Fear and Loathing in the New York Times
Eli takes a break from science/policy blogging to bring you the definitive David Brooks takedown by Patrick Non-White at Popehat. Popehat is a libertarian blog that believes in punishing patent trolls and is rather absolute on free speech issues. David Brooks is a twit who has column inches in the NY Times, a punching bag for many, including Charles Pierce. Brooks recently outdid himself with a screed on the even more evil weed, and the entire blogosphere, left, right and confused took after his with a mighty grin. None better than Popehat which starts in best Roger Vadim Claude Lalouche fashion to describe Brook's ride through DC. . ..
The silver 2001 BMW 535i roared through Adams Morgan, occasionally screeching over the sidewalks as my accountant wrenched both hands from the wheel for another toke at the weed-pipe. "Gadzooks, man!" I shouted. "Can you keep it together for another fifteen miles, or at least outside the District limits?" We were halfway through our 35 mile journey from Bethesda to Falls Church, with enough dangerous narcotics to stun a grizzly bear in the trunk: We'd started with nine ounces of weed, six rocks of crack, a sugar jar full of blow, 36 vicodin tablets, a cage filled with live Bolivian arrow toads, and two jars of ketamine. Plus two quarts of Beefeater gin, a case of Schlitz malt liquor, and a four ounce ball of Afghan hash: Surely enough to get this pair of degenerate drug addicts to Fall's Church. After that what man could say? . . .Read the rest only after protecting your LCD
Posts
174 comments:
popehat linky screwed up. I feel like when I have seen those guys around it is by far on the free speech on the internet stuffs.
Fixed the link. Thanks.
My favorite so far has been Andrew Gelman's (if only for the last line.) http://andrewgelman.com/2014/01/03/booze-done/
That's Hunter S. Thompson, not Roger Vadim.
The white shoe rumor mill reports DB is looking for a 400 pond Samoan libel lawyer to sicc on Eli.
They all went to Japan to play Sumo.
Seitz has a habit of exaggerating.
Actually, the Samoan attorney was only 300 pounds in HST's mind, and in actuality was a 250 pound Chicano lawyer. Still, the Professorial Rabett being Acosta'd by a 250 pound Chicano attorney would make a great Ralph Steadman illustration.
My best copy of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a first edition (1971), signed by both Hunter S. Thompson and Ralph Steadman (the illustrator), book and dustcover both near fine. Steadman signed it in Lawrence, Kansas, when he was visiting William S. Burroughs. Burroughs and Thompson are dead now (Thompson died of acute lead poisoning before the nicotine could kill him). Perhaps we should ask Dr. Farley about the current state of fear and loathing in Las Vegas.
Your mention of Roger Vadim led me to the viewing of the classic Vadim film: "Barbarella". Highly recommended.
And now Jon Stewart has lit into poor ol' Dave. Hopefully he's regretting writing that column by now....
Only a pusilaminous calumniator would question the existence of Dr. Gonzo LLD , whose life and times HT celebrated in Rolling Stone decades ago.
As he disappeared shortly thereafter one can only speculate as to how far past his fighting weight he may have advanced if he yet lives.
He is always welcome at Chilmark's shotgun golf tournament.
Bring Seitz's knowledge up to the beginning of the century: "In Oscar's case, my only reason for describing him in the book as a 300-pound Samoan instead of a 250-pound Chicano lawyer was to protect him from the wrath of the L.A. cops and the whole California legal establishment he was constantly at war with." (Hunter S. Thompson, The Great Shark Hunt). Acosta's current weight is much less than 250 pounds, since all indications are that he is dead.
I also have several nice copies of The Great Shark Hunt in my library, first editions all, variable signed and decorated by Hunter S. Thompson and Ralph Steadman. Seitz mentions Rolling Stone. I have virtually all of the copies that Thompson and Steadman appeared in, together or separately, all in great shape. So, I'm prepared to answer any other questions you might have, Seitz. I suspect that Seitz didn't have much time to read Rolling Stone because of heavy responsibilities organizing young Republicans and campaigning for the likes of Richard Nixon (by the way, Hunter Thompson wrote the very best obit for Nixon --- it is priceless). Rolling Stone wasn't in existence for the Goldwater campaign, but I bet Seitz was out there for Goldwater also. Questions for Seitz: did you save your AuH20 button (it could be worth a few bucks on FleaBay); and will you sign my copy of In From the Cold?
Eli suggests that Daniel and Russell meet on a porch somewhere near Aspen and share a good smoke.
Nix Eli. The Good Doctor's demise arguably began with Aspen's 1985 smoking ban.
The PC might find one of Puerto Barrios' less pretentious knifing bars more accomodating.
Oh, yes, the proximate cause of HST's suicide must have been depression triggered by Aspen's smoking "ban" in 1985. What a joke. (How long have you been feeling this way, Seitz? Do you want to kill yourself --- at least faster than you already are --- because you can't feed your nicotine addiction? Because smoking regulations are violating your civil rights?)
Seitz seems to have forgotten that Colorado just legalized marihuana --- with appropriate regulation.
As of 2005 anyway, smokers still smoke in Aspen --- with appropriate regulations. http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20050522/ASPENWEEKLY/105220003
PC? Seitz projects. His bibliography is indicative of an extreme form of political correctness --- on the side of right wing, neoliberal fundamentalism. http://www.academia.edu/5415661/Russell_Seitz_Researchgate_bibliography
"Conducted research on military resource availability in Biafra, summer 1968..." eh? Doesn't sound like you made it to the war in Vietnam... I'll bet you were a strong Nixon and Vietnam war supporter when you came back from your Biafra "mission".
And I bet you were really concerned about the civil rights of those 2-3 million dead Vietnamese.
He Was a Crook
From Rolling Stone, June 16, 1994
HUNTER S. THOMPSONJUN 17 1994, 12:12 PM ET
MEMO FROM THE NATIONAL AFFAIRS DESK
DATE: MAY 1, 1994
FROM: DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON
SUBJECT: THE DEATH OF RICHARD NIXON: NOTES ON THE PASSING OF AN AMERICAN MONSTER.... HE WAS A LIAR AND A QUITTER, AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BURIED AT SEA.... BUT HE WAS, AFTER ALL, THE PRESIDENT.
"And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird."
---Revelation 18:2
Richard Nixon is gone now, and I am poorer for it. He was the real thing -- a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy. He could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time. He lied to his friends and betrayed the trust of his family. Not even Gerald Ford, the unhappy ex-president who pardoned Nixon and kept him out of prison, was immune to the evil fallout. Ford, who believes strongly in Heaven and Hell, has told more than one of his celebrity golf partners that "I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon."
I have had my own bloody relationship with Nixon for many years, but I am not worried about it landing me in hell with him. I have already been there with that bastard, and I am a better person for it. Nixon had the unique ability to make his enemies seem honorable, and we developed a keen sense of fraternity. Some of my best friends have hated Nixon all their lives. My mother hates Nixon, my son hates Nixon, I hate Nixon, and this hatred has brought us together.
Nixon laughed when I told him this. "Don't worry," he said, "I, too, am a family man, and we feel the same way about you." ...
Daniel, a link suffices
Relax, Eli--railing against the EPA's founder keeps his mind off who signed the Montreal Convention.
Yes, a link often suffices. But not always. Sometimes people like Nixon and Seitz are so twisted that they cannot be screwed into the straight line of a URL.
So, I'll just leave it with:
"Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning." (Hunter S. Thompson)
Not only did Nixon give us the EPA, he was also a supporter of the Clean Air Act. And he also proposed a plan for national healthcare that was arguably more liberal than either Clinton's health plan or the ACA. President Richard Nixon's Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, February 1974.
Nixon would not be welcome in today's GOP. There is a far right in the USA and it's name is the Republican Party.
Ah, yes, liberals. The other wing of the corporate party. Phil Ochs had liberals pegged many years ago:
Love Me, I'm a Liberal (Phil Ochs)
I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal
I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal
I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
And I'm glad the commies were thrown out
Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
As long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal
The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal
Yes, I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal
I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I attend all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
And I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal
Sure once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
Ah, but I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal
"Not only did Nixon give us the EPA, he was also a supporter of the Clean Air Act. "
Other laws either passed or underway before Nixon resigned include NEPA, ESA, NFMA, and the Clean Water Act. He also normalized relationships with China, being the first conservative in power in the US to recognize that different communist countries such as the USSR and China could have vastly different views in regard to domestic and foreign policy, and that China might dislike the USSR far more than the US despite the similarity in political structure shared by the two.
Of course he was also a crook, and bombed Hanoi unmercifully, lied about his "secret plan to end the war", etc.
Interesting guy, but not far right and as Kevin states, would not be welcome in today's far-right Republican Party.
"Ah, yes, liberals. The other wing of the corporate party. Phil Ochs had liberals pegged many years ago"
Right, we're not communists or full-on socialists or anarchists.
We're supposed to offended by this observation, or what?
You can wear whatever shoe fits. The labels are virtually meaningless. There is only the real, physical world and what people do or don't do. I am not going to try to balance the EPA against the lives of several million Vietnamese.
FINALLY I've found something to like about Seitz! Returning to Boston after his summer in Biafra in 1968 conducting research on military resource availability, Seitz apparently decides that what Biafrans lack is reliable intercontinental ballastic missles. (A million civilians died from fighting and famine in the secessionist war there between 1967 and 1970.) So, our helpful Dr. Strangelove collects the parts in the Boston area and starts building in his apartment, saying "I've got all the critical sub-assemblies for an ICBM... the rest is plumbing." Although the story first appeared in the Boston Globe, I like the St. Petersburg Times account (August 2, 1969) because it features a photo of "Russell Seitz With Missile He's Building" right next to a photo of Elvis Presley ("Elvis Swivels Again"). I am really impressed. Here I thought that Seitz was just another knee-jerk plain vanilla young republican. But, I was wrong. This is Fear and Loathing on the level of Hunter S. Thompson. This is an episode that almost made it into Dr. Strangelove. Seitz, do you have any copies of the photograph from the newspaper? Can I get a signed copy? Priceless whambo...
Ooops.
In retrospect, I can see that the omniscient Profe... - 01/09/2014 - Daniel Wirt
"The labels are virtually meaningless."
Then don't use them.
On the contrary, using them serves to illustrate just how meaningless they are. Wear the shoes that fit.
Professor Wabett, damn that's...
Phil Ochs' lyrics are full of detailed descriptions of shoe sizes... 555
Professor Wabett, damn that's fu...
Correction: the labels are virtually meaningless unless accompanied by a full description of shoes (for example, tassel loafers, studded tassels, black leather, Saint Laurent, size 12).
Burma Shave.
I actually enjoyed my visit to VVattsupwiththat.blogspot.com just now. But, now I am worried about Professor Wabett. Has anyone seen the Professor lately? Professor Wabett, are you there?
Oh god, the acromegalic Wabett has been rendered to North Korea. Or, even worse, rendered in North Korea...
"Phil Ochs' lyrics are full of detailed descriptions of shoe sizes… 555"
His lyrics boil down to saying liberals are hypocrits who don't walk the talk.
Which is not only offensive, but bullshit. The lyrics don't portray any liberal I'm personally aquainted with, including myself.
Now, perhaps the lyrics accurately portray you, regardless of whatever self-assigned label you choose, which would explain why the lyrics resonate so strongly with you. Self-guilt and all that.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own historical facts. Denialism is not limited to science --- it is also prevalent in historical facts. The Imperial Machine – the monster that destroys the biosphere, screws up economies, and spews violence on every continent is a bipartisan (multipartisan) affair --- "liberals", " conservatives", Republicans, Democrats, etc etc. The historical facts on this are very clear. You could start with Zinn's Peoples History of the United States and Blum's Killing Hope as an introduction. Obomba is just the latest iteration. As Glen Ford has said, Obomba was not the lesser evil, but the more effective evil. Obomba with his kill list and assault on civil liberties has every bit the 3W (war, waterboarding and wiretapping) credentials as Bush. Irony would have died when Obomba won the Nobel Peace Prize had not irony already suffered an agonizing death when Kissinger won it. The ACA is a complete disaster, meeting NONE of the criteria of true health care reform, entrenching the corporate predators that deny health care for a profit, a welfare program for insurance companies, further commodifying health care in the already profoundly dysfunctional US system. Are you an ObombaBot, birdman?
