and leaks in a poor philosophy.

I could go on forever, but in the end, youll just assume your right and everyone else is stupid - so whats the point? Youll give none of these options here any serious consideration as canidates for your loss... the term I believe is rationalization.

[ Parent ]

Hell, those could all be true. (none / 0) (#209)
by Russell Dovey on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 01:53:42 PM EST

But they can all be changed.

You're an anarchist? I used to be one. How do you get around the problem of warlords?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Tons of ways... (none / 1) (#216)
by cosmicv on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 02:06:40 PM EST

Check out

http://www.anti-state.com and go ask that question on the newbie board (seriously) ;)

Theres also a lot of articles in their they publish, so check thier archive listed on the front page.

I would break down my particular view here, but theres about a thousand different angles to approach that on and I dont know that any one approach would be better or worse per se - and Im not one to tell others how to handle their affairs.

[ Parent ]

oddly enough... (none / 1) (#187)
by mikelist on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:05:38 AM EST

...that's exactly what's worked for the neocons, for two elections. Do you really think that GW is going to save America from gay marriage, stem cell research or actually have a Middle East policy that doesn't include a major military presence? Do you think he won't reform social security in a way that won't make big winners and losers, based on market conditions, that won't favor those who already have their nest egg beyond the obvious? Of course this wasn't the mandate that both the winners and losers seem to think, and it's not much of a stretch to say that merely using a better sales pitch might have changed the result.

I can see where the guy's coming from.

[ Parent ]

Maybe thats not the case (3.00 / 2) (#195)
by cosmicv on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 11:22:56 AM EST

Maybe it isnt GWs idiocy that people are voting for. Maybe its the democratic party's idiocy their voting against? Naw... couldnt be. No way the masses would vote against us right? after all, since were right, that would mean their either stupid, coerced, tricked, etc...

I couldnt have picked a bad horse now could I? I dont have any blind spots, at least that I can see.

[ Parent ]

Learn English (none / 0) (#320)
by Legion303 on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:47:19 PM EST

If you're going to act smart online--or at least avoid sounding like a 13-year-old who can't vote anyway--please take the time to learn how to write and spell basic words. Thanks.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the input. (none / 0) (#363)
by cosmicv on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:30:24 PM EST

Well, Im sorry I cant be as smart as you of course... Maybe one day Ill master quantum mechanics, brain surgery, and get a few math PHDs under my belt. Only then will I approach the genius that you seem to glow with. We can only hope.

Now, I also noted that you can only speak towards my presentation and not the actual substance of what was said. You must be good at dodgeball, as you have that dodging thing down pat.

[ Parent ]

LOL@U! (none / 0) (#472)
by Legion303 on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 08:35:16 AM EST

There was substance? I must have missed it in the middle of your poorly-concealed flamebait.

Incidentally, your apostrophe key is most likely located just to the left of your Enter key. See it, under the quotation marks? There you go. And is that supposed to be an ellipsis? One dot will do. It's called a "period." Thanks in advance.

By the way, the degree whose name you were furiously pounding your head in an effort to remember is spelled "PhD." Happy to help.

[ Parent ]

Surely... (none / 1) (#199)
by Western Infidels on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 12:07:11 PM EST

...this is all because you didn't actually read the facinating book excerpt linked in the original article, which actually goes to great lengths to do away with your main objections.

[ Parent ]
Right... (none / 1) (#208)
by cosmicv on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 01:35:47 PM EST

Of course that why the poster titled this post as "progressive trickery" which sounds an awful like exactly what I was saying -- this poster wants to "trick" the masses into the "truth". Which of course implies -

a. Joe six pack is dumb and the poster isnt.
b. The poster has all the correct anwsers.
c. That by using deceit, we can "trick" joe sixpack and lure him back into the "light side of the force".

Now on which point am I wrong here?

[ Parent ]

Cripes (none / 0) (#252)
by Western Infidels on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:06:27 AM EST

You should do more reading and less implying, because at least in this case, your implying stinks.

[ Parent ]
Thats what I thought. (none / 0) (#254)
by cosmicv on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:23:52 AM EST

Exactly what makes you think I read any more or less then you do. Are you implying that anyone that disagrees with you - reads less, and therefor must be stupid? Gee, I guess that means your one of the smart ones - I bet you feel all warm and fuzzy about that. How about that. You can attack those that disagree with you without making any substantial points and feel superior.

Once again, we see the "They disagree so they must be dumb" mindset. Lovely, and these people dont even understand their own blindspot.

Talk about hermetically sealed realities...

[ Parent ]

Cripes (none / 0) (#256)
by Western Infidels on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:28:28 AM EST

I wasn't referring to reading in general, I was advising you to read this piece (the book excerpt) in particular, especially before you make assumptions about it, and that's all.

[ Parent ]
No reading eh? (none / 0) (#364)
by cosmicv on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:32:26 PM EST

I read what the author of this post wrote and commented on it. If and when I get around to reading the source material, Ill comment on IT. Amazing how you couldnt tell them subtle difference there.

[ Parent ]
Well Actually (none / 0) (#407)
by Western Infidels on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:22:31 PM EST

It was because it was overwhelmingly obvious that you hadn't read the book excerpt, and not because I "couldn't tell them subtle difference," that I spoke up and advised you to do so. Which I still do, although I think this will be the last of your bizarre snarks I'll be answering.

[ Parent ]
Cheer up! (3.00 / 2) (#179)
by Mason on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 03:27:54 AM EST

Just imagine where neocons would be if it weren't for 9/11.  Just imagine where neocons will be in a few years if we don't get another major attack.

A freak meteorite injured the pitcher's arm, and now the neocon batters think they're all gods for hitting over .500.  And we liberals are freaking out, thinking that we are just doing an awful job of fielding.

If Bush and crew can keep the attacks, wars, and recessions coming, then yeah, American politics will be screwed up for a long time.  But who would want to live here anyways, if things get that unpleasant?

I'd just like to point out that (none / 0) (#355)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:28:17 PM EST

When the 2008 election rolls around, Republicans will have held the white house for 20 of the past 28 years.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]
You call that hegemony? (none / 0) (#456)
by Mason on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 02:52:23 AM EST

Yawn.  Let me know when you've burned down Congress.

And before countering with the obvious "we own Congress", let's just check on how that Social Security reform, which Bush introduced as the main pillar of his domestic agenda, is doing.

