Hard Sell on Iraq
John Rennie
"Selling a misguided war is a lot like selling cigarettes. You can never
tell the tragic truth about your product"
Just where are Selena and even Bayle now that their chickens are coming home
to roost.
John Rennie
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vzEhb.213$ca2.6...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1060813,00.html
"The breakdown of law and order began with the departure of Saddam Hussein's
regime, and with it the brutal system of control that had made Baghdad a
relatively safe city for its size."
Yes, I'm bitter and angry and I want those miserable apologists for Bush to
come out from their hiding places and to try and justify their support for
the insane invasion of Iraq.
Gene Zitver
Well I don't apologize for this, John:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10572-2003Oct10.html
Since the major fighting ended, I've been critical of the Bush administration's
mistakes and failures, but I haven't changed my position on the rightness of
ousting Saddam and his henchmen from power. Since June, I've been doing most of
my Iraq-related commentary on the weblog in which I participate:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/
Gene
Ballyvara
"Gene Zitver" <gzi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031011123441...@mb-m26.aol.com...
I'm going to Iraq next month, so maybe I'll get the chance for a first hand
report.
Gene Zitver
>I'm going to Iraq next month, so maybe I'll get the chance for a first hand
>report.
Are you the one whose son is over there? Best wishes to him, and to you for a
safe visit.
Gene
Martha Bridegam
Gene Zitver wrote:
Likewise. We can disagree about the wisdom of the commanders but that's a
different conversation.
Wld be interested to know if the soldiers are beginning to learn enough Arabic
to avoid silly misunderstandings. As you noted many months ago, the language
barrier seems like the most easily fixed problem. But I'm, obviously, not there,
and you will be.
/M
Martha Bridegam
Gene Zitver wrote:
I trust you've seen this bit via Atrios about unknown parties sending identical
proud letters to newspapers on behalf of real hometown soldiers:
<http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031011/frontpage/121390.shtml>. Some of
the soldiers themselves are quoted as saying they agree with the letters but
didn't write them.
In the long run, whoever is doing this probably isn't helping anyone.
/M
Gene Zitver
>I trust you've seen this bit via Atrios about unknown parties sending
>identical
>proud letters to newspapers on behalf of real hometown soldiers:
><http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031011/frontpage/121390.shtml>. Some
>of
>the soldiers themselves are quoted as saying they agree with the letters but
>didn't write them.
>
>In the long run, whoever is doing this probably isn't helping anyone.
Hadn't seen it, but yes, I agree. Signing people's names to a letter without
their permission is a sleazy and self-defeating thing to do.
Off-topic, I don't know if you saw this article in today's Washington Post, but
I present it without comment, realizing it can be used for malign purposes if
it falls into the wrong hands:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10674-2003Oct10.html
Gene
John Rennie
>
> >"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:vzEhb.213$ca2.6...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/10/opinion/10HERB.html
> >>
> >> "Selling a misguided war is a lot like selling cigarettes. You can
never
> >> tell the tragic truth about your product"
> >>
> >> Just where are Selena and even Bayle now that their chickens are coming
> >home
> >> to roost.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >and even Gene doesn't mention the war any more:
> >
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1060813,00.html
> >
> >"The breakdown of law and order began with the departure of Saddam
Hussein's
> >regime, and with it the brutal system of control that had made Baghdad a
> >relatively safe city for its size."
> >
> >
> >Yes, I'm bitter and angry and I want those miserable apologists for Bush
to
> >come out from their hiding places and to try and justify their support
for
> >the insane invasion of Iraq.
>
> Well I don't apologize for this, John:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10572-2003Oct10.html
For what, Gene? The state of the south of Iraq, the Marsh Arabs or the
Shi'ites who have just had their spiritual leader murdered? Iraq is being
fractured irrevocably. The Kurds will never let the rest of the Iraqis
rule them; Sunnis will never let a Shi'ite majority rule them and will
endeavour
to control the north. And what's the latest? 10,000 Turks to enter
Iraqn -
I wonder what their agenda will be - the re-establishment of the Ottomans?
That last sentence was a joke but then the whole bloody mess is a joke.
>
> Since the major fighting ended, I've been critical of the Bush
administration's
> mistakes and failures, but I haven't changed my position on the rightness
of
> ousting Saddam and his henchmen from power.
Then you are pig-headed which is a shame.
SiShince June, I've been doing most of
John Rennie
"Martha Bridegam" <ma...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3F8847F5...@pacbell.net...