And birdman, since you asked, the label that I choose is "realist". As in the real world of facts/facts of the real world, predominately defined by (real) science and history. The most basic definition of insanity is being out of touch with reality. Variably debilitating mental illness is epidemic in the human population.
Daniel Wirt,
Funny, I didn't see the Realist party on the ballot in the 2012 election or I might have voted for them. What a pity your realism doesn't extend to politics, which, after all is the art of the possible.
Wirt: "The Imperial Machine – the monster that destroys the biosphere, screws up economies, and spews violence on every continent is a bipartisan (multipartisan) affair --- 'liberals', ' conservatives', Republicans, Democrats, etc etc."
A realist, as you claim to be, understands that in a world with other agents in it besides himself, reality can never conform perfectly with his ideal; and that all actions have "unintended" consequences.
So, Daniel Wirt, What Is To Be Done? Details, please: I'd like to know not just what your desired end state is, but how you plan to overcome the obstacles in the path from here to there. Keep in mind that anybunny might choose to be an obstacle themselves if they don't like your transition plan, even if they agree broadly with your goals.
Of course you didn't see the Realist Party (as in the reality of scientific and historical facts and certainty), because that would be antithetical to the US electoral system, which has always been in the control of the oligarchy. Art is great --- Mozart is arguably one of the greatest geniuses in human history. But the "art" of the current political system will not prevent the destruction of the biosphere. (The horses are probably already out of the barn, but some mitigation to lessen the sting might still be possible.) However, human activities, including politics, are subject to rigorous historical analysis, and historical certainty can be reached. In 2010, on this blog, you said: "...Basically, my criterion on whether I can vote for someone these days is whether they believe in physical reality. This pretty much crosses more than half the candidates off my list." I don't give a RA about what the politicians believe, it's WHAT THEY DO. And what they do is subject to rigorous historical analysis. No politician that could possibly be elected in the U.S. for major office will cross the interests of the oligarchs whose interest it is to commodify and destroy the biosphere. In the meantime, do you accept Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs as your Personal Savior?
"What Is To Be Done?"
On a macro scale, it is extremely unlikely that anything will or can be done to prevent massive damage to, virtual destruction of the biosphere, at least as humans know it. On a micro and regional scale, some temporizing and mitigation is probably possible, and that is my business and that of my family and friends.
I may not be able to change the reality of the destruction of the biosphere, but I damn sure can study the science and history, which are objective, fact-based, reality-based endeavors (despite the efforts of the deniers and merchants of doubt).
Regarding bunnies as obstacles... I can't stop rabbits from running out into the road. It's really tough to avoid smacking them on remote southern Utah roads...
Best wishes to you and your family.
"His lyrics (Phil Ochs, "Love Me, I'm a Liberal") boil down to saying liberals are hypocrits who don't walk the talk.
Which is not only offensive, but bullshit. The lyrics don't portray any liberal I'm personally aquainted with, including myself."
Indicating delusion or extreme isolation. Liberals have been major players in every sort of mendacity, venality and criminality.
"“Let me tell you about the very rich,” F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote. “They are different from you and me.”
And let me tell you about American leaders. In power, they don’t think the way you and I do. They don’t feel the way you and I do. They have supported “awful jihadists” and their moral equivalents for decades. Let’s begin in 1979 in Afghanistan, where the Moujahedeen (“holy warriors”) were in battle against a secular, progressive government supported by the Soviet Union; a “favorite tactic” of the Moujahedeen was “to torture victims [often Russians] by first cutting off their nose, ears, and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another”, producing “a slow, very painful death”.
With America’s massive and indispensable military backing in the 1980s, Afghanistan’s last secular government (bringing women into the 20th century) was overthrown, and out of the victorious Moujahedeen arose al Qaeda.
During this same period the United States was supporting the infamous Khmer Rouge of Cambodia; yes, the same charming lads of Pol Pot and The Killing Fields.
President Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a leading force behind the US support of both the Moujahedeen and the Khmer Rouge. What does that tell you about that American leader? Or Jimmy Carter – an inspiration out of office, but a rather different person in the White House? Or Nobel Peace Laureate Barack Obama, who chose Brzezinski as one of his advisers?" (William Blum)
Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis...
Liberals have been major players in every sort of mendacity, venality and criminality.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the 14 characteristic behavior of 'fascists'. You seem to display many of these same behaviors. You ... personally. The Latin crap seals it.
Golly, Daniel, what's it like to be so pure that you wouldn't even shake the hand of people trying to make things better--indeed, people who will accomplish more good than you will ever even dream of?
Wirt: "And let me tell you about American leaders. In power, they don’t think the way you and I do. They don’t feel the way you and I do. "
Do you think you're the only one that knows this? Politicians are just people who happen to be good at manipulating other people. They may or may not delude themselves that their motives are noble, but anyone who is paying attention isn't fooled. Be that as it may, the reality is that politicians are the people who create reality for the rest of us. You can take it as given that every RR regular already has that figured out. What I want to know is, how do you plan to change that collective reality?
Your comment is patently ridiculous Elifritz, indicating that you don't really understand the meaning of the word "fascism" --- but I know you just employed it as a lame, nonspecific insult. In fact, my ideology is the antithesis of all of the dozens of characteristics of fascists that have been formulated by many authors, not just Eco's 14, including my OPPOSITION to right wing fundamentalism, free market ( capitalist) fundamentalism, merging of corporate and authoritarian state power (which the US currently suffers from in spades), religious fundamentalism; war, militarism and imperialism; nationalism and authoritarianism; immigrant bashing (there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant), sexism, discrimination against minorities (including sexual/gender orientation), racism... Your use of the term as a vague insult was described by George Orwell years ago (1944). On the other hand, I think you project, because many of the characteristics have been exhibited and employed by Democrats and liberals at various times in US history. Is it criticism of the mendacity, venality, war crimes and moral outrages of liberals that provokes the "fascist" epithet from you? I think Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Hammond and Edward Snowden are all heroes --- does that sound like a "fascist" to you? The Obomba administration thinks they should be crucified. Let me see... what were those characteristics of fascism again? Again, if you doubt the liberal/Democratic hand in militarism, war and economic imperialism, read "Killing Hope", by the historian, William Blum. Then you could go back a little further with A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn. And, sorry you don't appreciate Latin, Elifritz (Mozart did). In summary, Elifriz, my ideology is aligned with the sign on Woody Guthrie's guitar ("this machine kills fascists").
Regarding Dilbert... Your comment is puerile and sophomoric. First, you set up a strawman (attributing to me a position or belief that I did not take or do not hold --- Dr. Strangelove Seitz likes to do that too). There are plenty of people "trying to make things better" whose hand I would gladly shake, even though I don't completely agree with them (for example, James Hansen, who I think is a brilliant climate scientist, a brave pioneer and intellectually honest, but with whom I disagree about nuclear power; or Alexander Cockburn, were he still alive, who was a brilliant political commentator, even those he was completely wrong about the most important issue in human history, the destruction of the biosphere due to anthropogenic global warming; or Dr. Strangelove Seitz, because he is world-class fear and loathing whambo and I want him to sign my copy of "In From the Cold", and I don't mind if he smokes at the same time, even though he apparently thinks that reasonable regulation of tobacco and nicotine to reduce the incidence of hooking children is a violation of his civil rights). On the other hand, there are many downright evil, deluded people doing mean, nasty, evil things who swear that they are "trying to make things better" --- I avoid them like the pneumonic plague. And finally, you have absolutely no idea of what "good" I may have done or be doing, and how this may compare with others:
"Golly, Daniel, what's it like to be so pure that you wouldn't even shake the hand of people trying to make things better--indeed, people who will accomplish more good than you will ever even dream of?"
I don't dream of doing good --- I've done that most days of most weeks for decades, doing my part to help patients survive serious malignancies ( much of it tobacco related and a lot of it in young people). I have done this with literally zero bias or prejudice with regard to class, race, sexual/gender orientation, education, political beliefs, religious beliefs, substance abuse or health habits. I think you owe me an apology.
And as long as we are on health care, I am not shy about saying that the ACA is a disaster that will cause the needless suffering, morbidity and mortality of millions --- all at a high dollar price and tidy profits for the insurance company predators who have been formally given the keys to the henhouse. This is high on the list of policies that ObombaBots should be ashamed of. The ACA achieves literally NONE of the criteria of true health care reform. Several years ago I pointed out in a couple of articles that health care is either a human right or it is a commodity that some people can afford and others cannot. The ACA has answered that question...
Mal Adapted says, "...the reality is that politicians are the people who create reality for the rest of us. You can take it as given that every RR regular already has that figured out. What I want to know is, how do you plan to change that collective reality?"
Politicians do not "...create reality for the rest of us." They create reality for many people, largely via Newspeak. This statement indicates that they are also, to at least some extent, creating your reality. But they do not create my reality. Reality does not need to be created, it just needs to be described and understood, largely via legitimate science and history (fact and evidence-based disciplines).
Perhaps you did not read my previous post carefully. I do not have any illusions about "...change(ing) that (the) collective reality..." Even if the horse was not already out of the barn (as it probably already is), I don't think it is possible to prevent the burning of large additional amounts of fossil fuels, massive over consumption and the devastation of the biosphere. This is simply (and unfortunately) the nature of homo not-so-sapient. Some temporizing and mitigation is theoretically possible on a global scale (reducing resource inequality, for example, so that the poor do not disproportionately suffer), but I doubt if even this will happen. Geoengineering is a fantasy, intriguing, but a fantasy. I definitely bear no ill will towards those quixotically attempting to radically reduce fossil fuel burning, over consumption and/or geoengineer to avoid AGW hell. In fact, I admire the work of Hansen, who in desperation turns to nuclear power, and people like Paul Beckwith, Sam Carana, AMEG, et al, who think about geoengineering, all honorable, intellectually honest, smart people I think. I greatly admire the scientists who debunked the nonsense of Gerlich, Tscheuschner and KrammBot (and this is what originally brought me to this blog --- now staying because of the irresistible prospect of getting Dr. Strangelove to sign my copy of "In From the Cold"). It has not escaped me that the debunking of G & T is an important event in the history of science, a longstanding interest of mine. I really like the Buddhist atmosphere at Science of Doom ( the title says it all...) --- it reminds me of sitting in Allen Ginsberg's tent while he chanted.
Also, like I said before, I do think that on a micro and regional level, some mitigation and temporizing is possible, and part of this is to be as kind, loving and generous as possible to family, friends and neighbors. Beyond that, what I do on the micro/ regional level is not a subject for this blog.
Om...
Your unread word salad aside, the fact that you have an ideology and are spewing it all over the comment box is generally a pretty bad sign.
Yes, Elifritz, I can see you have a little trouble with reading comprehension and the concept of fact-based ideology...
"You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own historical facts. "
When my own historical facts involve every liberal I've personally known, I'm perfectly entitled to my own historical facts.
As opposed to your hysterical facts.
God, you've done the impossible - you've made me think about possibly dealing with Seitz with an open mind.
Anyway, no point in dealing with you. If the Revolution comes, I'm comforted in knowing that, if history is any judges, you'll be hauled up against the wall and shot before I am, though not by much. The only difference between us is I'll expect it, while you'll be surprised …
"Daniel Wirt said...
And birdman"
Ahhh … just another shit like Anthony Watts, who, upon Googling, has discovered that I've done field work on and have published a lot photos of birds.
Apparently, doing field work and being a successful photographer is worthy of personal insult, for both right and left.