Dominance is a stupid goal, but even so it isn't measured by the number of R's on a seating chart.  If you guys can't enact the agenda set forth by the head of your party, all the scaremongering and electoral fraud in the world amounts to nothing.

[ Parent ]

let's all learn neuro-linguistics programming (nt) (none / 0) (#224)
by metagone on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 03:41:04 PM EST


.
Frame - multiple frames - language (2.33 / 3) (#236)
by Norwegian Blue on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:27:24 PM EST

The key word in the title is "Trickery". This sets a frame.It suggests you get people in a condition that they would not get into voluntarily. It suggests deviousness, dishonesty, manipulation. It suggests that you're doing some things that the other person is not aware of.

That is not necessarily the case. A frame has the value that it get across the message, especially when it is used consistently. This is an important point that Lakoff makes. Framing can be but does not have to be deceitful or dishonest. Everyone does it all the time. It's ok to frame.

Looking at the same information in more than one way is one of the central themes in a seemingly unrelated subject: creativity. The best way to achieve some immunity from an imposed frame is to learn to shift your view. Obviously, if you can just find an alternate view to listen to, part of the work is done for you. But you're not getting any better at making the shift yourself.

I spontaneously use the word immunity, which again easily suggests that a frame is not good and should be avoided. I strenghten this with the word "imposed".This doesn't help if i want to communicate that a frame is benign but it should be not exclusive and you should take control of the frames you use. Good word choice makes the communication consistent and thus, effective . But good word choice can be easy in some cases and it can be difficult elsewhere.

In the first paragraph i use the word manipulation. That's a pretty loaded word. Is there such a thing as benign manipulation? Sure there is , but it's not as easy to talk about it. I only needed one word to imply bad manipulation, benign manipulation needs more elaboration(more than two words...) and that makes it harder to get it across. You have to be better with words. You need more words. The listener has to be smarter. This is a major point. The vocabulary that is in place is more conductive to some ideas than to other ideas. The ideas that come across easier will get more attention and get built upon. You can imagine reinforcing effects here so that ideas that don't communicate well get gradually squeezed out to a marginal level.

Conservatives have made a language available with high conductivity for their ideas, Liberals have to do with what's available. Lakoff says liberals should work on that.

The word "high" in the above sentence is relative. It's  far removed from the naive notion that your language controls your thoughts directly. It's more work to get one idea across than to get another idea across, but in principle , both ideas can be communicated. In practice, the "more work" factor is important.

How are you going to communicate that you're disregarding the UN when attacking Iraq? Two words: "Permission slip". Beat that.


Permission slippage (3.00 / 2) (#303)
by Mason on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:19:38 PM EST

If we had intelligent journalists who attacked when they heard such manipulative terms, it wouldn't be an unassailable practice.

For example, hitting up Scottie or Bush with a line of questioning like:  "You referred to UN approval of the Iraq war as an unecessary 'permission slip.'  Do you feel that other nations can freely go to war without concern for the opinions of the international community, or do you feel that America alone has that right?"

I guess it is a matter of opinion whether or not that would shred the 'permission slip' meme, but at very least it would make Bush/Scottie hum and haw about how much they value the role of the UN in the world, which doesn't really fit into the 'permission slip' frame at all.

Bottom line is that the media doesn't attack these things, but rather repeats them endlessly.  Like how "shock and awe" got everyone into the mindset that we were going to hit Iraq with such devastating power that all forms of resistance would crumble immediately and we'd have firm control over the entire nation.  Thus, there was very little pre-war attention paid to post-war planning, in the media or the civilian leadership of our nation.  In this instance, it seems like the neocon "shock and awe" meme actually prevented them from thinking clearly about reality.

Propagandists who actually believe their propaganda are dangerous people.

[ Parent ]

Journalism (none / 0) (#419)
by Norwegian Blue on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 05:10:06 AM EST

How would the conservative part of you(the part that understands a Schwarzenegger movie :) understand such a comment?

America has to be strong and rely on itself. If something needs to be done, it can try to get other countries to join them, but it can't wait for a sluggish bureaucratic talkshop to reach an agreement for approval.

The permission slip phrase then becomes just "adding a bit of attitude" to it.

What about other countries? Softball. Good countries should defend themselves. Bad countries should be coerced or crushed.
You can add to this that America is the best good country, and possibly it should show the other countries what's right and wrong.

The liberal part of you(Cosby show - hey I'm just borrowing those examples) may read the 'permission slip' as arrogant "nobody tells me what to do" and even "we do whatever we like why should we care about the UN". From this view, how anyone can agree with this is incomprehensible.

I agree American journalists have a problem with docility. But I see a deeper problem with the doctrine of objectivity.

Journalism standards, and American journalism more than others, consider objectivity very important.
One statement can be more objective than another statement, and you can aim for objectivity as a direction, even if absolute objectivity is not attainable. As a neutral and objective journalist, it's difficult to challenge claims that are not clearly lies. You become involved, no longer neutral.

In my experience, the way most people treat perception is that you have the truth and you can place a facade before that truth. This facade is what you perceive.
You can pierce through the facade and perceive the truth.  You can unmask the facade as a lie and expose the truth. Bias is distortion of the truth.
Objectivity is about trying to avoid the facade.

In another model, facades is all you're ever going to get. One facade can be much more valid than another, but you can't work without a facade. Facades are how you make sense of things. Often, the first model is a good approximation of the second.

The switch from truth to validity is hard to make, and if you're brought up in the first model, the second just looks like dabbling in relativism.

Journalism standards, and American journalism more than others, consider objectivity very important.
One statement can be more objective than another statement, and you can aim for objectivity as a direction, even if absolute objectivity is not attainable. As a neutral and objective journalist, it's difficult to challenge claims that are not clearly false. You become involved, no longer neutral. You're arguing a point of view with another point of view.

It is appealing to ask questions like "do you think America should wait for a permission slip from an ineffective organisation like the United Nations ... if it feels like conquering a third world country?" But check for example
this guy
. I doubt he is considered a good journalist.(and I think I agree). McClellan simply ignores Mokhiber or says "is this a question or a statement of opinion?"

Then see what this
poynter 'doctrine' article on an honest email from a WSJ reporter says. I think it's conclusion is worrying.

