Passing familiarity with history leads one away from the concolusion this is a "Nazi" reference. I don't know what the context was for Rangel's remarks--the Sun article is predictably irresponsible in neglecting context--but I suspect that, in Rangel's formlation, Bush is like Bull because both make it really, really, really easy to galvanize an opposition. Because both inspire hatred. Which is only a fact: Bush inspires hatred.

Geez, Rick, no wonder people think you're me pretending to be a standard issue liberal. You're actually defending and saying the intent wasn't to call him a racist? Priceless.

"Bull" Connor was a Democrat in good standing.

. . . as was Bobby "Sheets" Byrd.

And Jefferson Davis and Nathaniel Bedford Forrest who Harold Meyerson compared him to.

Raoul, thanks for pointing that out. All those white supremacists, including Senator Al Gore, Sr. were Democrats and boy could they hate.

Which is only a fact: negroes inspire hatred.

I guess the president is in good company then. The people who hate him so intensely are the descendants of those who hated the sons and daughters of slaves with the same passion.

Rick--

That's why I compare you to a Stalinist. You defend left-wing stupidity, regularly. See how easy it is?

At least it's not like it was in the '80s, when the left told us white boys to shut up because we couldn't understand that the speakers were just "woofin'" or, in other words, that you can't take anything blacks say seriously.

Rick Perlstein:

Yeah, I'm sure that's what Rangel was referring to -- his only reason for comparing Bush to Bull Connor was to point out that both inspire hatred. That's exactly the kind of detached argument I too make in front of emotional crowds that cheer my every utterance.

If you can't admit that Rangel is calling Bush a white supremacist then it's hard to imagine any circumstances under which you would admit error, which makes challenges like the one I just linked to rather superfluous.

One of these days the real Rick P is going to google himself, wind up here, and discover the lefty caricature OJ has created using his name.

One hopes. Right?

Should have got to this thread earlier. Forgot about it. So, BMN, if I'm a Stalinist, who's my Stalin?

Rick Perlstein:

I'm sure, following your example, that he can think up some justification of that term that makes no sense whatsoever but that he will cling to tenaciously.

that...that...that...that...

Preview is my friend.

Matt's projecting big time. I didn't say what Rangel said wasn't stupid, or easily misconstrued--or even that it doesn't have a component of equating the Bush Regime with Nazism.

The projection is common enough to be a fascinating aspect of conservatism. It's evolved pretty recently. As I just emailed Orrin, "The most salient thing here is the eagerness of conservatives to believe themselves to be called Nazis, the positive pleasure they take in claiming that this is systematic. Though admittedly without that I would lose one of my greatest psychic pleasures, laughing at conservatives' persecution complex. My favorite new magazine these days is Newsmax's newsletter on the global persecution of Christians, and the hints and outright avowals that police roundups of church services are just around the corner in the U.S. of A."

You might say that taking pleasure in this snipe hunt has become, to signify on Orrin's online file of these things, "obligatory" for conservatives.

The thing conservatives these days get angry about is when people use MEEEEEEN words to describe them. I liked it better when conservatives used to say complaining about language that offends someone was "politically correct," and forbidden. It at least showed a little backbone, a recognition that politics ain't beanbag.

It comes off as very whiny, folks. And, as OJ always says, Americans hate whiners.

Of course this also has a political function for consrevatives. If you can't use strong language to criticize your leaders, your leaders can get away with a hell of a lot more.

Lose to petulances, boys. It's not flattering.

Rick:

Typicially, you miss the point. We think it's funny.

Well, seeing past each other is half the fun. Here's my point. You're whiners.

The argument ad hitlerium is too prevalent on both sides. Usually the abiding sin is rhetorical laziness. We need better, more precise thinkers and writers in American politics. Surprise, surprise.

I'm fascinated with this folk culture that's recently developed right of the obsessive cataloguing of verbal slights. It's increased commensurate with the increase in conservative dominance of the instruments of governance--it's as if conservatives can't thrive, psychologically, without wallowing in a sense of victimhood: just like you guys say about the left.