Why, Wirt? Why is my work in this area worthy of insult? My work in computer security isn't? My six-figure salary for working 30 hours a week isn't worthy of insult?
As Alexandar Blok said many decades ago, in post-revolutionary Russia …
"who marches on the right? left, left, left"
Or Wirt.
"And as long as we are on health care, I am not shy about saying that the ACA is a disaster that will cause the needless suffering, morbidity and mortality of millions --- all at a high dollar price and tidy profits for the insurance company predators who have been formally given the keys to the henhouse. This is high on the list of policies that ObombaBots should be ashamed of."
In other words, you have common ground with many, many liberals like myself who believe that a single-payer system would be much better than the ACA (said while disagreeing with your premise that the ACA will lead to a situation worse than before).
So, yoiu hate us liberals, who share your views on health care. Hmmm. Perhaps you are simply a right-wing fascist asshole who should move to NK.
Birdman,
Your historical facts don't go beyond your personal acquaintances? OK. Like I said, isolated. No need to know the facts about a liberal like Johnson and the Vietnam war? Or those pesky facts about the crimes and moral outrages committed by all political stripes, including liberals, documented by real historians like Blum and Zinn? You can lead a horse to water...
Birdman, I had no need to google you. I just happen to know what a "dhogaza" is. I wasn't aware that I had insulted your bird field work or photography. I've not seen your photographs. Yet another Strawman. In any case, anyone who chooses "dhogaza" is a birdman or bird woman. I'm not sure why you take it as an insult. Whenever I hear that word I think of Birdman of Alcatraz and symbols of freedom...
I'm glad I've motivated you to deal with Seitz with an open mind. I don't have any trouble dealing with Dr. Strangelove with an open mind --- again, the historical evidence is all that is necessary.
These are not my "hysterical facts". It is the work of professional historians. Just as scientific certainty is possible, historical certainty is possible.
You say you want a revolution? 555
Birdman says,
"So, yoiu hate us liberals, who share your views on health care. Hmmm. Perhaps you are simply a right-wing fascist asshole who should move to NK."
Multiple Strawmen... Haul out that time-tested general-purpose meaningless insult "fascist"... The very least you could do is read the Wikipedia entry. You project. Everything that I have written is so obviously the antithesis of right wing ideology and fascism. It is only because I dare to criticize liberal hypocrisy that you want to label me as a right wing fascist. In fact, the current Democratic administration demonstrates a number of the classic criteria of fascism. Should move to NK? Sort of like "love it or leave it"? What evidence do you have that I would be sympathetic to the regime in North Korea (other than I have the temerity to criticize the well- documented failings of liberals in US history)?
And how would I know what your views were on health care reform? Have you published on this? On the other hand, the Obamacare disaster would not have been possible without enormous support from liberals and ObombaBots. So, no, being a liberal does not equate to knowledge and clear thinking about health care reform. Perhaps I am wrong and you are an expert on health policy in the US and can tell me how the ACA meets the criteria of true health care reform, how it does not entrench the insurance companies who deny health care for a profit, how it does not poison the well for true reform, how it does not further the commodification of health care, how it does not put the vast administrative waste of US health care on steroids, how it will not leave many millions without health insurance, how it will not leave many millions more with dangerous and expensive underinsurance, how it will control costs, how it will provide comprehensive and equitable care, how it will prevent "death spirals" due to adverse selection. Then, perhaps you can tell me why you vaunted liberals want to crucify true patriots and heroes like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Hammond, Julian Assange? Why Obomba and ObombaBots support the continuous drone war, the presidential kill lists, the Afghanistan war, the incredible violation of civil liberties in the NSA surveillance state, the massive militarism and economic imperialism, the racist drug war, indefinite detention without due process, the virtual seamless joining of state and corporate power, the prison-industrial complex, the bailout (at taxpayer expense) instead of the prosecution of the Wall Street banksters that crashed the economy, and on and on. Do some of these sound like the characteristics of fascism? Or maybe you don't view Obomba and ObombaBots as liberals. What about Johnson and his supporters with regard to the Vietnam War? Were/are they liberals? What about Carter and Brzezinski --- were they and their supporters liberals? Are you just going to ignore history and hide in some isolated and delusional cocoon? Are you going to ignore what Bill Blum wrote about Carter, Brzezinski and Afghanistan? ( How nice that Obomba and Brzezinski have linked up...)
Correction:
Then, perhaps you can tell me why THE vaunted liberals want to crucify true patriots and heroes like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Hammond, Julian Assange?
And again, this time for birdman:
"“Let me tell you about the very rich,” F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote. “They are different from you and me.”
And let me tell you about American leaders. In power, they don’t think the way you and I do. They don’t feel the way you and I do. They have supported “awful jihadists” and their moral equivalents for decades. Let’s begin in 1979 in Afghanistan, where the Moujahedeen (“holy warriors”) were in battle against a secular, progressive government supported by the Soviet Union; a “favorite tactic” of the Moujahedeen was “to torture victims [often Russians] by first cutting off their nose, ears, and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another”, producing “a slow, very painful death”.
With America’s massive and indispensable military backing in the 1980s, Afghanistan’s last secular government (bringing women into the 20th century) was overthrown, and out of the victorious Moujahedeen arose al Qaeda.
During this same period the United States was supporting the infamous Khmer Rouge of Cambodia; yes, the same charming lads of Pol Pot and The Killing Fields.
President Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a leading force behind the US support of both the Moujahedeen and the Khmer Rouge. What does that tell you about that American leader? Or Jimmy Carter – an inspiration out of office, but a rather different person in the White House? Or Nobel Peace Laureate Barack Obama, who chose Brzezinski as one of his advisers?" (William Blum)
Anyone who cannot see that the US has a single highly militaristic, authoritarian and imperialistic corporate party with two wings, run by an oligarchy via a cadre of professional puppets and courtiers is delusional.
Wirt: " I have done this with literally zero bias or prejudice with regard to class, race, sexual/gender orientation, education, political beliefs, religious beliefs, substance abuse or health habits. I think you owe me an apology."
Gee, Daniel, sounds like you are a "liberal" after all. You'll do anything to make people like you short of having the courage to take an actual position on something that might have consequences.
Wirt: "Reality does not need to be created, it just needs to be described and understood, largely via legitimate science and history (fact and evidence-based disciplines)."
Uh huh. Talk is cheap. Quoth Lech Walesa (as clay-footed a people's hero as ever was) to a joint session of the U.S. Congress:
"I must tell you that the supply of words on the world market is plentiful, but the demand is falling. Let deeds follow words now."
So, Wirt, did Walesa create reality? Please support your answer with "facts" from history.
Dilbert says,
"Gee, Daniel, sounds like you are a "liberal" after all. You'll do anything to make people like you short of having the courage to take an actual position on something that might have consequences."
Strawman and incredibly irrational and nonsensical.
And ignorant of the positions I've taken and written about regarding issues of consequence. (Apparently even ignorant of the positions I've taken on this blog regarding drug prohibition, drug legalization/regulation, public health education, advocating that tobacco/nicotine producers and users bear the external costs, support for Oreskes' historical analyses of the merchants of doubt and science deniers, opposition to free market fundamentalism, opposition to economic imperialism, militarism, and most importantly, the destruction of the biosphere). On the other hand, it's clear that some cannot stand the criticism that liberals have often been hypocritical and complicit in the crimes and moral outrages. It is very obvious that my positions and citations of facts and evidence are not primarily designed to make people like me. Just look at your responses and those of a couple others. In fact, I believe that if some people liked you, it would only prove that you were an asshole...
I don't even think you know where liberals have historically fallen on the political spectrum: center, just to the right of center and just to the left of center. I am no liberal. It should be obvious that I am way to the left of center. But the labels are not as important as what people actually do or don't do.
You just skip from one Strawman to the next. First you say, "Golly, Daniel, what's it like to be so pure that you wouldn't even shake the hand of people trying to make things better--indeed, people who will accomplish more good than you will ever even dream of?" You say this in COMPLETE ignorance of what I do. Then I tell you some of what I do that debunks your assertion, "I don't dream of doing good --- I've done that most days of most weeks for decades, doing my part to help patients survive serious malignancies ( much of it tobacco related and a lot of it in young people). I have done this with literally zero bias or prejudice with regard to class, race, sexual/gender orientation, education, political beliefs, religious beliefs, substance abuse or health habits. I think you owe me an apology."
Do you really think that this falls "...short of having the courage to take an actual position on something that might have consequences..."? Does treating patients like this not something of consequence? Is this how all physicians and hospitals treat patients?
OK. So since you are apparently can't or won't do some simple research, I will lead the horse to the water. And let's see if it's true that I've not had the "...courage to take an actual position on something that might have consequences." I'll show you my last three articles, then you show me yours.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/03/03/single-payer-health-care-reform/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/03/06/remove-the-handle-from-the-health-insurance-misery-and-death-pump/
http://www.greanvillepost.com/2014/01/07/counterpunch-clinkers-the-republic-of-science-denial/#more-65449
Or do you want to compare peer-reviewed scientific papers?
But even more important than publications is what YOU have done in the past several decades on a weekly basis to "accomplish the good you dream of" (paraphrasing you). Well, show me, tell me.
MalAdapted says,
"Wirt: "Reality does not need to be created, it just needs to be described and understood, largely via legitimate science and history (fact and evidence-based disciplines)."
Uh huh. Talk is cheap. Quoth Lech Walesa (as clay-footed a people's hero as ever was) to a joint session of the U.S. Congress:
"I must tell you that the supply of words on the world market is plentiful, but the demand is falling. Let deeds follow words now."
So, Wirt, did Walesa create reality? Please support your answer with "facts" from history."
Are you suggesting that historical certainty cannot be reached after analyzing the evidence and facts? The facts and evidence regarding what Walesa did can be analyzed. I agree with Walesa --- words not backed up by facts (unsupported opinions) are cheap and largely meaningless --- what people do or don't do , deeds are important. No, Walesa did not "create reality" --- he acted, he did some things, he didn't do other things, and all this can be analyzed historically.
Just a little snippet for you: the Polish people grew weary of him and exchanged him for a former Communist leader:
In September 1993, the Democratic Left Alliance (DLA) – composed of the former Communist Party and other socialist groups – won the parliamentary election and formed a new government.
In March 1995, former Communist Party official Josef Olesky became the Prime Minister.
In November of the same year, Aleksander Kwasniewski of the DLA, and a former minister in the Communist regime, defeated Lech Walesa for the presidency.
Obviously Walesa is a complicated figure and no saint. The large- scale destruction of government files that occurred during his Presidency does not help define the uncertainties...
"They are all liberals"
"Carl Oglesby
The president of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), 1965-66, died September 13, age 76. I remember him best for a speech of his I heard during the March on Washington, November 27, 1965, a speech passionately received by the tens of thousands crowding the National Mall:
"The original commitment in Vietnam was made by President Truman, a mainstream liberal. It was seconded by President Eisenhower, a moderate liberal. It was intensified by the late President Kennedy, a flaming liberal. Think of the men who now engineer that war — those who study the maps, give the commands, push the buttons, and tally the dead: Bundy, McNamara, Rusk, Lodge, Goldberg, the President [Johnson] himself. They are not moral monsters. They are all honorable men. They are all liberals."
He insisted that America’s founding fathers would have been on his side. “Our dead revolutionaries would soon wonder why their country was fighting against what appeared to be a revolution.” He challenged those who called him anti-American: “I say, don’t blame me for that! Blame those who mouthed my liberal values and broke my American heart.”
"We are dealing now with a colossus that does not want to be changed. It will not change itself. It will not cooperate with those who want to change it. Those allies of ours in the government — are they really our allies? If they are, then they don’t need advice, they need constituencies; they don’t need study groups, they need a movement. And if they are not [our allies], then all the more reason for building that movement with the most relentless conviction."