That all depends in what capacity he will perform in Iraq. From the crowd
control scenes shown on ALL TV channels I don't see American soldiers
practicing their language skills.
Martha Bridegam
Gene Zitver wrote:
> ....
> Off-topic, I don't know if you saw this article in today's Washington Post, but
> I present it without comment, realizing it can be used for malign purposes if
> it falls into the wrong hands:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10674-2003Oct10.html
>
> Gene
I've worked with three of the people quoted in that article & find a lot of what
they say to be accurate, but in the last few days I've also heard favorable
comments about Schwarzenegger from a gay man with AIDS and a severely depressed
methadone patient, both of whom live on public benefits. Talk about chickens
voting for Colonel Sanders. The problem was that voters projected their own wishes
onto a figure who presented himself as a politically clean and fresh outsider
although in fact he had close connections to the national Republican machine.
That's a thought well outlined in this article by a psychologist, which I've also
quoted on my weblog:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/10/10/EDGNU28LMU1.DTL>.
/M
Hay Nongunahora
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vzEhb.213$ca2.6...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Licking the blood from their lips? Fondling their fattened wallets?
Preparing to defend the League of Evil's next 'humanitarian' venture?
Hay
Hay Nongunahora
Sounds a lot like it's better to apologize afterwards than to refrain
from doing wrong in the first place. Your support for the murder of
thousands of innocent people as well as the killing of others on both
sides is not surprising though morally reprehensible, especially in
claiming that one side's murders are for the good.
Hay
Pete Bayle
Glad to see you miss us John, though if I remember correctly you were
kill filing me when I left, so maybe I've been here all the time.
I have been basking in Arnold's victory in California. A collapse of
both the democratic party and the media, who conducted a non-stop
campaign against him from the get go (as if Arnold needs to answer a
pretty-face talking air-head in the news media)and were decisively
repudiated by the voters. I wonder if it had anything to do with the
fact that Teddy Kennedy was guilty of manslaughter and Clinton was
accused of rape as well as sexual harassment of Kathleen Wiley (sp??)
in the White House and the democrats and feminists didn't give a damn.
Armold wants to grope some babes in Hollywood, come see me after you
repudiate Kennedy and Clinton. Funny, they still don't know what hit
them.
And not coincidently Bush's approval ratings have jumped back to 56%.
Bush having taken the same left wing media and democratic led
battering over the last two months.
I recently read a book review of Madeline Allbright's memoir, where
the reviewer reminds us of Allbright's comment to the Congress during
the Rwanda crisis. That sending troops to Rwanda without a "sound
plan" would be folly.
Then I read a comment by Churchill on Oct 7, 1941 in "RAF Bomber
Command in the Second World War" by Denis Richards, where Churchill is
responding to the fact that a government report (The Butt Report)
concluded that only 1/3 of the bombers over Europe even got within
five miles of their targets. (imagaine CNN and the BBC today with this
info). Churchill, after deciding to continue the policy (given the
lack of alternatives) and noting that "all things are always on the
move simultaneously" and exploring some scenarios, makes the following
comment.
"One has to do the best one can, but he is an unwise man who thinks
there is any certain method to win this war, or indeed any other war
between equals in strength. The only plan is to persevere."
We can quibble about how equal the US and the terrorists ultimately
are. And perhaps if you want the US to pull out and see a civil war in
Iraq, in order to spite evil America, elect a democrat to make America
safe for abortion, gay marriage and 10 commandment free zones
(something 77% of America disagree with by the way) and thus fulfill
another bloody leftist agenda under the guise of anti-imperialism we
might agree. Civil wars among your enemies aren't necessarily a bad
thing. For example I plan on enjoying the power struggle among the
Palestineans when Arafat goes. Less suicide bomber to draw from.
But meanwhile, you can take Allbright, I'll take Churchill. Seems
that's true even in the democratic party, at least among the "serious"
candidates.
Last week in the democratic debate in California, the moderator asked
the candidates to refrain from criticing Bush (since we all know they
hate Bush) but instead to tell the public what they would do in Iraq,
now that we are there. They were clueless. Even Wesley "War Criminal"
Clark. Even Howard Dean said that we had to stay and finish the job.
Criticim without responsibility.
The economy is starting to recover and the democrats are showing that
they are unable to act like adults, pandering to the true believers on
the left of their party. When the American voter gets to see these
lunatics a Bush landslide is back in play.
To recap, the war was still correct, the criticism of Bush is mostly
childish political rhetoric. Just like Tony Blair at the Labor Party
conference, no apologies. We did the right thing.
