Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
The point is that totalitarians ARE human beings. Human beings, human beings that for situational/sociological/psychological/ideological reasons do totalitarian things.
Recognizing that, pointing that out, raising awareness of that, reducing the situational factors ... that's the only way to avoid it from happening.
Thanks but if you read or listen to even a small amount of Howie he fills his spiels with "I think" and its variations; he is so not presented by his bosses as "fair and balanced" though I'll bet that he is fool enough to think himself so.
And yes it should be pointed out. If I seemed to suggest that there was never any purpose, my apologies to all.
But really... take a tour through the Lefty blogs and if one of them has posted something about Kurz then you will see it parroted everywhere. GG introduces this post by referencing his of a few days ago. The echoes begin to drown themselves out.
And at a certain point it is just silly. Yes we all know what a tool Howie is. Does anyone think that there is a progressive alive on the planet who doesn't know that? OK, a few but only because they are sight, speech, and hearing impaired. Not even many of them.
Oh the humanity! How many more cyber trees must die to repeat the charges against Howie?
And it is because we are at so important a moment in our nation's life that I do think it a terrible waste to so focus on such a weak tool, so easy a target. He has no more power than that given him by his masters. Those are the ones our attention needs to be focused on IMO.
And those who are now putting themselves forward to lead us.
But I get the message.
Basically what is wanted are posts that say Oh Yes GG, What A Perceptive Post And How Evil That Big Meanie Kurtz And His RightWingNut Enablers Are!
So here goes:
Wow Glenn, thanks for another brilliant post! Don't know how you do it! Kurtz is such a tarded tool, doesn't even allow comments, ever noticed that? Gotta give him one thing though: he does seem to have raised boring predictability to an art form. Not as easy as it seems I bet.
God would speak to us through a burning bush!!
Look, I'm not speaking as someone without blood on my hands. I hate the authoritarian bent of this administration and I've been crudely outspoken about it.
But I think we do more harm than good by demonizing, labeling and ascribing all sorts of mental ills to people we disagree with.
Isn't some portion of this labeling a process of dehumanizing conservatives that we must undertake to justify hatred and to establish our superiority?
I mean, I can prove that George Bush is not evil. Think about it. If he had planted just one truckload of anthrax making equipment, one small sack of fissile material in Iraq, approval for the Iraq war would still be over 50%. The outcomes of his policies may be evil. He may be flawed, personally. He is more likely just wrong.
Damn you all for making me sound like a moderate.
much as respect both his opinions and his ability to express them, is wrong in this case. Unless you require a certain type of paint, an amulet can be made without molesting in any way a single egg.
I have a friend who makes amulets -- also rattles, sistrums, talking sticks and fetish objects of all kinds for working shamans. He agrees that no eggs were harmed in the production of any of these essential spiritual tools. GWB is from an older school of thought; those who believe that when the going gets tough, the eggs'll have to look out for themselves.
I agree that hypocrisy occurs on both sides of the aisle (and in every human being, myself no exception). I also agree that both sides try to point it out and are right to do so. I'm not complaining about that. What I am trying to articulate is what seems to me to be a philosophical difference between left and right that is the reason why, in the short run, the right wing is so successful at smears, almost no matter how ridiculous. This philosophical difference reflects the fact that the two sides of the human personality that the right and left represent are not equally committed to open, reasoned discourse as a way of addressing societal concerns.
Reactionaries/Conservatives/Authoritarians find open, public discourse scary and weak-seeming. It's frightening to see Daddy in doubt. It feels like undermining Daddy to question him and run the risk of having him appear to be in doubt. I'm not even claiming to be myself immune from this reaction. Some part of me wishes there were a wise political father I could trust to do the right thing. If only there were a wise and virtuous Leader then my own virtue as an American foot soldier would be the uncomplicated task of offering unconditional loyalty to that Leader. This is the dream of many right-wing types (of course there are temperamental rightwingers in the liberal camp and vice versa). The rise of the so-called "politics of character" is the rise of this dream. The country doesn't need to know the facts and issues, such a politics argues. All the country needs to know is the "character" of the Leader. If he has the right character, then we can offer unquestioning, unconditional loyalty. Once Daddy is identified, criticism of Daddy is destructive and must be suppressed. That's why so few right wing blogs have comment sections and, more generally, why conservatives are so supportive of secrecy.
The relevance to this discussion is that unconditional loyalty includes distortions of reality--lying or promoting dishonest framing of issues and facts--for the higher purpose of supporting the Leader. Smearing the other side is as noble as hiding Jews from the Gestapo. Thus, the problem is that it is impossible to shame people of this mindset into adhering to truth because they believe themselves to be doing something virtuous in departing from it. Their "higher truth" trumps petty-minded facts any day, and allows them to be self-righteous even when proven wrong over and over.
Again, I don't mean to argue for a minute that there isn't some of this happening on both the left and the right. I do believe, however, that as a philosophical matter the right wing welcomes it more easily. The deepest value of the Enlightenment, against which conservatism has historically fought, is that so-called "higher truths" must be exposed to day and tested by reason. Daddy *must* be subjected to question. His decisions must be shown to be based on facts; they must make sense as a matter of reason, and they need to be made in the open with the participation of others. Otherwise, those decisions will not only be poorer, they will inevitably be corrupt. I understand the emotional dreams of the right wing, but my life has taught me that the Enlightenment was simply right about this.
Thus, we have to keep fighting for things to be in the open, against our own childish longings and against the sincere, though wrong-headed, resistance of conservatives. There will never be an easy way to combat the willingness to distort. It will always be slow, uncertain and victorious--if at all--only in the long run. The issue is very much in doubt.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