It saddens me to think that virtually nothing has changed for the better in US foreign policy since Carl Oglesby spoke on the Mall that day. America’s wars are ongoing, perpetual, eternal. And the current war monger in the White House is regarded by many as a liberal, for whatever that’s worth.
“We took space back quickly, expensively, with total panic and close to maximum brutality,” war correspondent Michael Herr recalled about the US military in Vietnam. “Our machine was devastating. And versatile. It could do everything but stop.” "
(William Blum, 10-04-2011)
The liberals Clinton and Albright:
"“We have heard that a half million children have died,” said “60 Minutes” reporter Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq. “I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?”
Her guest, in May 1996, U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright, responded: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.”
Today, Secretary of State Albright travels around the world to gather support for yet more bombing of Iraq. The price, apparently, is still worth it. The price is of course being paid solely by the Iraqi people – a million or so men, women and children, dead and a previously well-off nation plunged into poverty, disease, and malnutrition from the previous bombings and seven years of sanctions..." (William Blum , February 1998)
Question for the liberals:
Why is Guantanamo still open?
Wirt, you seem to think you know things the rest of us don't. We don't have to wade through all your outpourings to see that you're apparently just now figuring out what's old hat to everyone else on this thread. Don't you realize how ridiculous that makes you look?
Please cultivate some self-awareness. Then, think twice, type once. If you really feel you have something original to say here, try saying only that, leaving out all the commonplace, and most importantly lose the attitude.
Supporting single-payer health care makes you "way left of center"? In what universe do you live … the US?
Single-payer health care is supported by the current conservative leaders of Germany, the UK, and Oz among others.
It is so obvious that I do.
And it is so obvious that there are several denialists here regarding U.S. history and the place of liberals in it.
It's so "old hat" that citing it produces the silly insult of " right wing fascist" from more than one participant here? Don't you realize how ignorant and ridiculous and reactionary it makes those people look?
"His lyrics (Phil Ochs, "Love Me, I'm a Liberal") boil down to saying liberals are hypocrits who don't walk the talk. Which is not only offensive, but bullshit. The lyrics don't portray any liberal I'm personally aquainted with, including myself."
Like I said, this indicates some combination of isolation, delusion and denial.
I've been aware of these threads in US history for a long time. Your contention that these things are "old hat" here is belied by the response to this history. It is pretty obvious that none of you have ever read any of William Blum's works. It is pretty obvious that some of you are ObombaBots who will tolerate no criticism of this disasterously bad president. It is pretty obvious that there is cognitive dissonance because of denied reality. You say that it is "commonplace". I don't think you're being honest. Show me where you and the other two have discussed these issues on this blog or any other blog or in any of your published articles. Show me.
"Lose the attitude"? You project. There are obviously some highly educated participants here, and then there are some who have demonstrated a low level in terms of factual knowledge and ability to communicate --- about all they can do is erect multiple strawmen and spew silly insults, including attacks based on EXACTLY OPPOSITE of my stated positions and what I've done in the past and what I do now. It is so patently intellectually dishonest.
Oh, what a pity we can't all achieve the level of purity we find in Daniel Wirt. But alas, some of us would rather actually accomplish something than wait until politics becomes pure.
Feel free to continue, Daniel, along your path of purity and irrelevance.
Blessed are the pure of heart for about all they can do is erect multiple strawmen and spew silly insults, including attacks based on EXACTLY OPPOSITE of my stated positions and what I've done in the past and what I do now.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Wirt's pretty typical of those who treat Blum and Zinn's writings as gospel, rather than understanding that while they have some valuable things to say, they are heavily biased. There is no One True Gospel of history, Wirt. It is best to read widely and critically, and to not be an ass in public.
After the Revolution comes, most likely you'll be the first to be lined up against the wall, as that's the way it usually goes when the extreme Left (or Right, or extremists of any flavor) takes power.
Meanwhile, your personal attacks, name-calling, air of superiority, conviction that you and only you pay attention to history, etc would be humorous if it weren't so pathetic.
Hmm, Ima defend Zinn here. In the front matter for my copy of A People's History of the U.S., he said his intent was not to say that conventional U.S. histories (i.e. written by the winners) are false, but that they aren't the whole story. In effect, he wanted to write U.S. history from the PoV of the losers. That strengthens the point that history isn't a single narrative thread that tells an unambiguous story, but is more like "what we agree to remember."
I don't have the book in front of me as I type, so this is my interpretation of what he said. It gave the book more credibility for me.
Zinn's Zealots seem to have forgotten the foreword, apparently, at least I've never met one who doesn't treat his People's History as being anything other than gospel.
Seitz projects again (attributing to others what he is most guilty of). A review of his posts shows that he has repeatedly employed Strawmen, earning him the nickname "Strawman Seitz". Seitz is in deep denial about his role in the historical account formulated by Oreskes. He objects to Oreskes' synthesis, but is unwilling (or unable) to compose a rebuttal. Oreskes has gotten it largely correct. Seitz is so enthralled by his right wing ideology, including free market fundamentalism that he equates reasonable regulation of a truly dangerous substance, as part of a strategy to prevent children from being addicted, to "prohibition" and a violation of his "civil rights". (Will you sign my copy of "In From the Cold", Seitz). I'll address the history deniers on this list in a little while --- after I finish with another tobacco-induced cancer case...
"I'll address the history deniers on this list in a little while"
I suspect that Wirt will deny the commonly known fact that Zinn believed that written history should serve ideology, and that any pretense of objectivity should be abandoned. When the Right does this, we don't applaud. When the Left does, I guess we're supposed to, right, Wirt?
dhogaza: "...the commonly known fact that Zinn believed that written history should serve ideology, and that any pretense of objectivity should be abandoned."
This is a complete misinterpretation of Zinn's beliefs. If it is commonly known, then it just shows that because a lot of people believe something, it doesn't make it true. Here's what Zinn actually says:
"Why should we cherish “objectivity”, as if ideas were innocent, as if they don’t serve one interest or another? Surely, we want to be objective if that means telling the truth as we see it, not concealing information that may be embarrassing to our point of view. But we don’t want to be objective if it means pretending that ideas don’t play a part in the social struggles of our time, that we don’t take sides in those struggles.
Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral. In a world already moving in certain directions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality means accepting the way things are now. It is a world of clashing interests – war against peace, nationalism against internationalism, equality against greed, and democracy against elitism – and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those conflicts.”
"Zinn's Zealots seem to have forgotten the foreword"
Well, you can't really blame Zinn for the zealots. The historical events he documents did happen, and every American should know about them. To that extent, I agree with Wirt.
It's just that any thinking person can figure out that there's more to the story than what they learned in school, and they can get up to speed just by visiting their local public library. It isn't as if books like PHotUS are hard to find. Hell, PHotUS alone sells over 100,000 copies a year. For some reason, though, it hasn't stopped Americans from electing leaders who start wars of convenience for their own self-serving reasons.
"The historical events he documents did happen, and every American should know about them."
True, but they don't necessarily fit into the simplistic narrative Zinn promotes, any more than biased narratives written by those on the right do.
""Why should we cherish “objectivity”, as if ideas were innocent, as if they don’t serve one interest or another? Surely, we want to be objective if that means telling the truth as we see it, not concealing information that may be embarrassing to our point of view. But we don’t want to be objective if it means pretending that ideas don’t play a part in the social struggles of our time, that we don’t take sides in those struggles."
Well, Kevin, this quote minimalizes the importance of objectivity when writing history. Zinn had an agenda, and he wrote to further that agenda. That was his motivation.
Birdman exhibits the full face of his intellectual dishonesty. First, compare Birdman's claim that "...Zinn believed that written history should serve ideology, and that any pretense of objectivity should be abandoned..." to what Zinn actually said: "Why should we cherish 'objectivity', as if ideas were innocent, as if they don't serve one interest or another? Surely, we want to be objective if that means telling the truth as we see it, not concealing information that may be embarrasing to our point of view. But we don't want to be objective if it means pretending that ideas don't play a part in the social struggles of our time, that we don't take sides in those struggles. Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral. In a world already moving in certain directions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality means accepting the way things are now. It is a world of clashing interests --- war against peace, nationalism against internationalism, equality against greed, and democracy against elitism --- and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those conflicts."
Second, note how strikingly similar Birdman's attack on Zinn is to the attacks on climate scientists (including Mann) by the merchants of doubt and deniers because the climate scientists have the temerity to express an "ideology" along with their science.
What boat does that put Birdman in?
I doubt if Birdman ever heard of Zinn and Blum before I cited them. But, the really telling thing is that Birdman will not/can not address the factual accuracy of any of the several examples of Blum's descriptions of liberal crimes and moral outrages that I have cited here. For example, we don't hear Birdman addressing the role of Carter and Brerzinski in Afghanistan.
I've asked MOD Seitz to compose a rebuttal and tell us exactly how, in detail, Oreskes misrepresented him (as he claims). He will not (or can not). It appears that Birdman can't address the facts or rebutt the evidence either. All Birdman can do is spew birdcrap like: "Perhaps you are simply a right-wing fascist asshole who should move to NK."
Birdman, your reading comprehension is not up to par. You say "...this quote minimalizes the importance of objectivity when writing history. Zinn had an agenda, and he wrote to further that agenda. That was his motivation."
If they are breathing, all humans have a value system, an ideology, an "agenda" if you want. A climate scientist like Mann has a value system (perhaps it is a desire to preserve the biosphere), and he may express those values, but that does not mean his science is not objectively based. Zinn's words do NOT "minimalize the importance of objectivity..." Zinn had a different value system than climate scientists (an admirable value system, by the way), and he expressed those values, but that does not mean his history is not objectively based.
In any case, Birdman, take one or several of Zinn's and Blum's accounts and debunk them (instead of waving your arms --- you can't fly, you know...)
"Second, note how strikingly similar Birdman's attack on Zinn is to the attacks on climate scientists (including Mann) by the merchants of doubt and deniers because the climate scientists have the temerity to express an "ideology" along with their science. "
Most climate scientists are quiet about their political beliefs yet are attacked anyway. Flout your ignorance, see if I care.
And I'm not attacking Zinn, I'm merely pointing out the obvious: he's biased, he's ideologically driven, he has interesting things to say but intentionally spins a simplistic, black/white narrative that doesn't capture the nuances of our country's history, etc. He's worth reading, but his word is not gospel.
" that does not mean his history is not objectively based."
No, the fact that he's not objective is what makes his history not objectively based.
Birdman apparently does not understand that history and science are never "settled", but historical certainty and scientific certainty are possible. Birdman says, "Wirt's pretty typical of those who treat
Blum and Zinn's writings as gospel, rather than understanding that while they have some valuable things to say, they are heavily biased. There is no One True Gospel of history, Wirt... Meanwhile, your personal attacks, name-calling, air of superiority, conviction that you pay attention to history, etc would be humorous if it weren't so pathetic."
Wrong on all counts. First, Zinn and Blum are objective historians who are not afraid to express their value system alongside the objective history (just like some very admirable climate scientists are now doing the same). Second, Strawman --- I do not take their writing as "gospel" --- I differ on some points to a variable degree. Third, you project. It was you with the nasty response to my posting of Phil Ochs lyrics (prompting me to say, if the shoe does not fit, don't wear it). Name calling? You mean like your silly insult directed at me, "right-wing fascist asshole who should move to NK"? Or, perhaps you take "Birdman" as an insult? "Air of superiority"? In the face of your obdurate ignorance, it is inevitible. And I think it is abundantly clear that your knowledge of liberals in U.S. history is lacking and/or delusional (that's a fixed, false belief).
If you have some trouble with Zinn's or Blum's accounts, come up with some rebuttals. I'm sure google can help you (but beware, you will be traveling in extreme right wingnut territory... 555)
Come on Birdman, analyze specific cases of Zinn and Blum's lack of objectivity. I'm sure you can come up with some great right-wing hack jobs. Why don't you start with Blum's description of the role of Carter/Brerzinski in Afghanistan and Cambodia?