As for where I've been, I've been doing some traveling. Even visited
San Francisco (the homeless problem is out of control, worst I've ever
seen. A disgrace. The people in the city are the nicest I've ever seen
to strangers, extremely friendly and helpful. Though maybe that's due
to the fact that there are so many ex dot.com millionares working at
Borders.)
As for defending Bush in ABGO, it is just not worth the effort. As Tom
D said, it's like a bar. You all just want to hear your buddies
telling yourselves what you all know is true. Not very interesting
that.
Martha Bridegam
Pete Bayle wrote:
<snipping renewed hard-right propaganda>
You know, killfiling by hand was never very practical. I'm going to try plonking mechanically for a change.
/M
j.rennie1
"Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3F8E1855...@pacbell.net...
I invited Bayle back; blame me.
ROBBIE
Are you really going to killfile Bayle? You and Rennie are serious Ostriches
>
ROBBIE
The Guardian is a newspaper written by and for cunts.
You are John 'Musso Made the Trains Run On Time' Rennie from now on.
Seen Winston Silcott's coming out of the nick next week? Made me have what
Biggles used to get when he saw something that really pricked him off: a
'mirthless grin'. He's stabbed two people death in the last 20 years and got
fifty grand over being wrongfully pinched over hacking Keith Blakelock to
death. 'Time for justice' said Silcott's father.
>
ROBBIE
>
>
> That all depends in what capacity he will perform in Iraq. From the
crowd
> control scenes shown on ALL TV channels I don't see American soldiers
> practicing their language skills.
>
>
Soldiery isn't one of the strong points of the US Army though is it John?
ROBBIE
>
> to control the north. And what's the latest? 10,000 Turks to enter
> Iraqn -
Are the Kurds going to join forces with them, like when they practised
genocide on the Armenians?
j.rennie1
"ROBBIE" <word_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bmohqc$pefuj$1...@ID-200782.news.uni-berlin.de...
Interesting comment but confusing. What's your stance now on
the Iraqi war?
ROBBIE
"j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:27Qjb.8092$pz5.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
>
>
> Interesting comment but confusing. What's your stance now on
> the Iraqi war?
>
>
My stance is pretty much unchanged- sick of all the people wringing their
hands about sanition in Baghdad. The Guardian would have been sqawking in
Berlin about two hours after the war finished. Students and the
Student-minded can never see beyond their little rebellions. Yes its huge
mess. The whole WMD argument means jack shit george to me- totalitarian
despots need to be routed out. This doesn't neccesarily put me in favour of
Bush, just keeps me at odds with the pea brained protest contingent who
organised the Let's Forget About Saddam Hussein Because, Like, Man, US
Imperialism Really Annoys Us and This Is the Only Thing That Gets Us Up Of
Our Fat Wallets And Marching and We Don't Really Think About The
Ramifications of our Lennonised Stupidity All We Are Saying marches.
j.rennie1
Questions.
1) Do you think the Iraqis are better off for the invasion?
2) Do you think that they will be able to govern themselves democratically
or otherwise within say three years?
3) Do you think Iraq will able to remain as one unit and does it matter
if it doesn't?
4) When the 'coalition' (sic) departs do you think Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd
will be able to co-exist whether or not they are still all Iraqis or not?
5) Do you think 'the war on terror' has been helped or hindered by the
Iraq war?
6) Do you think Israel's position is now stronger because of the invasion?
7) Do you think that any western firm (other than arms manufacturers)
will make any profits out of Iraq?
8) Do you think Bush's motives were wholly altruistic?
9) Do you think the world is a safer place because of the war?
10) Do you think?
ROBBIE
>
>
> Questions.
> 1) Do you think the Iraqis are better off for the invasion?
Yes- but they are too stupid to realise it.
> 2) Do you think that they will be able to govern themselves democratically
> or otherwise within say three years?
Probably not- they are a scabbyknackered horse thieving type of people and
democracy won't be their strong point; unlike cunty lefters I don't think
that this failing qualifies them to be left alone under a fascist dictator,
as you do.
> 3) Do you think Iraq will able to remain as one unit and does it matter
> if it doesn't?
The only way out of all this is either 1) colonising, the whole fucking lot
of them- flood them with money so they forget about their cockamamy
religion-- like we did-- or 2) it's going to come to Oppenheimer's party
trick. Me, I don't mind dying, but I don't want to die at the hand of
towelheadism and his bullishit religion.