This is a weakness that can lead to journalists becoming amplifiers of questionable - but internally consistent- messages. You don't have to be a docile journalist for that (though that does make things worse). Challenging a statement with an alternative view easily goes too far for a conscientious journalist.

I can imagine approaches to improve the situation, but they would require both new training to work with many frames and modifying(not removing) the requirement of objectivity. Imagine replacing the "no opinion" approach by a labelling approach: opinion is allowed as long is is clearly tagged. Never mix opinion with objectivity in the same paragraph. Or maybe, in the same sentence. But it's allowed in the same article. Every journalist would become a little bit of an op-ed editor.

This stuff makes me hungry.

[ Parent ]

Enter the echo chamber (none / 0) (#455)
by Mason on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 02:31:18 AM EST

Neutral or objective journalism is far too easy to manipulate.

For instance, the classic right-wing echo chamber.  If you suddenly get enough politicians, guys on talk radio, and Fox News to affect a new phrase (e.g. "death tax" instead of "estate tax") that comes loaded with a lot of tacit implications, the mainstream media can't help but comment.  You start seeing "The estate tax, called by many the 'death tax'..." appear almost everywhere.  All it takes is a little bit of message control to introduce a meme like that as a "widely known" truth without any sort of discussion.

And for a news agency to say that it is called the death tax, but that is misleading since it implies it effects everyone's estate instead of those of the few mega-wealthy, is not considered objective for some reason.  Just because you're attacking a point, in my mind, doesn't make you biased.  It makes you honest.

Democrats lack any sort of message control, though, so if the media suddenly started explaining the truth or falsehood behind these sort of manipulative tactics, only Republicans would really stand to lose.  And even if you're only explaining the objective truth, it'd get called bias since you're singling out Republicans.

Hence all of the independent media studies during the last election that showed that Bush told far more substantial lies, and yet the media was afraid of calling either candidate on much of anything.

This is the simple beauty of the so-called liberal media.  If you can make the truth biased against you, no one will hear it.  You don't have to bribe, coerce, or hide evidence from anyone, since the media will censor itself on your behalf. It is the true Catch-22 of our era, and I'm humbled by its efficacy.

[ Parent ]

elephant tax (none / 0) (#463)
by Norwegian Blue on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 08:32:58 PM EST

Maybe the 'neutral and objective' approach is like a set of laws or a piece of software: it's ok at the start but after a while some security holes or loopholes are found. Then gradually the exploits grow till they become a big problem. The system has to adapt then or it breaks.

Just because you're attacking a point, in my mind, doesn't make you biased.  It makes you honest.
Difficult one. It can be honest AND very subjective. Abstracting the action a bit, you get "annotating the messages". Making a frame explicit could be one form of annotation. (sometimes you could call that exposing the frame). It could work.

Anecdote about the Iraq war: one newspaper opted for using the words "mini coalition".  I liked that. It was not confrontational, and not going along with the description  "coalition". It required effort from the editors to come up with it. Paradoxically, it stood out because it's different.

Democrats being behind on framing: not only them. The public and the media have to upgrade as well.

Shifting the reference point for measuring bias: I'll put this crudely. It feels about the same as  the situation where beaten women adapt their behaviour to the demands of their men, hoping to be safe. Demands that keep becoming more extreme.

So i don't exactly like it :)


[ Parent ]

You are going to waste your life (none / 0) (#241)
by schrotie on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 08:12:15 PM EST

So, you are going to spend your life on that mission? In case you haven't hurt: life in general is cruel and your's specifically is wasted. You are not going to win against the most efficient, most powerful, most successful propaganda system in history.

I am talking about commercials, about marketing and PR. Their message does not appear coherent, but there is is a coherent kernel to it: buy and be happy. If you want to achieve anything, be it fame, success, getting laid, coolness ... whatever is desirable, to get it buy the according product.

You will not find fulfillment in leftist bullshit like the article above this comment, you will only ever find it in your purchase.

And you, dear Mr. Russel Dovey, you are not going to talk this message out of people with reason or framing or whatever. You are trying to fight a propaganda war. But you're charging with a club while your opponent has nukes galore. You might want to rethink your strategy.

So? (none / 1) (#242)
by LucianXY on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 08:51:08 PM EST

If you buy from progressive companies, start progressive businesses, and don't buy from companies which arent socially responsible, you can use your money to generate change along with your words. You have to take your money back before you can take your country back.

[ Parent ]
Today I have a club. Tomorrow... (none / 0) (#275)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:37:08 AM EST

...it may have a nail in it. I can only get better.

What, did I give the impression I was an expert? The exhortations and questions in the above article were as much to myself as to you.

We have a long way to go. That's what I'm saying. Lakoff may have given us a map.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Don't get your panties all in a knot (none / 1) (#243)
by Eight Star on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 09:07:06 PM EST

I find it ironic that this book, or at least much of the discussion surrounding it, has a stereotypical leftist defeatist 'vicim' attitude that Rush Limbaugh talks about. Oh no! 30 years of think tank language modification, what a challenge!

How about:
A republican has won two terms, barely, this is not a huge continental shift of the people. Clinton was in office before him, and he did a better job, where were the think tanks then?

Yes, there is a rightwing conspiracy to establish an autocracy, but if you pay attention you'll see them saying the same about the left, and they are right. There is a gay agenda, humanists do want to take over society, and we are being pushed into one-world government, and one religion. Left wing strategies and rescources are at least as good as the right.

Other than that, good advice.

-1, Lakoff (2.20 / 5) (#265)
by Estanislao MartÝnez on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:30:13 AM EST

Aaargh.  That's one guy I just can't stand.  He's like one of the very worst of academia: a shamelessly self-promoting bad scholar with no original ideas, who keeps endlessly regurgitating his one reasonable idea from 25 years ago (conceptual metaphor) by trying to spin it into the one true theory of everything.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, trust me, there isn't a problem or issue in existence for which Lakoff will not be quick to insist that conceptual metaphor theory does not hold the answer to.

To his credit, he knows a lot about English grammar.  To his discredit, he's done precious little work on that for the past couple of decades.

--em

Lakoff is definitely a one trick pony... (none / 1) (#346)
by cr8dle2grave on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 03:06:15 PM EST

...but his stable has produced a couple of runners who are looking to be serious contenders (e.g., Fauconnier and Turner)

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
It's the public-schooled who get fooled (2.33 / 3) (#266)
by michaelmalak on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:48:11 AM EST

The False Dilemma was not just invented within the past 30 years, nor were these other 50 tricks. Why, even kuro5hin.org spotlighted Strategem XII. I miss the edit queue for a couple of days and stuff like this gets posted as news.