"In any case, Birdman, take one or several of Zinn's and Blum's accounts and debunk them (instead of waving your arms --- you can't fly, you know...)"
Anyone who takes *any* historians writings as being gospel truth is simply being stupid. That, after all, was a central theme of Zinn's, that the traditional histories available to the public leave out a huge part of the story. He was right. He did the same himself when writing his narratives. The problem with Zinn isn't in the facts he presents - it is in his choices of which facts to include and which facts to exclude when writing his narrative, but real history is messy and doesn't lead to ideologically pure interpretations.
Birdman is obdurate in his ignorance.
Regarding climate science and advocacy:
Gavin Schmidt
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/agu-talk-on-science-and-advocacy/
Then you can go to several links from Gavin Schmidt's article, including Stephen Schneider.
Birdman, do you spend all your time masturbating on blog sites with one and two line birdcrap, rather than read realclimate?
Birdman, let's review just this much. The "gospel" has nothing to do with this; this is a matter of evidence and facts, not magical ideation. History, like science is never "settled", but historical certainty, like scientific certainty is possible. Evolution is a scientific certainty, although there are still some unanswered questions. What Carter and Brerzenski did in Afghanistan and Cambodia is certain --- if you want to dispute the facts and the evidence, or formulate a different interpretation of the consequences, be my guest.
Tell us what you have done other than take photos of birds and pull down 6 figures in your 30 hour per week job in computer security. Where are your publications in science and history and politics? Perhaps you don't really understand about the concept of scientific or historical certainty.
How supremely ironic that on a site where people decry AGW merchants of doubt and deniers, that a subgroup would engage in historical denial and doubt-sowing, based in rigid political ideology ("liberal" in this case) and obdurate ignorance. Like Seitz, they cannot engage on the facts, so instead they erect multiple Strawmen and engage in truly sophomoric invective (like "right-wing fascist asshole who should move to NK") that has no basis in reality. They cannot and will not engage in a discussion of the facts and evidence. At least their ally in merchant-of-doubting, Seitz had the gonads to admit that he had never heard jof a seminal figure in tobacco-lung cancer epidemiology, Sir Richard Doll. I strongly suspect that the little nest of history deniers here had never heard of William Blum before I cited him. If the deniers have trouble with Zinn or Blum's synthesis of any particular thing --- dissect it and formulate a counterargument, a rebuttal. I've given several short examples from Blum, and surprise, surprise --- silence from the deniers on the nitty gritty of the issues. Could it be that the deniers are loathe to regurgitate the right wingnut BS that is readily available out there and can't come up with any sort of reasonable rebuttal on their own?
Without even bothering to look at the (readily available) evidence to see if its true, Dilbert says, "Golly, Daniel, what's it like to be so pure that you wouln't even shake the hand of people trying to make things better --- indeed people who will accomplish more good than you will ever dream of?" And, "You'll do anything to make people like you short of having the courage to take an actual position on something that might have consequences." Indicating a stunning disregard for fact-based analysis. So, I led the horse to the water and provided several links to demonstrate that indeed I have had the courage and motivation to take an actual position on something that might have consequences. And I challenged Dilbert to do the same. Silence from Dilbert. I'm still waiting Dilbert. Show me. Tell me. I reminded Dilbert that doing my part to help seriously ill patients, most days of the week and most months of the year for decades might qualify as "accomplishing good". (And I work many more than Birdman's 30 hours per week.) So, what is the "good" that you accomplish, Dilbert?
And what does Birdman do besides field work with birds and his work in "computer security", which he reminds us is a 6-figure, 30 hour per week affair. Publications on science, history, politics? (At least Seitz publishes, flawed as it is...)
And Maladapted said that I should leave out the "commonplace". This is all "old hat". Like I said, I seriously doubt that you ever read any of William Blum's work before I cited it (and likely you still haven't). So, I'm waiting, Maladapted --- show me where you have dealt with these issues in writing, preferably in published articles, but at the very least, in this blog or in any other blog.
Your writing in this blog is really sloppy and lazy --- do you think any clearer? At the very least you need a good editor.
Gavin Schmidt...
Now there's a really smart climate scientist with gonads.
The denier troika here might learn something about how to think rationally and logically and how to communicate effectively by just studying Schmidt's tweets...
Seitz, will you sign my copy of "In From the Cold"?
Actually, it is old hat, and it is as incomplete and as biased as it was when I was younger.
You're becoming as tiresome as any self-styled demagogue.
"Regarding climate science and advocacy:
Gavin Schmidt"
Your claim is that climate science is attacked because some climate scientists are advocates.
That is simply bullshit, crap, fuckheaded inability to follow the world, etc. Climate science is attacked because the political implications are obvious and unavoidable.
Dipshit.
"What Carter and Brerzenski did in Afghanistan and Cambodia is certain"
What is not certain is Blum's characterization of Afghanistan under USSR puppet rule as being more or less a golden age for Afghanistan.
The US's role in kicking out the USSR is old hat.
You're again mistaking the fact that we disagree with consequences as being equivalent to disagreeing with historical facts.
Tch tch.
dhogaza 1:"...the commonly known fact that Zinn believed that written history should serve ideology, and that any pretense of objectivity should be abandoned."
Zinn:"Why should we cherish “objectivity”, as if ideas were innocent, as if they don’t serve one interest or another? Surely, we want to be objective if that means telling the truth as we see it, not concealing information that may be embarrassing to our point of view. But we don’t want to be objective if it means pretending that ideas don’t play a part in the social struggles of our time, that we don’t take sides in those struggles."
dhogaza 2:"Well, Kevin, this quote minimalizes the importance of objectivity when writing history. Zinn had an agenda, and he wrote to further that agenda. That was his motivation."
Look, this why internet discussions are tiresome. You made two silly claims:
1) That it's a commonly known "fact" that Zinn believed history should serve ideology, and
2) That he believed any pretense of objectivity should be abandoned.
When shown this is just not what Zinn believed, you change your tune and disregard the claims you made earlier. Admit it - it's NOT a fact that Zinn believed history should serve ideology. Nor did he believe that any pretense of objectivity should be done away with. What do we consider objectivity? Zinn says to report the facts - all of them, good and bad. Isn't that what objectivity is all about?
Now, when Zinn wrote his alternate history he specifically set out to write the pieces of history that were NOT being included in the accepted and prevalent history textbooks. So to claim he did the same thing that he accused others of is rather silly. There was no need to regurgitate the mainstream history precisely because it's what everyone was already being taught. If Zinn had written his texts first - then you'd have a case, but he didn't. He was writing in response to the textbooks in use.
You really are incredibly intellectually dishonest, Birdman.
Birdman burbled, "Your claim is that climate science is attacked because some climate scientists are advocates."
I made no such claim. Strawman. Dishonest twit...
To paraphrase, I said that it's ok for scientists (and historians) to advocate, and it doesn't mean that their science ( or history) is not objective. You really have some trouble thinking clearly and expressing yourself honestly...
Here is the sum total of what I said:
"Second, note how strikingly similar Birdman's attack on Zinn is to the attacks on climate scientists (including Mann) by the merchants of doubt and deniers because the climate scientists have the temerity to express an "ideology" along with their science. "
"If they are breathing, all humans have a value system, an ideology, an "agenda" if you want. A climate scientist like Mann has a value system (perhaps it is a desire to preserve the biosphere), and he may express those values, but that does not mean his science is not objectively based. Zinn's words do NOT "minimalize the importance of objectivity..." Zinn had a different value system than climate scientists (an admirable value system, by the way), and he expressed those values, but that does not mean his history is not objectively based."
"First, Zinn and Blum are objective historians who are not afraid to express their value system alongside the objective history (just like some very admirable climate scientists are now doing the same)."
"Regarding climate science and advocacy:
Gavin Schmidt
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/agu-talk-on-science-and-advocacy/
Then you can go to several links from Gavin Schmidt's article, including Stephen Schneider."
Birdcrap burbled as he came: "What is not certain is Blum's characterization of Afghanistan under USSR puppet rule as being more or less a golden age for Afghanistan."
Here is a summary of Blum's take on Afghanistan. Do you see Blum saying that it was a golden age for Afghanistan before US intervention? No, he characterizes it as a secular government more favorable to women than under the religious extremists.
You are such a dishonest twit...
"Let’s begin in 1979 in Afghanistan, where the Moujahedeen (“holy warriors”) were in battle against a secular, progressive government supported by the Soviet Union; a “favorite tactic” of the Moujahedeen was “to torture victims [often Russians] by first cutting off their nose, ears, and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another”, producing “a slow, very painful death”.
With America’s massive and indispensable military backing in the 1980s, Afghanistan’s last secular government (bringing women into the 20th century) was overthrown, and out of the victorious Moujahedeen arose al Qaeda.
During this same period the United States was supporting the infamous Khmer Rouge of Cambodia; yes, the same charming lads of Pol Pot and The Killing Fields.
President Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a leading force behind the US support of both the Moujahedeen and the Khmer Rouge. What does that tell you about that American leader? Or Jimmy Carter – an inspiration out of office, but a rather different person in the White House? Or Nobel Peace Laureate Barack Obama, who chose Brzezinski as one of his advisers?"
And the acromegalic Wabett weighs in on Gavin Schmidt's piece at realclimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/agu-talk-on-science-and-advocacy/
32
Eli Rabett says:
23 Dec 2013 at 11:48 PM
Gavin, Eli quite enjoyed your talk. As you know the Bunny’s POV is that there are a bunch of people out there trying to convince scientists that they should not partake in public conversations, because, well, pancakes.
If you look at those pushing that fallacy, you see that either they want to be the gatekeepers, or more sinisterly, they want to completely separate the science from the conversation because the science threatens their worldview or the science strongly implies that BAU will be damaging.
So, scientists must use their voices in public discussions that their science impacts. If not you, who then. OTOH, and you have been very good at this, scientists must avoid Dunning Kruger claims on things where their knowledge runs thin. Be sure to isolate expertise from idle thoughts. HOWEVER, that does not mean that careful study, thought and talks with those whose specialty is in other areas precludes having opinions in those other areas, just that they should not be strongly weighted by the public or the speaker.
"So, scientists must use their voices in public discussions that their science impacts. If not you, who then."
I don't want to create a strawman, but it sounds like the Wabett thinks that advocacy would be compatible with scientific objectivity.
(As it is with historical objectivity, in the case of Zinn et al.)
And Maladpted wades in on Christmas Day:
74
Mal Adapted says:
25 Dec 2013 at 3:46 PM
On the comparison of climate scientists and medical doctors, and their respective roles in society, these words bear frequent repetition (my italics):
One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.
Diogenes, think of a smoker who won’t quit smoking, despite increasingly stern and detailed admonitions from his doctor. Consider that although the public debate about the hazards of cigarette smoking has been pretty much over for decades, 1 in 5 Americans continues to smoke cigarettes. Take note of the economic and political forces that “protect smokers’ rights”. Now tell us, what should a conscientious doctor do in the face of smokers’ facilitated denial?
Then tell us, what should a climate scientists do that the doctor hasn’t done?
And John Mashey:
135
John Mashey says:
30 Dec 2013 at 5:41 PM
Timothy: see TEA Party: Tobacco Everywhere Always and the peer-reviewed paper to which it links. The tobacco industry was a strong partner in setting this up, and the Tea Party idea and even the idea of costumes came via them ~1990. Among thinktanks, CSE was their favored funding recipient.
Like the Kochs, tobacco companies have little use for science or the Federal government. The tobacco companies fear 2 things above others:
a) Higher cigarette taxes, which selectively inhibit teenage smokers, their crucial source of new customers, since few people get really addicted to nicotine except during rapid brain development.
b) Any motion whatsoever from fragmented healthcare systems in the direction of single-payer or anything else that tends to make the end-of-life costs more visible.
Of course, Koch agendas mesh quite well with these.
