Letters to the Editor
-
Who will stay the hand?
[Glenn, from the post]: He should simply ignore all of that and continue to obey the mandates of neoconservatism because that is what is Good and his God will be pleased.
"God said to Abraham, 'kill me a son'...." -- R. Zimmerman
3197 and counting. I think we're waiting for Godot.
Cheers,
-
The Gamester are a poison batch of alehouse baby rattlesnakes
Before I go to the fields, (and if I find a worm, may I please go fishing?) can this be a Salon alehouse for these fake-Anglers who are always looking for a fight, to LEARN? Invite them even if you Do-Not serve fried fish today, okay?
There is a book I suggest to those neocons, "The Contemplative Man's Recreation" by Izaak Walton. It's my wish these creeps would go to the creek, throw in the line, towel, and sinker and apologize.
Get out of D.C. and allow the tumultuous times to go away, real fast. "The Complete Angler, subtitled or sometimes titled, 'The contemplative man's recreation,'
can help.
---which means this group is not peace-loving American or good whatsoever---'they' are those who despise Angling, Anglo, and they are UN-America. And they are unworthy of respect. The sour complexion is a pity. We forbear for a while, but they are rotten-fish tails. Give them babies a bigbad rattlesnake to play with.
There are good red-necks and bad red-necks. These 'kids' are nasty rattlesankes. Pity?
-
Because, just because
Why do you assume Digby's a he? -- sysprog
It's a purely grammatical assumption. If he's a she, no one could be happier than your humble correspondent.
-
I always wondered about this...
You know, I always wondered if Bush was just a sly politico masquerading as a mental defective for the purposes of electoral calculation...your article has now, at last, cleared this up for me. He has some pretty good political moves (mostly because of people like Rove), but he is, in his heart, a dry-drunk frat-boy coke-head who's been bailed out of every problem he's ever had by his rich parents and their friends. He uses "god" as a convenient excuse for his will-to-power. In short, he is, very likely, the single most dangerous president we've ever had, and he was put into power surrounded by a phalanx of lies.
I know from evidence that he regards his constituents (except the rich ones) with nothing but contempt, but I suspect that is simply an inheritance from his social class, and not cynicism born of actual intelligence.
The right-wing intelligensia in this country has been aiming for a president like this for 40 years or more. It's rather amazing he hasn't done even more damage then he's already done.
And it's even more amazing that Congress has not has the courage to put him out of business... that, all by itself, is a good example of how our system is broken...if, indeed, it has ever worked right to begin with.
-
Histerical eedjitcy....
They also told the President to ignore the fact that other powerful countries and even empires that tried to dominate the world have all collapsed. Those incidents are irrelevant and teach us nothing because -- unlike the Glorious Leader today -- those people simply lacked the Will to Power. Thus:
Second lesson: Will trumps wealth. The Romans, the tsars, and other rich world powers fell to poorer ones because they lacked the will to fight and survive. Whereas World War II was almost over before Americans saw the first picture of a dead soldier, today the steady drumbeat of media pessimism and television coverage are sapping the West's will.
Ask Hirohito. Ohhh ... nevermind.
Cheers,
-
@ Iokannan in the Well
I've nothing to add to Glenn's analysis, save to wonder how any human being with even the thinnest grasp of reality could possibly believe this rubbish.
"Divine Whatever" as the ultimate arbitor?
"Will trumps wealth"?
"History will judge..."?
I'm just wondering how any rational person could have voted for the eedjit to be Leader Of The Free World....
Cheers,
-
Unmask911:
I am the gentile CAMERA here to call BS on your mention of covert anti semitism. Get off it. Israel's behavior belies any such tired, mendacious attribution.
Learn how to read. When text is indented, it means someone is being quoted. The sentence that referes to "covert anti-Semitism" is Selzer's, not mine.
I know that, as a member of that tiny and elite club of those who Have Discovered The Single Hidden Truth That Explains Everything, you have special privileges, but attributing statements to people that they didn't make isn't one of them.
-
@ David
I think Glenn should add a scary music soundtrack to the post. And darkened, freeze-framed photos of the Evil Emperor himself, Norman Podhoretz, whispering in Stelzer's ear.
-- David
How nice of you to take a moment out of your busy schedule to join us. Now you can go back to what you were doing before -- drinking the blood of virgins.
-
@ Vast Left
[quoting Sidney Blumenthal]: The subject of Winston Churchill inspired Bush's self-reflection. The president confided to Roberts that he believes he has an advantage over Churchill, a reliable source with access to the conversation told me. He has faith in God, Bush explained, but Churchill, an agnostic, did not. Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill. Bush said he doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he is unpopular. He has God.
"Self-reflection". Yeah, that's the word. We're talking Narcissus "big-time" here.... '25th Amendment time' has long past come and gone....
Cheers,
-
Any takers out there?
"Unmask 911" is totally right. It's the J--E--W--S.
It's so funny how no commenter ever puts someone like "Unmask 911" in his place, when they regularly do just that when they disagree with comments posted here. And yet, people on the Left get all indignant when their side is accused of indulging anti-Semitism. Is there an honest commenter on this site willing to admit that there's a problem here?
-
"The Sounds of Silence"
David said: .... <*hmmmm ... hmmmmmmmm ... nothing of substance*>
Carry on.
Cheers,
-
Conservative and Liberal "lessons"
The political "lessons" of intellectuals necessarily focus on politics and economics. That is because Western society does not easily differentiate between politics and economics. Intellectuals as scientists, writers, artists and philosophers are generally left out of the discussion. When we discuss Intellectuals of the Left or Right we are mainly talking about politics and economics, or power and wealth, in that order.
Who are the Left's leading lights? Trying to comprise a list of the leading 20th century Intellectuals of the Left is like trying to comprise a list of the greatest bands of all time. Who would I personally vote for? It doesn't matter. What matters is who the majority of intellectuals, Right and Left, would vote for. Not to cheat, but since it takes time for ideas to find their way to the world stage, I begin with Marx. He's the Beatles of Liberalism in the minds of many intellectuals. In the 20th century we have Lenin, Trotsky and Mao for starters. The problem with these particular Intellectuals of the Left is that they were all totalitarian in their practice if not in their views. Where are the French? Sartre, de Beauvoir, and all the structuralists and post-structuralists? Where the heck in the Marxist list is a place for our American liberal sweethearts? People like Chomsky, Vidal, Sontag, Schlesinger? (BTW, where the hell have all of the other liberal public intellectuals in America been for the past 20 years? Maybe it's not your fault your universities have completely sold out to governmental, corporate and alumni donors and you can't speak out without risking your promotions and careers. Well, it's not our fault either. We needed you. You weren't there.) And where is Thomas Jefferson, along with other Founding Fathers one of the penultimate American liberal intellectuals, in this list?
This is where I get fuzzy. When I read an essay like this one, all of the Right's references to the Left point straight at Marxism, Communism and their descendents. And the people on the Right who are pointing their fingers talk, walk, write and act for the most part like traditional Marxist propagandists. Not only that, their proposed means and anticipated outcomes are the same as communism's. Class war is the means. One government, one world, one power is the outcome. How is that different from the "lessons" of the Right you describe in your essay? In my mind, unilateral is just another word for empire. Empires have rulers. Can you be an empire and democratic at the same time? I think not.
When I think of what lessons the Intellectuals of the Left (as defined by the Right) have taught us, and what lessons the Intellectuals of the Right have taught us, they seem to be the same lessons.