> 4) When the 'coalition' (sic) departs do you think Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd
> will be able to co-exist whether or not they are still all Iraqis or not?
Probably not, but it wasn't it wonderful of us to try and give the ignorant
and benighted a chance at democracy and give 'em a rest from having
outspoken people force-fed petrol and set alight?
> 5) Do you think 'the war on terror' has been helped or hindered by the
> Iraq war?
They're coming our way, Iraq or no Iraq. I understand as an Aldermaston
Marcher your talent is believing 9 impossible things before breakfast but...
> 6) Do you think Israel's position is now stronger because of the invasion?
The jews are a fucking pest no matter what way you cut it. An arrogant,
shitty bunch. My girlfriend who is the most friendly, happy, well disposed
person you will meet, has been pissed off by Israelis on three continents; i
mean she has not a bad word to say about anyone, I mean she lived off Rye
Lane in Peckham and never once even sighed and *she* ejaculated this last
week: 'oh the fucking Israelis in Ecuador, the most arrogant people I've
ever met in my whole life.' Anmd she's posh Rennie, and left wing and
privately educated, y'know John, your sort of lefty! As we both know, the
jews behaviour down there leaves a fucking lot to be desired.
> 7) Do you think that any western firm (other than arms manufacturers)
> will make any profits out of Iraq?
Don't know. Probably.
> 8) Do you think Bush's motives were wholly altruistic?
No it was a temper tantrum and he's a deeply worrying figure. He's pricked
me off by not subjugating Iran and hanging that cunt Mugabe on live TV.
> 9) Do you think the world is a safer place because of the war?
It wasn't before and is marginally less so now. We've had it good for a long
time Rennie baby; this 55 years of peace has created people like yourself,
bank clerk Panglossians who have hobby politics and its usually about some
country 16 000 miles away: getting uptight about street lighting in Baghdad
as you sign the cheque for your kid's private education, that sort of caper.
> 10) Do you think?
>
All the time John, as is evident from my posts.
>
j.rennie1
>
> "j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Z0Tjb.8174$pz5.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> >
>
> >
> > Questions.
> > 1) Do you think the Iraqis are better off for the invasion?
>
> Yes- but they are too stupid to realise it.
>
> > 2) Do you think that they will be able to govern themselves
democratically
> > or otherwise within say three years?
>
> Probably not- they are a scabbyknackered horse thieving type of people and
> democracy won't be their strong point; unlike cunty lefters I don't think
> that this failing qualifies them to be left alone under a fascist
dictator,
> as you do.
Good dirty fun all this - do you have any serious comments?
ROBBIE
The serious comment is, is they, principally the US, are going to have to
sort it out and realise the extent of what they've got themselves into- I
was in favour of regime change and trying to bring that area out of the 12th
century before they become powerful and unstable enough to put us all
*into* the 12th Century. . I think it'll do the US the world of good to be
stuck down there police forcing that lot (the sort of soul destroying grind
that our grannies called 'good for the soul')- then they'll realise what
cunts they were about us in Northern Ireland. They can have some of it now,
it may mean they finally start to lose some of that insulting fucking
brashness- this is the start of the US's swan dive into the Elephant's
graveyard of empires.
>
>
Don Aitken
conflicts with the undeclared aim of a pro-American government. Any
genuinely democratic government is going to be bitterly anti-American,
for the same reasons that public opinion in every other Arab country
is anti-American, plus a few special ones of their own. And if they
try to hang on for too long they will find themselves with a bigger
and better version of what Israel faces in the West Bank.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Martha Bridegam
ROBBIE wrote:
Evgeny Shvarts' *The Dragon* has been around for some time but it answers this
line of reasoning well. It's even anti-Stalinist, which should endear it to
all of present company.
/M
Gene Zitver
>The real problem is that the declared aim of a *democratic* government
>conflicts with the undeclared aim of a pro-American government. Any
>genuinely democratic government is going to be bitterly anti-American,
>for the same reasons that public opinion in every other Arab country
>is anti-American, plus a few special ones of their own. And if they
>try to hang on for too long they will find themselves with a bigger
>and better version of what Israel faces in the West Bank.
Somewhat related: since the main fighting ended, a number of Iraqi weblogs in
English have popped up. Of course each blog is just one person's perspective on
what's going on, and a tiny part of the whole picture, but they're there and
we're not.
The newest one is at: http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
He has links on the right to some of the others.