These guys really, really know how to do advocacy … albeit not of the good kind, especially visible to anyone who has studied them. They have some of the best marketeers and brought them to the party. They are now moving on to e-cigarettes, with thinktanks like Heartland in full support, and they can market well, here or here, somewhat reminiscent of “clean coal” commercials.
Since scientists generally try to stick to truth, they are inherently at a disadvantage. Naomi Oreskes’ 2008 talk (partial) and powerpoint, pp.29-63 included discussion of the classic marketing expertise applied by Western Fuels Association in the early 1990s. I attended that talk, but the video there is unfortunately just part, so if anyone knows where the rest is, please post. There’s a great shot from the WFA movie that shows CO2 turning the Earth green, including the Sahara.
And a last one, from the Wabett, who was recently rescued from North Korea, after having been rendered there by Birdman:
147
Eli Rabett says:
31 Dec 2013 at 7:30 PM
The only possible reply to 131 by Brian R “Just that opinions have no place in science. Opinions are subjective and science should have no place for subjectivity.”
is you gotta be joking (there are several other less polite ones). What experts do is 99% opinion, opinion based on expertise, opinion based on observation, opinion based on learning, but opinion none the less.
Mr. Galileo, does the earth circle the sun? Based on my observations and understanding yes. Mr. Stocker, will continued emissions of CO2 lead to global warming? Yes, based on our knowledge of the climate system, for extra special sure yes. Is this dangerous? While I will defer to WGII on the details, based on previous reports, yes.
Brian is simply trying to force scientists out of any discussion. Not to be taken seriously
The last seven comments on this thread are by the same person.
What does that tell this person?
Wirt, somewhere in the frothing torrent of words you've spewed here, there may be something worth remembering, but it's all TL;DR. Since it was tagged with my 'nym, I did catch this:
"At the very least you need a good editor."
Whereupon my irony meter broke.
Maladapted, you are just not used to someone who takes the time and effort to respond in detail to the multiple Strawmen that have been employed here. You mistake brevity for clarity and soundness --- on the contrary, the brief ejaculations here have been incredibly sloppy, lazy and incoherent. But, perhaps that is just what you've become used to in unedited blogging.
I'm used to dealing with editors.
Once again, let's seen what you've published that has survived the editors...
"So, I'm waiting, Maladapted --- show me where you have dealt with these issues in writing, preferably in published articles, but at the very least, in this blog or any other blog."
What, Elifritz, you're not going to call me a "fascist" this time?
At least you have publications to look at.
I don't believe I called you a fascist but I could be wrong. I believe I stated that your screeds display some characteristics of 'fascists' as defined by one person. Fascists generally run in groups, whereas you appear to be a lone wolf. I used to be like you, lol.
And thanks for reading my essays, if indeed you have. Therein you will find some definitive solutions to your many grudges.
Chip, meet shoulder.
"Once again, let's seen what you've published that has survived the editors..."
Is "winning" this thread important to you? Have you considered just moving on?
I suggest you review what you wrote, Elifritz, and reread my response, which dissects your lame insult.
Yes, I have never been attracted to herds, especially hypocritical political herds, especially liberals smug in their self-rightousness and intellectual dishonesty while they persue the same crimes and moral outrages as the far right and far left. Liberals, right up to the present delusional ObombaBots.
I see that you are no longer a loner, having joined a prestigious organization, the Marshall Space Flight Center.
From reading your material, I see that you are interested in preserving the biosphere. I lament the loss of the biosphere (it is a fait accompoli). But perhaps I am wrong. Occasionally science fiction writers do predict the future. And perhaps you do have "definitive solutions".
Sure, the Marshall Space Flight Center in Marshall, Wisconsin, the highly regarded Orbital Space Flight Simulator shop, lol. Ok, here's an idea for you. Blogspot blogs are free, and with a little cash you could have your own Wordpress blog, where you could rant away unnoticed.
You need to work on satire detection.
Perhaps your "fascist" insult is just another example of your satire, Elifritz...
Or perhaps "Chip, meet shoulder" is your definition of "fascism"?
He does seem to think in Comic Sans.
If you would try and parse the words, you would see that it wasn't an insult, it was an observation and a criticism of your commenting approach. Your scapegoating of 'liberals' (whatever they are, you don't seem to be clear on that) is clearly an approach that fascists take in order to impress their will on others. Try scapegoating yourself once, since clearly you did nothing to prevent these terrible things from happening, other than to comment on some blog somewhere. Somebody else already pointed out this is OLD OLD stuff, some of us remember Ike's warning, lived through the Vietnam war and Nixon, survived the Bush years and take a pretty dim view of the Obama administration, the FBI, CIA and the NSA as well. There are corporations and individuals and dictators far more dangerous than a bunch of intellectual scientists hanging out on an obscure blogspot. It's your time to waste as it is mine. But seven consecutive comments is obsessive. The only good thing is that you seem to be limiting your rants to a single blog post. That's good.
I admit though that your complete failure to define political terms is rather amusing. Be precise!
No, I have not, Maladapted. Remember, this is the Fear and Loathing thread. The spectacle of the liberal hypocrisy is too compelling to look away.
Come on. Prove me wrong. Show me what you have published that has survived the editors. Especially about what you described as "old hat" and "commonplace" about my descriptions (in response to the multiple, intellectually dishonest Strawmen).
Wirt, has it occurred to you that you're being baited? All we have to do is post a couple of lines once in a while, and you keep pouring out words by the bushel. You're bound to wear yourself out eventually. Or the rest of us may get bored and leave you talking to yourself. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to you to declare victory and move on to something else.
"Do you see Blum saying that it was a golden age for Afghanistan before US intervention? No, he characterizes it as a secular government more favorable to women than under the religious extremists.
You are such a dishonest twit..."
Actually he said it was a secular PROGRESSIVE government, a somewhat stronger expression. And, yes, that sentence portrays 1979 Afghanistan as being a golden age of sorts, in the context of Afghanistan's history "progressive, secular, and favorable to women's rights" aren't words you see written down very often.
This secular, progressive government had a few flaws, though, seemingly missed by some, including your hero Blum. Mass executions, among other things:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/world/middleeast/release-of-decades-old-death-lists-stirs-anger-and-grief-in-afghanistan.html?_r=0
"Wirt, has it occurred to you that you're being baited?" - my last post should be good for at least a half-dozen additional posts frothing with personal insults, rabid half-formed thoughts, etc, don't you think? :)
Heh. Dhogaza, do you remember Gene Spafford's "Three Axioms of Usenet" from 1987?
Axiom #1:
The Usenet is not the real world. The Usenet usually does not even resemble the real world.
Axiom #2:
Ability to type on a computer terminal is no guarantee of sanity, intelligence, or common sense.
Axiom #3:
Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) applies to Usenet.
Spaf's axioms have held true as the blogosphere has supplanted Usenet, wouldn't you say 8^)?
dhogaza's axiom #4:
Sturgeon was an optimist :)
Elifritz, I am not "scapegoating" liberals --- I am objecting to and CRITISIZING their constant hypocritical absolution and denial of the crimes and moral outrages that they have perpetrated (right up to Obomba). Criticism is not "scapegoating" and is not "fascism", despite your ideation. Instead of discussing the facts, a few liberals here have avoided the facts and the evidence by erecting multiple Strawmen. There are two choices regarding these intellectually dishonest Strawmen: roll over or respond. I choose to respond.
You say that I lack precision and completely fail to define political terms. In fact, I've been quite precise and, given the volume of Strawmen to respond to, concise. The definition of a liberal in the U.S. is in the history itself, and I have given several references and quoted short examples. You and others cannot or will not respond to the specifics, to the historical evidence and facts. The writing is clear; the problem is with your comprehension.
You say, "...clearly you did nothing to prevent these terrible things from happening, other than to comment on some blog somewhere." As Seitz might say, this is beyond the Pale. Do you really consider yourself a scientist? This is indicative of a deep disregard for discovering the facts, collecting data and reaching a reasonable conclusion, behavior antithetical to science. You have absolutely no idea of what I was doing during the Vietnam War, for example. You have absolutely no idea of what I was doing during the Iraq sanctions that killed a half million children under 5 years. You have no idea of what I have done regarding the death penalty. Nor did you ask. On the other hand, I have provided plenty of information (largely in response to Dilbert's intellectual malpractice), so that anyone who can read would know what I do and where I have published, both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed. Anyone could easily follow the links I provided and read the last three articles that I've published in the edited/non-peer-reviewed literature. Anyone could go to Google Scholar and see what else I've been up to inbetween working 50-60 hour weeks for decades doing my part to take care of patients (gee, I see that the New England Journal of Medicine paper now has 92 citations...) You obviously didn't follow the links or do the quick Google Scholar search to discover more than just "commenting on some blog somewhere". This very unscientific behavior on your part follows that of Dilbert (who accuses me, in complete ignorance of the facts of not accomplishing "good" for people and not "having the courage to take an actual position on something that might have consequences). So, I provided the data and asked for reciprocal data. Silence.) (continued)
(continued)
Elifritz, you say, "There are corporations and individuals and dictators far more dangerous than a bunch of intellectual scientists hanging out on an obscure blogspot."
First, I know that there are some highly trained scientists here ---for example, Halpern and Farley, whose work I admire and find useful in trying to understand the real world --- that's what brought me here in the first place. There are probably others. Second, there are indeed corporations and individuals and economic systems and governments that are very dangerous to the survival of the biosphere, including humans, and for a long time, right up to the present time, liberals have played a large role in supporting and perpetuating these situations. Third, there are obviously some very unscientific participants on this blog. These people have questioned my credentials and motives, and likewise, I question theirs. I've provided data about what I do and have done (which I am proud of and unafraid to do). I have asked for reciprocal data from those who have behaved in a very unscientific and intellectually dishonest manner. Silence. So, until I see data to the contrary, I doubt if these people are scientists. More likely science blog groupies, probably gainfully employed and otherwise variably talented, maybe amateur scientists, but not professional scientists.
Yes, Birdman, Dilbert and Maladapted, it's clear that you are science blog groupies. Let's see, Birdman is a computer geek and a bird watcher (oh yes, and works 30 hours per week for 6 figures). The other two with nothing that they care to claim. Histories: nada. Peer-reviewed publications: nada. Publications outside of masturbating on blog sites: nada. Intellectually dishonest: positive. Craniorectal inversion: positive (Stage 3)
I am proud
You realize I am ignoring the vast bulk of your comments, right?
Pride ... that's so ... embarrassing.
Now I've totally lost interest.
Birdman,
Regarding Afghanistan, "golden age" are your words. But if you insist, on a relative basis, for Afghanistan, it was significantly better, including for women. I know you are not interested in the nuances and the actual weight of the evidence and facts, but I'll slap you upside the head with it anyway,
http://williamblum.org/chapters/killing-hope/afghanistan
Elifritz,
Proud of what I do every day in patient care? You bet. Proud of what I've published? You bet. Proud of the political activism that I've engaged in? You bet.
Academic degrees are not an absolute necessity for a scientist, school can be a bitch, I know, but peer-reviewed publications are pretty important, wouldn't you say? Your CV is entertaining, but I don't see any peer-reviewed publications. Or am I wrong, and I just missed them?
But, at least your CV shows a stong interest in science. That beats out the denier troika here, who don't have a CV to show.
Elifritz,
"You realize I am ignoring the vast bulk of your comments, right?"
I realize that you are also ignoring reality. I like a lot of science fiction, but some of yours is really, really bad.
I guess you missed them then. Peer review in my field produced the Constellation program and the Space Launch System and Orion capsule. Some things just can't be left to the experts. Terrestrial planetary habitability is one of them. Reusable launch vehicles is another. My moon base proposal was rejected by the experts as 'incremental' lol.
My suggestion to you is to return the steroids and testosterone to the hospital. They are having an adverse effect on your reasoning.
Links to the published papers, Elifritz?
"But if you insist, on a relative basis, for Afghanistan, it was significantly better, including for women. "
Mass murders don't fit my definition of "better".