Teaching how to speak -- rhetoric -- was the primary function of what would be high school in the classical medieval educational system, but has been banned from curricula to keep the populace from gaining power. It also makes them susceptible to these tricks.

Democrats (and now incidentally also Republicans) keep pushing for public education, but it is that very education that is dumbing down the populace to be susceptible to Republican rhetorical tricks. Meanwhile, political leaders get their education from elite boarding schools, which have their own unique curriculum devised to create leaders -- uncovered by John Taylor Gatto after a decade of research in these free new online videos (14 bullets). And although not generally leader-creators, homeschoolers following a classical curriculum are similarly innoculated from rhetorical tricks.

The measures advocated by this kuro5hin article -- being aware of tricks and banding together to use the tricks -- are half-measures, not countermeasures. To beat fascism (it is not conservatives or liberals who are our enemy, but rather those who deny liberty), it is necessary to knock out one of the legs of the fascist quintet. One of those legs is public education.

Wow, wouldn't that be something if Democrats came out against public education. Why do I expect to continue to pay $400/month for my neighboring future voters to make the wrong choices?

--
BergamoAcademy.com  Authentic Montessori in Denver

+1 submit to queue nt (none / 0) (#276)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:42:34 AM EST


"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Sing it, brother! (3.00 / 2) (#282)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:57:31 AM EST

I dream of a world where the average k5 n00b knew the difference between debating and insults and was more skilled in the former than the latter and wouldn't think dragging O.J. Simpson into a debate about politics was the height of erudition.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]
Please write "debate 101" .... (none / 1) (#293)
by claes on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:51:20 AM EST

A lot of us weren't in the debate team in high school and hence are ignorant.

-- claes (100% serious)

[ Parent ]

you're forgetting the main one (none / 0) (#431)
by Norwegian Blue on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 04:15:47 PM EST

See single biggest new idea killer-phrase.

It's always possible to see new things as old things, and it can be a sincere conviction. But unless an effort is done to pay attention to the part that is different, it's just an obligatory move that will accompany every idea.

Nice list on that Schopenhaur site.

[ Parent ]

STFW for a list of logical fallacies (none / 0) (#277)
by karlandtanya on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:42:43 AM EST

And you have a list of debating techniques. That's how it's done folks. Political debate is not scientific investigation. Nothing to see here. Move along, folks.

Guess the k5 folks need the /. sig.

Thought you were smarter than that.

Oh, well.

If all you can complain about is the spelling, everyone assumes you support the content.

Here's a basic tip from teh Reagan era... (2.25 / 4) (#286)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:19:45 AM EST

Pick your battles carefully

When Reagan became president, the left did everything in their power to bring him down - they attacked his every appointment, they attacked his every move. Ninety percent of the time, the grounds for these attacks were flimsy - at best.

What was the result? When a real scandal broke, with an actual impeachable offense, America just yawned - the vast majority of Americans assumed that it was just another left-wing smear job and ignored Iran Contra all together.

You can make the argument that the Republicans fell into the same trap with Clinton - with the same results.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?

IOKIYAR (none / 0) (#304)
by Mason on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:24:41 PM EST

That's just silly.  Iran/Contra was still a big stain on the Reagan administration among educated people.  And Monica got a tiny bit of attention in spite of the orchestrated campaign to toss feces at Clinton until something stuck.

One was about sex, one wasn't.  That's all there is to it.

But as far as society at large forgetting about Iran/Contra, well, that'd fall under the "it's okay if you're a republican" paradigm.

[ Parent ]

Wha? (2.00 / 3) (#312)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:11:59 PM EST

Your history is revisionist and as inexplicable as your acronyms.

First, as for your claim (oft repeated) that the Clinton impeachment was "about sex" - please explain why Clinton was disbarred, since blow jobs aren't illegal. And yet, as you note, the public completely ignored perjury under oath because it was "just another" scandal.

Second, Iran/Contra wasn't a big stain. It should have been simply because it was a worse scandal than Watergate. But the fact that Bush I was elected even after something like a year  Iran/Contra hearings disproves any claim that the American public took it seriously.


How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

18 trillion news reports about perjury? (none / 0) (#453)
by Mason on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 02:08:38 AM EST

Now let's not be silly.  I never said the Clinton impeachment was all about sex, I said the Clinton-Monica scandal was all about sex.  And you're really a fool if you think that the press was all over this thing for-freaking-ever because of the perjury.  The crime was perjury, but the scandal was sex.  Iran/Contra had a lot more serious crimes, but no sex, hence the easy pass.

Just meditate for a minute on the Iran/Contra scandal and the fact that John Negroponte is our new ambassador to Iraq.  Swish those two things around in your head for a while.  Maybe when things like that stop happening I'll be capable of getting really miffed at Clinton for being a naughty guy.

[ Parent ]

Forgot! (none / 0) (#454)
by Mason on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 02:14:40 AM EST

IOKIYAR = It's okay if you're a republican.

Silly, sure, but you can get some good use out of it without trying too hard.  Bush's "youthful indiscretions" would destroy any Democrat, for example.  And how many Democrat First Ladies would live down their vehicular manslaughter?

I'm just saying.

[ Parent ]

Pfft. More revisionism. (1.50 / 2) (#460)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:58:42 AM EST

Bush's "indiscretions"? I think you've decided to forget Clinton's "I didn't inhale" and other Democratic "indiscretions" right back to Ted "It's not my fault she's dead" Kennedy.

So, I'll see you a first lady and raise you a senior senator.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

oookkkk (none / 1) (#289)
by ewe2 on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:02:43 AM EST

I've seen this stuff before. Ignore it. It might be semantically comforting but it misses the point. Whatever language you couch your power in, you're still playing power-games. And the nature of power in democratic institutions is cyclic. Above that, there is mass stupidity and I don't intend to pay any attention to that.

Take the US. Do the Republicans have a postive strategy after Bush? Not that I can see. They have a negative one against Hilary Clinton, but I don't seen any groomed successors that they can anoint any time soon. Not that the Democrats have anyone that isn't a joke.

Take Australia. Noone seriously imagines the Liberal Party has anything like a palatable replacement for Howard. They know it. They know the electorate knows it. All they can hope for is that the electorate find Kim Beazley more hopeless than Peter Costello.