Gene
ROBBIE
>
>
>
> Evgeny Shvarts' *The Dragon* has been around for some time but it answers
this
> line of reasoning well. It's even anti-Stalinist, which should endear it
to
> all of present company.
>
> /M
I assume the play says 'every government with an undemocratic heart needs a
monster to look outward to' etc but I may be wrong- could you give me a
brisk precis cos googling turned up scant information.
>
Hay Nongunahora
"Pete Bayle" <pete_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8d9486cd.03101...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> As for defending Bush in ABGO, it is just not worth the effort. As
Tom
> D said, it's like a bar. You all just want to hear your buddies
> telling yourselves what you all know is true. Not very interesting
> that.
Actually, most of us would like to hear the truth, which, as has been
repeatedly demonstrated, the Bush Administration has great difficulty
speaking.
Hay
Martha Bridegam
ROBBIE wrote:
Sorry, I had mentioned the story here before. Essentially a dragon oppresses a
city; a hero comes along and slays the dragon; and the people promptly hail
the hero as the new dragon. It doesn't quite occur to the people -- or the
hero -- that they could govern themselves and hence have no need for a dragon.
/M
Alan Hogue
>I have been basking in Arnold's victory in California. A collapse of
>both the democratic party and the media, who conducted a non-stop
>campaign against him from the get go (as if Arnold needs to answer a
>pretty-face talking air-head in the news media)and were decisively
>repudiated by the voters. I wonder if it had anything to do with the
>fact that Teddy Kennedy was guilty of manslaughter and Clinton was
>accused of rape as well as sexual harassment of Kathleen Wiley (sp??)
>in the White House and the democrats and feminists didn't give a damn.
>Armold wants to grope some babes in Hollywood, come see me after you
>repudiate Kennedy and Clinton. Funny, they still don't know what hit
>them.
>
Well, I don't know whether you watched a lot of california TV news
during the campaign, but the local shows in the SF bay area (the only
part of the state, I've heard, to go against Arnold at the election)
could hardly stop following Arnold's every move, and they rarely did
more than mention that other people were running at all. Hardly sounds
like a defeat of the media to me.
And of course you realize that your analogy with Kennedy and Clinton
(whatever its merits) cuts both ways.
>And not coincidently Bush's approval ratings have jumped back to 56%.
>Bush having taken the same left wing media and democratic led
>battering over the last two months.
>
The democrats aren't supposed to batter the republicans? Oh yeah,
forgot. We're supposed to be bi-partisan these days -- or maybe better
to call it uni-partisan. How dare they?
As for the rest...
>As for defending Bush in ABGO, it is just not worth the effort. As Tom
>D said, it's like a bar. You all just want to hear your buddies
>telling yourselves what you all know is true. Not very interesting
>that.
>
Bingo. Might as well go back to your buddies.
Alan H.
Alan Hogue
I don't think it's so unreasonable. Bayle's not going to win anyone over
with that stuff, just blow off some steam and get whatever cheering
section he has, or thinks he has, going. When Bayle tried to be
reasonable he could be pretty persuasive, I thought, but he seems to
have given up on all that. If that's all it's good for, why waste time
on it?
Alan H.
Martha Bridegam
> ....>And not coincidently Bush's approval ratings have jumped back to
> 56%.
....
As of this writing, not un-satisfyingly, they're now at 50% -- the lowest
yet -- and negatives are up dramatically:
<http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm>.
But even talking this way in terms of popularity ratings -- no mater what
side one takes -- is an example of a bad political climate, a la what I
was saying in the other thread. There's a good article by Ben DeMott in
the November Harper's on "junk politics" that has an interesting take on
similar themes. Very much recommended reading. I wish Harper's would put
more of its content online.
/M
ROBBIE
"Alan Hogue" <aho...@lawdot.berkeleydot.edu> wrote in message
news:bn6gj0$15h0$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> ROBBIE wrote:
> >
>
> I don't think it's so unreasonable. Bayle's not going to win anyone over
> with that stuff, just blow off some steam and get whatever cheering
> section he has, or thinks he has, going. When Bayle tried to be
> reasonable he could be pretty persuasive, I thought, but he seems to
> have given up on all that. If that's all it's good for, why waste time
> on it?
>
> Alan H.
Beacause he poses intereting questions and stops the libs here thinking that
they are right all the time or rather, makes the libs here work harder at
thinking they're right all the time.
>
Alan Hogue
ROBBIE wrote:
I disagree. He probably makes them uncomfortable, but I don't think a
rant like that is a real challenge to them. But whatever, I do think
it's good to be exposed to that sort of thing from time to time.