Glad to see you're honest enough to admit that mass murders are OK as long as they're sanctioned by USSR-supported communist dictatorships.
That's progress.
""But if you insist, on a relative basis, for Afghanistan, it was significantly better, including for women. ""
Not only do I find your endorsement of mass murder abhorrent, but the Taliban were not spawned by the Mujahideen supported by the US. Rather, they were spawned by Pakistan. It is true that the US has been arguably over-forgiving of Pakistan's tolerance for extremist right-wing islamists, but Pakistan, not the US, owns the Taliban.
So, the USSR supported, mass-murderiing, hardly "progressive" (Blum's words) regime was overthrown. The US-supported Mujahideen were unable to hold power. Pakistan-supported (nurtured, trained, schooled) Taliban took over the country.
And this is all the fault of "liberals".
What a weak mind you have.
So, apparently Wirt believes that mass murder is OK, as long as it's done by the Right People.
It's sad … Russel Seitz is a relatively soft target, it takes a real asshole to generate sympathy for him. Wirt's accomplished it, though.
" I am objecting to and CRITISIZING their constant hypocritical absolution and denial of the crimes and moral outrages that they have perpetrated (right up to Obomba). "
Bullshit. Fucking bullshit.
You implicity concede the point when you state : "But if you insist, on a relative basis, for Afghanistan, it was significantly better, including for women. "
In other words, in your mind, I don't deny the crime, I only fail to see that the USSR was a kinder ruler over Afghanistan than Pakistan was through its puppet government ran by the Taliban.
(which you mistake for the US. Hint - Pakistan has the Himalyas, the US doesn't).
Strawman, Birdman. The fact that the secular government in Afghanistan was better for women does not mean that I "endorse mass murder".
Birdman, there is this thing called proximate cause...
Are you saying that the overthrow of the secular Afghan government did not pave the way for the Taliban?
"In their need to defend the US occupation of Afghanistan, many Americans have cited the severe oppression of women in that desperate land and would have you believe that the United States is the last great hope of those poor ladies. However, in the 1980s the United States played an indispensable role in the overthrow of a secular and relatively progressive Afghan government, one which endeavored to grant women much more freedom than they’ll ever have under the current government, more perhaps than ever again. Here are some excerpts from a 1986 US Army manual on Afghanistan discussing the policies of this government concerning women: “provisions of complete freedom of choice of marriage partner, and fixation of the minimum age at marriage at 16 for women and 18 for men”; “abolished forced marriages”; “bring [women] out of seclusion, and initiate social programs”; “extensive literacy programs, especially for women”; “putting girls and boys in the same classroom”; “concerned with changing gender roles and giving women a more active role in politics”.
The overthrow of this government paved the way for the coming to power of an Islamic fundamentalist regime, followed by the awful Taliban. And why did the United States in its infinite wisdom choose to do such a thing? Mainly because the Afghan government was allied with the Soviet Union and Washington wanted to draw the Russians into a hopeless military quagmire — “We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War”, said Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Adviser.
The women of Afghanistan will never know how the campaign to raise them to the status of full human beings would have turned out, but this, some might argue, is but a small price to pay for a marvelous Cold War victory." (Blum)
Birdman says, "So, the USSR supported, mass-murderiing, hardly "progressive" (Blum's words) regime was overthrown. The US-supported Mujahideen were unable to hold power. Pakistan-supported (nurtured, trained, schooled) Taliban took over the country."
Result: Taliban take over the country ( the geographic boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan is irrelevant --- tribal culture, but if you want to say they were supported by Pakistan, ok)
Immediate cause: US supported Mujahideen unable to hold power.
Proximate cause: Soviet-allied secular government overthrown. WHY?
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76, translated from the original French by William Blum
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Notes
There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.
It should be noted that there is no demonstrable connection between the Afghanistan war and the breakup of the Soviet Union and its satellites.
Carter/Brzezinski were the PROXIMATE cause of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.
Were women better off under the secular Afghan government?
Were women much worse off after the fall of the secular government, right up to present?
Has the death toll of civilians been very large since the fall of the secular government, over several decades now?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics
"Particularly disturbing were targeted killings of women by Anti-Government Elements demonstrated by the killings of the head and deputy head of the Laghman Department of Women's Affairs in August and December 2012 [...] Civilians continued to be targeted in places including crowded markets, locations where tribal elders gathered and civilian Government offices."
PS, Birdman,
I like your photos ( I'm being straight, not facetious).
When we do rafting trips on the Westwater stretch of the Colorado, there are often pairs of bald eagles to be seen.
It's right there on my CV Daniel, and I believe a fair use copy has been captured and uploaded on DocStor so there is no point regurgitating old work. But since this post has devolved into your own personal open thread, I can explain where I am with this. What I did was recognize early on the extinction level problems facing humanity, and thus I embarked upon a systematic program of solutions. One avanue of investigation was condensed matter physics, and one outstanding problem of the era was high temperature superconductivity and thermoelectricity and other related Onsagar relationship issues and so after a brief correspondence with Neville Mott and his collaborators before his death I correctly deduced that the relevant high energy scale for these phenomena was 'Mottness' and then I further correctly predicted that the high energy excited electronic states of the bismuth iodide molecule spanned the enthalpy of formation of water, that is, local electronic bipolarons at the chemical (optical) energy level. This was confirmed a year later theoretically by the Buenker Group and spectroscopically a few years later, although spectroscopic resolution is still inadequate to resolve these discrete states. Since this was fairly obvious at the time, I then kick started a long term program of angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy, which has now run for decades across synchrotron radiation laboratories across the world. This had evolved into directions that I could not possibly predict at the time, and yet the problem still remains unresolved, and has resulted in avenues of investigation totally unrelated to the initial problem.
Science is weird that way. I have managed other interesting problems this way in a successful manner. I don't measure success by peer reviewed publications, my friend, I measure them by useful results.
OK, Elifritz, I can accept what you are saying. Keep on thinking and investigating.
But, I would appreciate the courtesy of having that same standard applied to me (measuring success by useful results). I agree with you, what people do ---results is/are most important, more important than credentials. That is why I was so taken aback by "...clearly you did nothing to prevent these terrible things from happening, other than to comment on some blog somewhere."
Regards.
Given the state of affairs on this planet in my world credentials have ZERO importance. Perhaps you are confusing credentials with credibility. So given the problem at hand, what have you done lately? Thanks in advance.
Have you read the last 3 articles that I've published? I gave the links on this thread. Please scroll up. And today? Breast cancer and metastatic prostate cancer cases.
BTW, yes, I agree. Credibility is based on what people actually do.
That would be in a post dated January 1, 2014
Well, I just noticed I spelled both laureate's names wrong so that should tell you out of touch I am.
Skimming lightly again over Wirt's prodigious output here, I see that our friend is proud of his accomplishments. Perhaps he'll have a statue of himself erected. How shall it be inscribed? The following (with apologies to Shelley) does him due honor:
"I am Wirt, most prolific of typists. Look upon my CV, ye published, and despair!"
Malfeasance has no accomplishments to point to. Unless, of course, you count intellectual dishonesty and repetitive masturbation on blog sites (what's your current citation count on that? 555). How's that Obomba thing working out for you, Botling?
MalFeasance's work as an ObombaBot, that is what he is proud of. Edward Abbey would laugh at you (to avoid crying)over the neoliberal destruction of the biosphere.
"And if I laugh at any mortal thing,
Tis that I may not cry" (with no apologies to Byron)
Wirt: If the late Cactus Ed ever appears on the November ballot I'll vote for him. Alas, no candidate I'd be actually glad to vote for would ever make it past the primaries. I voted for Obama because voting for anyone else, or even just not voting, would have meant four more years of Cheney/Rove, and that was not to be borne.
In short, all my votes are decisions on the margin. How do you decide who to vote for?
MalFeasance, you stupid shit. Like Glen Ford says, Obomba is the more effective evil. Let's review just that much: he is not the lesser evil, he is the more effective evil. He is the ultimate neoliberal (as in rapacious free market/capitalist fundamentalism) shill. As in SHILL. Virtually all of the Bush outrages are recapitulated and perpetrated by Obomba, and what do the Bots do? (sink into denial and rationalization and delusion). (And don't start telling me about ObombaCare --- I know more about health care policy than you will ever know. Plus, I imagine you would roll out the same tired bullshit, just like the AGW deniers roll out tired bullshit.)
You are a fucking reactionary. I have the temerity to point out the hypocrisies of liberals/neoliberals, and obviously I hit very close to home, and all you can do is avoid the obvious by erecting Strawmen and define me as the enemy (with the same vehemence as you define the climate science deniers). And you do this BEFORE you have read anything I have written, science, politics or otherwise. MalFeaseance: intellectual wrong-doing.
PS, MalFeasance, Abbey was an anarchist and highly antiauthoritarian, and I'm confident he would never appear on any November ballot for you to vote for. Or, be amenable to making choices between the likes of Obomba and Romney.
I did not agree with him on everything (for example, I don't think there is any such thing as an illegal immigrant). Nevertheless, he is one of my heros (and I don't have many). Desert Solitaire is one of my favorite books.
Speaking of not agreeing with everything, despite the fact that I think you have not been very honest, I still do not define you as the enemy. My last post may have been a little harsh, so I'd like to modify "you stupid shit" to "you ignorant slut". "Stupid shits" are automatically in the enemy category; "ignorant sluts" not necessarily so.
I'd tell you a story about Michael DeBakey and a surgeon friend of mine, but I don't want to further damage your irony meter...
This is coming most tiresome as well as misusing the Queen's English:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/slut
Possibly some censorship is in order, Eli?
Benson, apparently you don't think that Saturday Night Live is a valid place to learn some of Queen's English? I mean, after all, Queen performed on Saturday Night Live.
(Perhaps you need a humor transplant. Very expensive, often rejected and still not covered by most insurance plans.)
PS, Benson
Perhaps you didn't notice that this is the Fear and Loathing Thread.
And if you're tired, go to bed.
"I like your photos ( I'm being straight, not facetious)."
That's cool, I don't like anything about you …
"Result: Taliban take over the country ( the geographic boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan is irrelevant --- tribal culture, but if you want to say they were supported by Pakistan, ok)"
Actually, very wrong, the Taliban overcame the tribal schisms that caused the mujahideen to be unable to hold power.
Because the Taliban were trained, supported, schooled, etc in Pakistan, and grew up with a unified view of religous takeover of Afghanistan.
Anyway, it's good to see that you have no fundamental problem with the USSR-aligned goverment mass murdering opponents.
Anyone who thinks Obama is more right-wing than Bush …
Complete the sentence, please, this claim causes brain-lock for me.
"Immediate cause: US supported Mujahideen unable to hold power.
Proximate cause: Soviet-allied secular government overthrown. WHY?"
hmmm
Full Definition of PROXIMATE
1
: immediately preceding
Having trouble with your lack of knowledge of english, sorry.
Will someone please pass Wirt the Bolivian arrow toads?
Another jar of ketamine would just made him more ornery.
BirdCrap (BC) Burbled as he came,
"Anyone who thinks Obama is more right-wing than Bush …"
You can count on at least one Strawman per BC post.