See, there's an old political adage "Oppositions do not win elections, Governments lose them". It ties up neatly with another old favourite "In times of uncertainty, people go with the safest option." There is no better explanation for the political situation since 1996. Sooner or later the wheel turns. Being angsty about it is pointless.

--
I may not be cute, but I'm intelligent. So I'm an ugly smartass. Yay me.


Jeb? /nt (none / 0) (#291)
by claes on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:47:52 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Condi? nt (none / 0) (#310)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 04:28:56 PM EST


"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Condi! (none / 1) (#314)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:02:43 PM EST

I think she is being seriously groomed for either a presidential or vp run in 2008. If she manages to keep drawing publicity like this, she'll win the Republican nomination by acclaim.

And, to be honest, if she actually ran for president, I might break my rule of never voting for either major party.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Man, I hope she does. (none / 1) (#329)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 05:16:54 AM EST

I want to bathe in the irony of a strong black woman running for President - and the Democrats running against her! AHAHAHAHA! That will be sweet indeed.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Irony? Where? (2.00 / 2) (#336)
by lightcap on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 12:45:23 PM EST

Seriously, if you've been paying attention, the Dems are Republican Lite these days.  The only irony is that they're considered liberal at all.

Conservatism and liberalism are bygone terms that are completely irrelevant in terms of today's political landscape.  There is only one agenda and both major Parties are following the corporate line.
Mommy, what were trees like?
[ Parent ]

The problem is that people think in binary (1.50 / 2) (#353)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:22:00 PM EST

liberal or conservative. racist or not. If conservatives are wrong on some issues they must be, by definition, wrong on all issues. If liberals are wrong on some issues, they must be, by definition, wrong on all issues. To compromise is to aid the enemy.

And so on.

The idea that Bush might possibly have been wrong about Iraq without actually being the anti-christ is met with the same derision (though by different people) as the claim that Clinton might be less than pure in how he treats women and yet still be right about healthcare.

And anyone who tries to bring a little intellectual rigor to the argument is simply castigated by both sides and roundly ignored.

Feh. In a democracy, people get the government they deserve.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]

Exactly. White and black morality. (none / 1) (#358)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 05:37:56 PM EST

Good guys vs bad guy, schoolyard morality rules political thinking for most people. It bothers me.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

It is childish (none / 0) (#391)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 12:02:29 PM EST

But the libs are still evil! ;)
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
You only sat that... (none / 0) (#398)
by tonedevil on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 02:27:04 PM EST

'cause we did your mom.

[ Parent ]
You're right, but... (none / 0) (#354)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:22:44 PM EST

...it's still going to be funny, especially watching from Australia. I mean, come on. Just imagine the fiendish grins of reporters as they ask Democrat pundits questions like "So, isn't it long past time for a black woman to run America?" or "So, another rich white guy for the Democrats, eh? No thought of a change this time round? No?"

Don't get me wrong, I don't think of American politics as a giant train-wreck specifically designed by God as a warning to other countries... well, I do, but not all the time.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

The parental state model (3.00 / 3) (#318)
by Scrymarch on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:18:22 PM EST

The Lakoff link is worthy enough - merely for pointing out conservatives wouldn't be winning if they were stupid, if nothing else.  The framing stuff is useful though hardly a revelation.

Lakoff's quite right about today's central partisan metaphors of government, too: the Strict Father and the Nurturant Parent.  Both brands of politics are about the Giant Parental Authority instructing its childish citizens to do this or that.  It is ultimately not a democratic metaphor.  The children merely choose whether Mummy or Daddy will sit at the head of the table today.  And as he points out, it's easier to go where the frame points, otherwise you're swimming against across the tide.

A more suitable frame for a democracy would describe its citizens as adults.  The state might then be contracted by citizens to serve them as they see fit.  Government as sporting club.

Siblings. (none / 1) (#328)
by Znork on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:56:41 AM EST

It's just yet another frame, designed to foster the idea of rightful authority.

Big brother and big sister would be more appropriate.

The kind that have already chopped up and buried the parents in the back yard.

[ Parent ]

The article is mistaken (2.75 / 8) (#325)
by slashcart on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 12:32:40 AM EST

I will grant that the conservative movement has been using terminological tricks to win debates. Of course, these techniques have been used for centuries, by both liberals and conservatives; but conservatives seem to be using them with greater intensity these days.

Nevertheless, I caution the author about overstimating the importance of these terminological tricks. Conservatism hasn't won by dirty tricks alone. Conservatism has won because liberalism was wrong about several important issues, and liberals fail to move on.

When I was in High School, in San Francisco, I was voted "most liberal" in the entire school. Bear in mind, that I was "most liberal" among young people, in what is America's most liberal big city, by far.

But now I find myself to be embarrassed by liberals' company. Oftentimes, liberals are both starkly ignorant and incredibly obtuse. I have met many leftists, who have the most vehement and unshakeable convictions on the subject of Economics, and who quite obviously have never cracked a book on that subject. Their opinions on the subject could be refuted by a novice who read only books from 200 years ago. And the development of the field of Economics since then, has only refuted the liberal position still more. If ever I hear another liberal talk about how trade impoverishes both the U.S. and the third world, I may have to scream.

Of course, conservatives have made their share of mistakes over the last 100 years. They sided with racism, with sexism, and more recently, with homophobia. But conservatives are more open minded than liberals. Indeed, they are even more progressive. When they lose an argument, they drop it. They have dropped the their racism and sexism, and now have limited their homophobia to marriage.

Liberals, on the other hand, cling to the outdated and refuted economics of Roosevelt and Marx. They never drop anything. When they lose an argument, they don't believe they've lost. They feel they couldn't have lost. It's simply not possible. As a result, they're terribly closed-minded, which makes a change of position well-nigh impossible.

The linked book review is an example of this phenomenon. It invokes the standard liberal phrase: "speak truth to power." But the linked article elaborates:

Just speaking truth to power doesn't work. You need to frame the truths effectively from your perspective.

Bear in mind that the author never raises the question of whether our opinions are true. It goes without saying that everything we think is true. All that we need to do is speak it to power. Thus, the possesion of truth is simple -- we already have it -- and the only remaining question is whom we should speak it to.