Presumably Bayle is now off posting in alt.politics.trotsky, following
his implied dictum of not preaching to the converted. Right.
Alan H.
Martha Bridegam
ROBBIE wrote:
It's an old Freudian truism that people tend to criticize their own faults in
others. Lately we've seen the right wing again elevating projection from mere
character defect to conscious, aggressive political tactic. Now we've got
hard-right ideologues pretending to be victims of self-righteous censorship
while simultaneously refusing to consider opposing views. What happens then is
a process of persuasion by insult that exploits the liberal's belief in
fairness -- which a right-wing ideologue sees only as a weakness to be
exploited. Hence, the ideologue says, you don't have an open mind, you won't
listen to me. The kind liberal says, well, no, why, of course I'm willing to
listen. The ideologue lets out a spew of slander and says, you monster, you're
self-righteous, you're smug, how dare you fail to recognize your faults. The
kind liberal says oh, excuse me sir, you may be right, look, see how I
castigate myself quite thoroughly. The ideologue says, you are drowning me out.
The liberal apologizes. Until the liberal wakes up. Which is beginning to
happen.
<http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20030713>
/M
ROBBIE
"Martha 'I'm not an idealogue' Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in
message news:3F9810F0...@pacbell.net...
<swallows back rising nausea>
I love the fact that you don't see that, next to Bayle, in fact *more* than
Bayle, you are *the* idealogue on this newsie.
Why don't you write some children's fables, your style would suit it.
>
Jonathan Niedenfurer
<snip>
> It's an old Freudian truism that people tend to criticize their own
faults in
> others. Lately we've seen the right wing again elevating projection
from mere
> character defect to conscious, aggressive political tactic. Now
we've got
> hard-right ideologues pretending to be victims of self-righteous
censorship
> while simultaneously refusing to consider opposing views. What
happens then is
> a process of persuasion by insult that exploits the liberal's belief
in
> fairness -- which a right-wing ideologue sees only as a weakness to
be
> exploited. Hence, the ideologue says, you don't have an open mind,
you won't
> listen to me. The kind liberal says, well, no, why, of course I'm
willing to
> listen. The ideologue lets out a spew of slander and says, you
monster, you're
> self-righteous, you're smug, how dare you fail to recognize your
faults.
been wondering why no one was pointing this out.
thanks,
jon
Martha Bridegam
eulogy for a man of the left, courtesy of Cursor:
<http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1193/article11586.asp>.
/M
Alan Hogue
>It's an old Freudian truism that people tend to criticize their own faults in
>others. Lately we've seen the right wing again elevating projection from mere
>character defect to conscious, aggressive political tactic. Now we've got
>hard-right ideologues pretending to be victims of self-righteous censorship
>while simultaneously refusing to consider opposing views. What happens then is
>a process of persuasion by insult that exploits the liberal's belief in
>fairness -- which a right-wing ideologue sees only as a weakness to be
>exploited. Hence, the ideologue says, you don't have an open mind, you won't
>listen to me. The kind liberal says, well, no, why, of course I'm willing to
>listen. The ideologue lets out a spew of slander and says, you monster, you're
>self-righteous, you're smug, how dare you fail to recognize your faults. The
>kind liberal says oh, excuse me sir, you may be right, look, see how I
>castigate myself quite thoroughly. The ideologue says, you are drowning me out.
>The liberal apologizes. Until the liberal wakes up. Which is beginning to
>happen.
><http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20030713>
>
>/M
>
>
Well put. I've seen this happen a lot myself. Don't know about other
parts of the world, but in this country the right has really descended
to cage match tactics and it's really alarming, considering that
democracy of whatever degree ultimately depends upon the participants'
respect for the rule of law. Once people start getting it in their heads
that any tactic is worthwhile if it gets political results, we're that
close to coups and assassinations and oligarchs and all those things we
all think we don't want.
What really makes such a speech stand out then, I think, is the implicit
sense that the right is now morally right to pull any kind of tactic
because in his mind the left has already let the cat out of the bag,
apparently playing such dirty tricks (like Clinton not getting thrown
out of office) that, short of rounding-up all the wild-eyed lunatic
liberals (you know, like that frothing nutcase Joe Lieberman), anything
goes.
Of course, he persists in applying only the highest moral standards to
the left, even though he seems to think the gloves are off, and goes
apeshit when they don't live up to it. What kind of sense does this make?
Alan H.