Notice that I never said that Obomba is more right wing than Bush. I did say that Obomba has pursued the same policies as Bush ( in spades), while brain dead liberals and ObombaBots like BC lie prone and allow their rape passively, without protest. Now, I don't care about intellectually challenged and dishonest twits like BC, but I do lament the ongoing rape of the biosphere. Obomba is the ultimate neoliberal shill, because the free market/capitalist fundamentalists can proceed freely, without the inconvenience of opposition from liberals like BC. BC is just happy that the oligarchs throw the liberals a little lube before the rape (bend over BC, this won't hurt a bit...). Of course the ObombaBots know all this, even if they bury it under layers of denial and rationalization so thick that it becomes delusional --- evinced by their reaction when the obvious is cited by others not so weighted down by the propaganda. Their vehement reaction is to shoot the messenger. That makes you a reactionary, BC. And true to form, nasty. And what does BC do besides repetitive masturbation and bloviation on blogs and some nice bird snapshots? As the other members of your history- denying troika gave pointed out, usenet and blogs are not real. You have zero impact. You don't even make the token, symbolic effort represented by publishing. The real people are the whistleblowers like Snowden, Assange and Manning that Obomba is trying his best to rape without lube. They are the heroes. You are an antihero. You don't have the gonads to do what Tim DeChristopher did, symbolic as it was. So, how's that Obomba thing working out for ya, BirdCrap? Who will it be next? HilliaryBot? You're pathetic. I'd say "fuck you", but I don't have to, because you've already arranged for your continual rape, to the point of bleeding hemorrhoids.
PS BirdCrap,
It is true that both Bush and Obomba are neoliberal shills.
Phil Ochs really had you pegged. You've taken "Love me, I'm a Liberal" beyond figurative love to the literal "love" (rape). Your nasty response to Ochs' humorous take is good evidence of how close it hits home --- an established sign in psychiatry. If it didn't strike very close to home, you would have just laughed.
Regarding a previous BirdCrap burble,
"Supporting single-payer health care makes you "way left of center"? In what universe do you live … the US?
Single-payer health care is supported by the current conservative leaders of Germany, the UK, and Oz among others."
BC isn't even competant to do a 10 minute internet search. But it's obvious that not having the facts straight does not stop him from arrogant expressions of unsubstantiated opinion.
Germany does not have a single-payer system. It has a "social insurance" system (bearing no resemblance to predatory US insurance companies so beloved and entrenched by Obomba and his neoliberal puppet masters). Universal, multiple-payer "sickness funds" --- less efficient than single-payer (like Canada), but still vastly preferable to the US system of denying health care for a profit.
The UK has fully socialized medicine --- single payer and hospitals government run and doctors employed by the government.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/international_health_systems.php?page=all
"Conservatives" (read neoliberals) are forever trying to dismantle single-payer and socialized medicine in the respective countries (motivated by greed, of course) --- Fraser Institute in Canada, for example --- but fortunately the citizens won't stand for it.
"Conservatives" in quotes because the word is almost meaningless the way you and others use it. For example, there is nothing conservative about Seitz --- he is a neoliberal prick (subspecies right wing), just like you are a neoliberal prick (subspecies centrist liberal, sub-subspecies ObombaBot). Perhaps you had not noticed what the root of "conservative" is... You are indeed closer to Seitz than not.
In any case, i expect more Strawmen from BirdCrap --- bring it on --- knocking them down is entertaining. It sharpens the mind.
And yes, I live in the US, which is regrettably the greatest purveyor of imperialistic violence (against humans and the biosphere) in human history. It will end badly --- for everyone, including the birds. Fossil fuels will be burned until it takes more fossil fuel to extract a fossil fuel equivalent.
BC's intellectual level is evinced by his previous exhortation to me: "Perhaps you are simply a right-wing fascist asshole who should move to NK." This puerile birdcrap sums up BirdCrap well. This is how he deals with uncomfortable facts.
And he says, "That's cool, I don't like anything about you …". If some people liked you, it would only prove you were an asshole...
Another BirdCrap Strawman to knife regarding Afghanistan and the Taliban I see (the delusional ideation that the Taliban is the "fault" of Pakistan, absolving the U.S. role as the proximate cause of the Islamic fundamentalist takeover of Afghanistan). Oh, and that I must endorse the spate of murder by the Soviet-backed secular regime. No matter, BC is so far off base that it's not difficult.
"And as in uffish thought he stood,
BirdCrap with eyes of flame came wiffling through the tulgy wood
And burbled as it came
One two, one two and through and through
The vorpal blade went sniker snack
He left it dead and with its head
He went gallumphing back"
(with apologies to LC)
And now I must go gallumphing back to this poor patient with Stage 4 colon cancer. (Fortunately there are thereuputic options for this patient; there is nothing to be done about BirdCrap's Stage 4 CranioRectal Inversion)
Now that my attention is keyed for variations of my 'nym, I can spot comments like this from Wirt:
"Speaking of not agreeing with everything, despite the fact that I think you have not been very honest, I still do not define you as the enemy."
I've been honest, I just haven't said more than a fraction of what I know. It's clear that we agree on many things, but your importance to the world isn't one of them. Regardless of your publication record, your style of argument won't slow our onrushing doom by an infinitesimal increment, so please stop helping.
With that, I'm done here. I've had as much fun taunting you as I can stand. Feel free to declare yourself the winner.
On the contrary, MalFeasance, you have been intellectually dishonest, but you are unable/unwilling to see that because of a lack of self-insight.
You had no interest in who I was or what I was doing or had done. You were only interested in reacting to my poke at liberals for their history of hypocrisy in many areas (including supporting the very neoliberal con men who are finishing up the job of destroying the biosphere apace right now and who will make sure that there is no equitable distribution for the hard times ahead --- no mitigation, ensuring that the poor will disproportionately suffer). You are so deep in denial and rationalization that you cannot see the humor or kernel of truth in Phil Ochs' lyrics. You and the other malignant personalities, BirdCrap and Dilbert doG Particle, immediately engaged in attack dog tactics, including openly stating that I had never accomplished anything. When I responded with some of my background, you immediately attacked me for being arrogant and excessively "proud", with an inflated sense of "...importance to the world..." But that is your M.O. here and on other blogs: attack. Problem is, you have trouble distinguishing potential friends from enemies. You were not interested in common ground or hints of reconcilliation on my part --- only in preserving the obdurate shell of your denial and rationalization. As I said before, the vehemance of your response is excellent evidence that you know there is at least some truth about what I am saying, but it is very uncomfortable for you. Psychiatry 101. You are a history denier, quite analogous to the science deniers.
You say, "...I just haven't said more than a fraction of what I know." Bullshit. You haven't said anything of substance --- all you have done is attack. But why should you do otherwise? After all, you defined me as the enemy before knowing anything of substance about me. There is absolutely no evidence that you do or have accomplished anything of consequence.
You say, "It's clear we agree on many things..." Bullshit. As far as I can tell, you are a hypocrit blinded by liberal ideology, actively promoting the destruction of the biosphere by supporting the destroyers, doing nothing useful, deluded into thinking that your chronic masturbation on blog sites makes a rat's ass worth of difference. I think Edward Abbey would see you as a fake, complicit with the destroyers. You are the antithesis of Abbey, you are a compliant and complicit liberal, something that Abbey definitely was not. Abbey would have contempt for you.
You say, "...your style of argument won't slow our onrushing doom by an infinitesimal increment..." You project --- you describe your own chronic masturbation on blog sites. Absolutely useless, but I suppose it gives you some sense of satisfaction.
You say, "I've had as much fun taunting you as I can stand. Feel free to declare yourself the winner." Ah, yes. An unambiguous admission of your intellectual dishonesty. You were never interested in who I was and what I've done, only in your attack strategy. And you project... It is YOU who sees this as a blog game of "winners" and "losers", sort of a virtual climate science computer game, attack and score points. The main game is over anyway. You and nobody else will prevent the burning of the last available drops, the last lumps. The biosphere is toast, at least as it is familiar in human terms. The only question now is who will have access to the lifeboats.
So, enjoy your delusions and your virtual games. Congratulation on you "win" (turning a potential ally into an enemy). What game is up next? HillaryBot?
"You've taken "Love me, I'm a Liberal" beyond figurative love to the literal "love" (rape)"
This is really beyond the pale. Our host won't step in, but I rather wish he would.
BirdCrap burbled
"This is really beyond the pale. Our host won't step in, but I rather wish he would."
That would be "beyond the Pale", but I guess you didn't learn very much history, let alone the difference between proximate and immediate cause, in the course of getting your undergraduate degree in math.
Yes, if Phil Ochs were alive he might change the title of his song to "Rape Me, I'm a Liberal", since you support and defend the neoliberals that are raping the biosphere, and in so doing are fully complicit in the rape of the biosphere --- as well as being a victim of the rape. A veritable Möbius strip of rape --- impossible to separate the victim and perpetrator. L'Avalee des Avales... THAT is really what is beyond the Pale.
I really had a good laugh at your little whine, "Our host won't step in, but I rather wish he would." I immediately had a vision of the world's two smallest violins playing "My Heart Bleeds For You". Oh, it is sad and tragic, the malignant prick can't stand the heat in the kitchen. Especially when the heat is so close to home.
Perhaps Halpern views this as a valid controversy (liberal/neoliberal complicity in the destruction of the biosphere) and that it is appropriate for the Fear and Loathing thread and has an appreciation for Saturday Night Live and black humor. In any case, it was your choice to make it nasty, right from the start; I tried to find common ground and offered accommodations, but you would have none of it.
You are a climate science blog groupie. Your only accomplishments and contributions are attack dog tactics and chronic masturbation on blogs --- oh yes, and publishing a couple of bird photos. You are the antithesis of those who really contribute on science blogs and elsewhere. And who might those be? An excellent example is the group of scientists who debunked Gerlich and Tscheuschner and Kramm (that "energizer bunny of Gerlich and Tscheuschner defense", as Arthur Smith quipped, with delicious humor). And yes, the rebuttal paper was drafted, out in the open, on THIS blog, an historic event in the history of science I think, debunking the claim, published in a peer-reviewed physics journal, that the atmospheric greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics. You and your attack dog friends (Dilbert doG Particle and MalFeasance) contributed NOTHING to this. All you can do is erect Strawmen and demonstrate your lack of historical knowledge and inability to think clearly and your profound denial and rationalization because you are imprisoned in your rigid ideological liberal box.
You are just plain nasty. You have no sense of humor. You can't laugh at yourself ( and I have always found those people insufferable). Even ICBM Seitz, the right-wing subspecies of neoliberal destroyer) has a well-developed sense of humor (although I suspect he would not appreciate it that I appreciate it). You are a humorless, nasty, history-denying, prick who contributes nothing.
(Seitz, the ICBM stunt was world-class Fear and Loathing whambo. Will you sign my copy of "In From The Cold"?)
I haven't progressed beyond the leaves, beans and bark of certain bushes and trees, boiled, steeped or otherwise specially prepared. They seem to suffice as sufficiently 'eyeballs out' for me thus far.
Thank you, Elifritz, for your wry sense of humor. I agree. Except that I would add one Guinness Extra Stout per day. Cheers.
Some have a quite deficient sense of word choice when it comes to internet humour.
Thomas Lee Elifritz does fine.
Of course, Benson, anyone who does not appreciate Saturday Night Live can hardly be considered a competant judge.
In the foregoing it should be perfectly obvious that I am using the word "rape" in its accepted meaning as "the wanton destruction or spoiling of a place or area" (in this case, the destruction of the biosphere by neoliberals). Nowhere have I alleged sexual abuse, misconduct, assault or crime, or made any associations or links with people who have committed sexual abuse, misconduct, assault or crime; I make no such allegations, associations or links.
Indeed, some cannot even spell the Queen's English:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/competent
Just tiresome. I'll try to next pub down the way.
You're always complaining of being tired, Benson. Perhaps you are anemic?
Regarding, "You've taken "Love me, I'm a Liberal" beyond figurative love to the literal "love" (rape)."
This is what I meant: Birdman extends the list of liberal hypocrisies cited in Phil Ochs' song ("Love Me, I'm a Liberal) to promoting the rape (the wanton destruction) of the biosphere, at the same time that liberals claim to be protectors of the environment. They do this by supporting and defending neoliberal politicians who, because of their free market fundamentalism, are causing the destruction of the biosphere.
Queen's English ---
tiresome: causing one to feel bored or annoyed
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tiresome
Yawn; out the door now.
Don't let the door smack you on the way out, Benson.
PS, Benson,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/pedant
Post a Comment