Letters to the Editor
-
@WT: Burke/Bork, etc.
If you've followed his flatulent and self-congratulatory pontifications as long as I have, you'd realize that he doesn't have much of a mind to change.
I have long been interested in the curious paradox that a small mind is harder to change than a large one. I happened to watch some (could not stand to see all of it, it was so embarrassing) a Bill Moyers show about Xian evangelicals and Likudist American Jews. Full of stupid stuff about "raptures" and the "second coming." Truly one of the more shocking revelations of these shocking times. My impression was that the extremely small minds on display would not be open to change--or even to the possibility that they might need to entertain any doubt about their absurd world-view.
PS: the notion of the "second coming" always reminds me of the marketing slogan of a house of sex-workers in the Australian outback: "Where the customer always comes first."
-
Let's give WinSmith exactly what he wants.
WinSmith just wants us to affirm that:
"You think there are key Jews with allegiance to Israel over America who are working behind the scenes to fund and support the Neo-Con movement."
Oh yes, I totally agree. Their names are Joe Lieberman, Michael Ledeen, and William Kristol. I have no doubt that they work behind the scenes, as well as in broad daylight, to fund and support the Neo-Con movement.
-
Glenn
Glenn, we're talking past each other.
I barely ever refer to anything about my individual attributes or private beliefs because I don't think that's what people come here to read. Has it ever occured to you that a person's religious views or lack thereor is a personal matter and really none of your business?
Uhm, yes? That's why I didn't bring it up. Someone else did. They mentioned you were Jewish, and I responded. I never brought it up because you never brought it up. Then someone else brought it up, and I responded since Glenn (you never brought it up) then I didn't think it factored in.
Go back and reread the exchange. Here's my response:
If Glenn is Jewish, he's never mentioned it or addressed it, so neither shall I. It clearly is not something he identifies with in any way, and he seems quite intent on proving it has no involvement in his ideological or intellectual arguments.
Now you're attacking me for bringing it up?
Wha-? How's that again?
The fact that you think you have the right to go running around shouting that Person X does not hold certain religious views based exclusively on the fact that he has not announced those views is indicative of the kind of rank fallacies and increasing dishonesty that permeate almost everything you have written today.
If you actively identified with being Jewish, I do think that would enter into your discussion of anti-Semitism. I don't see how it couldn't. Therefore if you choose not to mention then, I'm inclined to conclude that your religious life does not play a role.
I don't know what "rank fallacies and increasing dishonesty" mean here, other than calling me a jerk. In which case, just call me a jerk.
Again, I never brought up your personal religion. Someone else did. But from none of your arguments was I able to conclude your personal religion and/or life experiences influenced you on this issue.
If you want to argue our personal lives and experiences have no factor on our beliefs, then okay. I'm not sure I'd agree, but it's a valid argument to be made.
Almost every one of your comments here today has been grounded in one of two practices, if not both: (1) inventing views and attributing them to people who don't hold those views and (2) making statements without having the slightest idea if they're true. That has led you into the numerous fallacies which Paul Rosenberg and others have identified.
Oh please, Glenn, everything you do is about parsing out the real and unstated motives of wingnuts. But it can't be done here? Give me a break. Paging logical inconsistencies.
What are you doing if not ascribing hidden motive to the ADL?
Oh, that's right. You are.
But if I attempt to parse anti-Semitic motives, I'm wayyyy out of bounds.
Give me a break, Glenn.
Motivations for political argument are the core of your blog.
You parse the Sober Serious crowd with scathing wit and that's why I love your blog. Incidentally you're right about them.
Then I come along but since nobody "specifically stated" something, whoa is me for inferring anything.
Jebus Glenn, that's the ENTIRE CRUX of your blog.
-
Paul R
Logical fallacies have nothing whatever to do with the Frankfurt School specifically.
Of course they don't genius, the structuralists brought in affect and historical materialism into the dialectic. They argued that masses often perpetuate hegemony without awareness. Theirs was a revolution that felt no need to parse your inane and twitty "logical fallacy" schoolyardisms.
You claim if you say you're not perpetuating an anti-Semitic narrative loud enough, you're not. The structuralists would laugh you out of the building for your ignorance as to what's really motivating you.
But hey, tell me about how if A=B, then what can we conclude about C.
The entire point of structuralism was to reject your pedantic binaries.
-
David Brooks in 2004
http://nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/06BROO.html
The Era of Distortion
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: January 6, 2004Do you ever get the sense the whole world is becoming unhinged from reality? I started feeling that way awhile ago, when I was still working for The Weekly Standard and all these articles began appearing about how Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Bill Kristol and a bunch of ''neoconservatives'' at the magazine had taken over U.S. foreign policy.
[...] In truth, the people labeled neocons (con is short for ''conservative'' and neo is short for ''Jewish'') travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another.
[...] Still, there are apparently millions of people who cling to the notion that the world is controlled by well-organized and malevolent forces. And for a subset of these people, Jews are a handy explanation for everything.
[...] Improvements in information technology have not made public debate more realistic. On the contrary, anti-Semitism is resurgent. Conspiracy theories are prevalent.
- - David Brooks / Tuesday, January 6, 2004
http://dailyhowler.com/dh010604.shtml
TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2004
[...] In today’s column, Brooks crafts a new law, one that’s wickedly great: If you don’t agree with President Bush, that means that you’re anti-semitic.
[...] How bizarre is the world of Brooks’ privileged class? Try to believe that he wrote the following sentence. And try to believe that the Times chose to print it:
BROOKS: In truth, the people labeled neocons (con is short for “conservative” and neo is short for “Jewish”) travel in widely different circles and don’t actually have much contact with one another.
Amazing, isn’t it? As everyone except editor Gail Collins must know, the term “neoconservative” has been in use for many years, widely used by neoconservatives themselves. No, “neoconservative” doesn’t mean “Jewish.” But Brooks believes in the privilege of class. In BrooksVille, George Bush is your king; you are a serf; and you aren’t allowed to discuss your king’s actions. If you break these rules, you must be brought down. For Brooks, slimy accusation is the weapon of choice.
[...] Shedding wet tears, Brooks laments the work of those evil Bush critics:
BROOKS: The proliferation of media outlets and the segmentation of society have meant that it’s much easier for people to hive themselves off into like-minded cliques…
And if you can give your foes a collective name—liberals, fundamentalists or neocons—you can rob them of their individual humanity. All inhibitions are removed. You can say anything about them. You get to feed off their villainy and luxuriate in your own contrasting virtue.But this, of course, is what Brooks has done! In sweeping and ugly accusations, he suggests that all Bush’s foes are anti-semitic—although he doesn’t deign to name one name or give one specific example.
[...] If you disagree with Brooks’ king, then you—a serf—must be suppressed. A millenium ago, the Brookses yelled “witch.” Today he yells “anti-semitic.”
- - Bob Somerby / Tuesday, January 6, 2004