This is the common position among those who fancy themselves open-minded. It never once occurs to them that reconsideration might be required. When I bring up that some of their opinions are ridiculous from the standpoint of economics, many liberals retort that they won't listen to anything the field of economics has to say. The whole field of economics is a conspiracy of the rich. When I mention that they have not read any of it, so how could they know it's a conspiracy, they reaffirm their certainty while admitting their ignorance of the subject.

As long as we retain this ludicrous arrogance, we shall continue to lose elections.

Damn right, ignorance is the enemy. (none / 0) (#356)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:31:03 PM EST

It's still not that long ago that I discovered the horrible truth: just as there's a huge mass of people who vote in right-wing governments out of ignorance and general idiocy, there's a huge mass of people who vote in left-wing governments for exactly the same reason.

But I disagree with your assertion that most lefties  cling to outdated notions of communism. Just like the other side, most lefties are capitalists if they think about it at all. Communism is BAD, since it brought us Stalin etc, and that is by far the majority opinion. Any assertion of communism is usually a conservative taking revenge on us for calling them fascist.

(Although they are. Fascist corporate pig-dogs!)

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

communism (none / 0) (#384)
by Cackmobile on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:27:58 AM EST

i used to be a communist(as much as I can be in western society) but now realise it is impossible. I am a communist still in theory but I know it is impossible like 100% efficient machines.

[ Parent ]
I have exactly the same attitude towards.... (none / 0) (#386)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:45:00 AM EST

...anarchy. One day, I believe that people will be ready to do without government. Not today, unfortunately.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Most lefties (none / 0) (#390)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 11:58:00 AM EST

agree that Stalin was bad, but some of them still think communism is good. It may not be their majority position, but I still read it frequently.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Lefties have discarded a lot of lost arguments. (none / 1) (#357)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:54:47 PM EST

  • Communism (Stalin pretty much shot that idea out of the water. Socialism, however, has much to offer when suitably restrained by democracy and capitalism)
  • Racism (the White Australia policy was supported by trade unions for a long time)
  • Appeasement of hostile nations (we're more likely these days to push for armed intervention when a country starts massacring people)
  • Protectionism (the growing consensus among the left is that free and fair trade is the best way to raise standards of living in the third world, and that protectionism is unfairly hurting third-world producers)
So don't be too angry at your leftie buddies. We know how to lose gracefully just like the conservatives. (that is, grumbling and sulking and muttering portents of doom)

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

communism? (none / 0) (#368)
by Battle Troll on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 08:05:46 PM EST

Hardly. You can't swing a dead cat without someone romanticizing Marx or Trotsky (seen Frieda?)
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
I would disagree. (none / 0) (#379)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 06:01:26 AM EST

It might just be that I don't know the right people, but the old communists are just not looked on as heroes by lefties any more. The new new new new left is all about civil liberties and fighting poverty, not solidarity with the working class against the capitalist Man.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

oh come on (none / 0) (#389)
by Battle Troll on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 11:44:46 AM EST

You don't have to look any farther than the movie theatre to see that Che and Trotsky remain well-regarded. You (rightly) couldn't make a movie that cast Franco in a positive light, but you can with those guys, because they are romantic heroes.

For the new new new ad nauseam left, these guys are heroes regardless of (or even in contradiction to) what they believed in and lived for, because they fought the Big Daddy.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Yeah, okay. (none / 0) (#393)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST

But that's the universal human tendency to support the underdog coming through, I think. Like my country's hero-worship of Ned Kelly, a multiply-murdering bushranger.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

underdog? (none / 0) (#396)
by Battle Troll on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:54:08 PM EST

The Republicans in the Spanish Civil War are forgotten in popular culture. Trotsky and Che live on. Look, this shouldn't even be an argument - in left circles, you can cite Mao, much less Marx as a source without getting smacked about, and you have even odds of safely citing Stalin. The attitude that 'they may be bastards, but at least they were our bastards' is hardly limited to the likes of those conservatives that backed Pinochet; it's unavoidable in realpolitik.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't do that among Lefties (3.00 / 2) (#380)
by QuickFox on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 08:16:37 AM EST

Careful. They might think it's alive. Many of them are animal rights activists.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fi
[ Parent ]
Socialism is communism without the revolution (none / 0) (#370)
by cosmicv on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 09:38:19 PM EST

Their goals and end game are both the same when fully implemented.

[ Parent ]
Perfect example (none / 0) (#450)
by MoebiusStreet on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 04:22:08 PM EST

Socialism, however, has much to offer when suitably restrained by democracy and capitalism

I've made a hobby over the past year or so of reading economics texts (I'm currently working on Hayek's The Road to Serfdom). So I feel qualified to point out that you're committing the precise error that you disavow.

I know of no serious economist who today advocates socialism. It is a dead horse. There are flavors of it that are still in favor among Keynesians, but it's been relabeled as social fillintheword to get away from the stigma attached to the failures of that school.

Moreover, the post shows a misunderstanding of the schools of thought. Democracy is a red herring, as it implies nothing about economic theory or policies. And saying that socialism works when restrained by capitalism is oxymoronic. Socialism is the opposite of capitalism; one can't be used to keep the other in line.

Communism, socialism, and fascism are all variations on a theme of central planning and absence of individual control. This is the opposite of capitalism -- the use of a market system to optimally direct capital. So it's clear that rather than discarding a disgraced idea, Liberals have painted a new face on it while continuing to cherish it.

Finally, it's odd to insert a comment about Australian movements when this is a discussion about American political movements (not that the Australians should be trivialized, they're just not relevant examples of American Liberals). To understand why this is important, you've got to go back about a century and a half to see the origin of the term "liberal". At this time it was understood to indicate individual liberty, i.e., minimal government controls. However, in Continental Europe and the USA the term was co-opted by those with a nanny agenda (the Fabians, FDR's New Deal). The original term survived much longer in England. So when referring to Australians, it's difficult to understand what political movement to associate this with.

[ Parent ]

More Than One Flavor (none / 0) (#467)
by czolgosz on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:44:37 AM EST

Moreover, the post shows a misunderstanding of the schools of thought. Democracy is a red herring, as it implies nothing about economic theory or policies.
On the contrary, some economic policies can be in greater alignment with democratic principles than others. And some economic policies (for example, redistribution from the many poor to the few rich, or the existence of a property right of one person in another) are profoundly incompatible with democracy.

Communism, socialism, and fascism are all variations on a theme of central planning and absence of individual control.
Well, except for those variants of socialism that don't involve central planning, or at least no more than equivalently complex capitalistic arrangements. Not all socialism derives from Marx. And some variants of corporatist capitalism have as much state involvement in the economy as you find in some socialist states. And it is only certain factions among capitalists that believe in laissez-faire. Others willingly mingle state and corporate power when it suits their business interests to do so-- much of the Bush administration's behavior is inexplicable without understanding this. And looking at history, the laissez-faire model has most often been honored in the breach. A more typical example of capitalism in the wild is the French system.

Look, the bottom line is that it's possible for economies to be organized in many different ways, in order to responsive to many different alternative sets of policy priorities. One highly-generalized definition of socialism is a polity where values of fairness and collaboration are given precendence over the value of potentially unlimited reward for enterprise or the value of inherited wealth and privilege. This is an assertion of the relative priority of values, and is in no way dependent on assumptions about particular means of organizing an economy.

I am a socialist in the sense that I favor a system that delivers this result: given a choice between fairness and potentially unlimited reward, I choose that it be biased towards fairness. It is inevitable that such a system will still have to be compliant with the immutable laws of economics, whatever those may be. Otherwise it won't work. That probably means that some microeconomic principles, in particular, that exist under capitalism will still be there in a socialist system; for example, competition and markets. But it is by no means inevitable that the Chicago School have definitively articulated these laws. Far more likely, their predominance is a combination of public relations, alignment of their policy recommendations with the interest of the current ruling class (as if made to order...?), and the political weakness of advocates of different economic orders.

Putting it differently, the prevalence of Friedmanite ideas among the kleptocrats who currently rule the developed world is not evidence that Friedman is right. In the late 19th century there were widely-held notions of British racial superiority, and the extent of the British Empire was then cited as evidence of the truth of these notions. But the notions were in reality nothing but convenient myths to support a corrupt, coercive political order and to make it seem more inevitable and less odious. The same goes for many of the prevalent ideas of political economy that are current today. And like jingoism in its day (which in Iraq is today), they leave a wake of destruction, but you don't hear much about it because its victims are excluded from power and the media only refers to them using mass nouns.

Oh, and in response to another post: socialism is not the "opposite of capitalism." It makes better sense to think of it as a layer on top of it. A higher-level protocol.


Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
[ Parent ]
Corporate control (none / 0) (#471)
by strawser on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 11:56:39 AM EST

Communism, socialism, and fascism are all variations on a theme of central planning and absence of individual control. This is the opposite of capitalism -- the use of a market system to optimally direct capital.

How about monopolized markets, or those operating under collusive conglomerates? It may not be the official government controlling the market, but it's still a centeral group.



"Traveler, there is no path. You make the path as you walk." -- Antonio Machado
[ Parent ]
Regress as Progress (none / 0) (#452)
by Mason on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 01:56:45 AM EST

This is just comical, calling people who are trying to suppress the teaching of evolution "progressive".  Plenty of people on the left are stupid, obviously, about the same percentage as among the left-handed.  Taking the antics of a political doctrine's most misinformed constituents as proof of its invalidity is clearly fallacious.

And you truly think the Right has moved on?  White supremacists are putting out hits on judges, fundamentalists are seeking to rewrite any part of America that contradicts their fanaticism, and so much sniping has been done at gender equality over the past 30 years that "feminism" has become a dirty word, even as disparity of pay and advancement remains a reality.

In truth, the Right can't win on these issues, but that doesn't mean they've dropped them.  Rather, they let the far-right stew in its own madness, and repackage whatever far-right memes they can for mainstream consumption.  You'll never hear Rush say, "I really dislike black/poor/gay people."  But listen to his show for long enough, and you'll pick up lots of reasons to dislike them yourself.

I'll give you a point here, that Republicans are far more willing to creatively tailor themselves in the naked pursuit of power.  But you're a fool if you think it is based on a rational assessment of the value of ideas.  More usually, it is like Bush and his tax cut;  when there was a surplus we needed a tax cut, and when the economy was slumping and the deficit was huge we needed a bigger tax cut.  Yes that's flexible, in a sick sort of way, but it is also fundamentally irrational.

Democrats, on the other hand, tend to do this weird thing where they name a goal (balanced budget, perhaps) and then try to decide how to best accomplish it.  Republicans just do what they are ideologically required to do, and then move the goal posts to call it a victory.  Remember where the goal posts used to be on the Iraq war?

You also really failed to trot out many sacred liberal cows, despite the many paragraphs alluding to them.  What does the list include?  Maybe poverty is a good thing, and we should have more working poor.  And the environment is only a problem if you listen to scientists.  Stupid scientists!  Human rights are a bummer, so outdated.

Dumb liberals.  If you listen to them, you'd think this nation was founded in a spirit of secular tolerance by a bunch of free-thinking anti-corporatist do-gooders.  And that'd just be nutty.

[ Parent ]

may the truth set us free (none / 1) (#375)
by stock on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 09:59:40 PM EST

Don't fall into the trap of going into a psychotic mind-sickening discussion with the neo cons. Its only bad for your health.

a couple a assumptions from me :

The neo cons are the descendants of what i would call the conservatives of america who adore their overpowered leaders without any form of criticism. Where and when have we seen that before? The issues which are at stake :

Your freedoms as an individual, which we all have become used to and which we might not take for granted anymore.

National card id, bio metrics , RFID and bio-metrics which seem very logical to introduce, but actually abuse everything America was founded on.

Health care abuse on local, state and federal level. All children "will need" to get mandatory Vaccinations, but if your kid gets a malfunctioning shot, you already lost all your rights to prosecute as parents? Well at least the state made sure you lost enough cash to pay for a prosecution.

A shitload of controversial plans, already written up decades ago, which are hammered down on christmass eve every year, when everyone is feasting happy holidays. Who ever read one of their Law proposals before the actual vote?

The abuse of genetics science on food and human beings, eventually leading to the destruction of man kind or degrading mankind into a mind controlled slave by the use of bio genetics chips.

The ever lasting propulsion of fear on an nationwide scale by the introduction of the home alone security department part 1 , part2 etc.

The deliberate dumbing down of school education.

The list goes on and on. What i want to make clear is that going into discussion with the neo con part of society, be it in the Senate, House , Thinktanks or the GOP, will not be of much use, as one is being identified as a partisan democrat, liberal or conservative before even a word or question has been raised. Its what i would call the Ann Coulter approach of discussion.

These neo cons are part of a evil network of people who systematic hammer down and defamate anyone who has sensible contra arguments to be made to their already old warchest of plans. neo cons just don't listen to alternativ viewpoints. They just tell lies for the good cause, also known as Straussian Politics, thought up by Leo Strauss from the Chicago University.

It even goes as far that when Bush says "leave no Child behind", the loyal bush administration minions will laugh with evil as they know exactly that they will hunt down every Child in the nation to either get it jailed , hospitalized in mental care or feeded with flakey Vaccin shots.

These types are just evil. So when they come near to your place to get their way, stand up and refuse to get yourself bio-chipped or whatever is on their agenda. Having a good-willing discussion with these types is of no use, as the past sadly has proven otherwise, time over time. So when they feel so powerfull that they even think they can start swinging their swastikas, like Prince Harry in the UK was doing, stand up and take these dudes down.

My conclusion so far : If the neo cons are human beings, their behavior can only be explained if they are in some way or the other mind controlled, as all what they say and thrive for is in contradiction their own existance as human beings.

Robert M. Stockmann
stock@stokkie.net
Issues concerning the Desire of a New World Order

You are correct, in principle, wrong in practice (none / 1) (#420)
by djkitsch on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 07:42:53 AM EST

There is one thing that the average person has in common with everyone else, whether they are conservative or liberal:

The have a habitual inability to "re-frame" (as the author would put it) the opposition's viewpoint within the opposition's frame of reference. If you like, call it "seeing the argument from their point of view". Conflict resolution at any level, whether it be playground fights or national politics, will almost inevitably fail if at least one party fails to appreciate *why* the other side is taking a contrary view.

I think that the author of the book reviewed is quite right in saying that although neo-con views are stupid and short-sighted, they are much, much smarter than most liberal speakers because they understand that language and belief systems are more complex than simply presenting truths.

The whole point is that they DO listen to alternative viewpoints, and then turn them around and re-frame them within a negative context. Liberals fail because we call their policies "evil" and refuse to consider why they think the way they do, missing the point that "evil" is an intinsically Conservative concept - from a liberal standpoint, they do what they do because they believe they are right, and we should all be strongly outspoken about our *own* self-belief if we are to convice the electorate.

Be intelligent about your responses and attitude towards their beliefs - we must use their own techniques if we want to turn the average citizen's thinking around.

-------------------------
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
[ Parent ]

Hmm (2.25 / 4) (#378)
by trhurler on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 02:23:23 AM EST

You realize that this was the tactic of socialists for a good eighty years or so, right? And that Democrats in the US do it just as ardently as your hated neocons?:)

Also, what western country other than the US has seen anything like the neocons? Please put up or shut up on this point.

I imagine these "discoveries" must have come straight from Lenin's playbook. That's where the neocons found them, after all...

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Howard government in australia (none / 0) (#383)
by Cackmobile on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:21:59 AM EST

the gov is oz is exactly the same (ok we don't have the hardcore christians) using the same tactics.

[ Parent ]
With just as pissweak an opposition. nt (none / 0) (#395)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:42:58 PM EST


"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

agreed(nt) (none / 0) (#422)
by Cackmobile on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 11:03:15 AM EST



[ Parent ]
yes the (none / 0) (#473)
by OxymoronicAgnosticKnowItAll on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 03:56:06 PM EST

neo-cons are everywhere in the western world -- they just call them nationalists or less pleasant names in other nations

[ Parent ]
Not that this wasn't an interesting article, (none / 1) (#427)
by wobblywizard on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:42:47 PM EST

but it's all been done before:

Thirty-eight ways to win an argument.

This info is quite old. The old greeks did it. Too lazy to look up an link right now though. Interesting debate generated by thsi article though.

--
You never win an argument with anyone who fucks you or signs your paychecks. I just smile, bite my lip and sip my drink. --Philalawyer

I almost forgot: (none / 1) (#428)
by wobblywizard on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:46:26 PM EST

Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten

Same article in German with a bit of an introduction, for those who understand it.

--
You never win an argument with anyone who fucks you or signs your paychecks. I just smile, bite my lip and sip my drink. --Philalawyer
[ Parent ]

Friends and Enemies (none / 0) (#464)
by T818 on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 10:52:30 PM EST

Neo-cons debate around the friend enemy axis rather than the true false axis. To some extent speaking the truth to a neo-con is besides the point. The question the neo-con has is are you on board. The idea that neo-cons are weighing evidence and then coming to a rationale conclusion based on the evidence is mistaken. As Lakoff states the neo-con goal is to express values. Fighting evil is enough for neo-cons. Actually vanquishing evil is irrrelevant. I think by and large the evidence is in and debate irrelevant. For example assuming one thinks the military expeditions of Bush will bring about democracy as democracy is understood in the West support Bush. On the other hand if one assumes that only Potemkin democracies are likely to be established then one tries to re-build the Democratic Party. There is no point talking about the matter now. Iraq is a special case. The US broke it and now the US must fix it and this is so even if the likelihood of spreading Democracy throughout the Mideast is pretty low. Keep informed, vote but the idea that the far right is going to be persuaded by argument of any kind is naive.

In other words (none / 0) (#468)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:19:35 AM EST

because neo-cons are willing to tolerate dissent and accept a variety of view points, they are evil.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?
[ Parent ]
In other words II (none / 0) (#469)
by T818 on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:15:11 PM EST

In other words just 'arguing the truth' is no-go. Is Bush bringing Democracy to the Mideast? Yes or no the argument is unprovable. Basically one must spin arguments around basic positions which are themselves impossible to prove. Spin is unvoidable. Neo-cons claim all facts support the idea that Bush is bringing Democracy to the Mideast. I think the facts suggest that Bush is bringing Islamic governments dependent on the US military to power around the Middle East. Neither view is airtight but just stating the facts is pointless. When arguing one paints a picture which hopefully tracks events but at bottom all political arguments are based on certain assumptions. One selects arguments that reflect those assumptions. I disagree with the idea that trickery must be used. The debating tactics of neo-cons are acceptable. Where neo-cons go wrong is in basic assummptions. But of course this is unprovable.

[ Parent ]
Progressive Trickery | 470 comments (443 topical, 27 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest ę 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!