I know I've never complained about being a victim. I've never whined about something someone said about me hurting my feelings. It doesn't hurt my feelings.

It's just, ultimately, no big deal. Too many people on your side call my side "Communist" (and, in the back of their mind, they mean the "tens of millions slaughtered and starved" kinds of Communist). I'll grant that too many people on my side call your side fascist (so, see, I "get" the point; though I don't see what Orrin's complaining about: he defends his defense of Spain's fascist government).

"We" call "you" Nazis. "You" call "us" Stalinists. It's the order of the universe. Get over it. Be men about it.

(Save your typing fingers, I already know the response: "That's because you ARE a commie." I'd ask reversion to my first paragraph: we really, all of us, should try to think and write more precisely.)

Rick:

Who? Where are the elected Republican officials and MSM columnists calling Democrats Stalinists? There are pretty nearly none. It would be childish and we're the grown-up party.

We note the Nazi ones because we like to laugh at you guys. That you proceeded to do exactly what I said you would -- pretend the reference wasn't about racism -- was just too precious. The Left today exists only for comic relief. But we do appreciate you for it.

Rick Perlstein:

Feelings of persecution? How, precisely, can the Left persecute conservatives in a country where self-professed conservatives outnumber liberals almost 2-to-1 and, as an added benefit, own all of the guns?

Of course conservatives enjoy pointing out that leftists call us Nazis and white supremacists. We think it's funny. What's also amusing is to watch you guys pull explanations out of your posteriors so as to deny what you're really saying.

This statement...

Passing familiarity with history leads one away from the concolusion this is a "Nazi" reference. [...] I suspect that, in Rangel's formlation, Bush is like Bull because [...] both inspire hatred.

...seems pretty self-explanatory. You're desperately looking around for something -- anything -- to explain away the obvious import of what Rangel said (he's certainly said similar things on many occasions). Because to take him at face value would amply demonstrate just how infantile your side has become.

Again, we're not pointing this out because of some persecution complex -- we just like seeing you guys running for cover.

Typicially, you miss the point. We think it's funny.

As usual, OJ got to it before I did.

Where are the elected Republican officials and MSM columnists calling Democrats Stalinists?

He's thinking of some of the loonier posters on FreeRepublic. On our side, that talk comes mostly from the fever swamps (and, of course, many Freepers stay away from that kind of rhetoric). On his side, it comes from the elected officials and mainstream columnists.

Matt:

Yes, Rick thinks Free Republic is the pulse of Red America.

OJ:

Really, if he knew Red America he would realize that the extremely unrepresentative number of Ayn Rand acolytes and libertarians on that website is unusual. I live in one of the reddest states of the Union and I rarely meet people with those views.

It's not a good idea to research American political categories by examining people who regularly post to the Internet.

"met with wild applause and cheering at a Congressional Black Caucus town hall meeting, part of the organization's 35th Annual Legislative Conference."

1) Okay, white boys, just why do you think this would have met with "wild applause and cheering"?

Are these black folks just so out of touch with reality that they don't even realize their own past persecution, or the ideas and themes which led to such persecution?

2) When you have steps being taken which are reminiscant of the kind of rightwing extremism which led to all of the Hitler's around the world, do you think it's that difficult to recognize?

I mean, oj defended imperialism on another thread. He pretended to be unashamed by the admission. How do you think folks all over the world view this type of arrogance? I know you don't really care, but they really do view this as just more ugly "Americanism" and similar to that thinking which aloowed a Hitler to come to power.

And the right being Hitlerians and left being Stalinists is an artifical argument. The right, for the most part DID support Hitler, and didn't even want to get involved until Germany declared war on the U.S. The State Dept, even referred to him as a moderate.(Sorry Patrick, another uncomfortable fact) I don't know of anyone from the left who has ever supported Stalin, though there has been a resurgence of folks in Russia now saying those were the best times of their lives. Don't worry though, I think it's only around 40-50%. And the folks from the left who I know viewed the Bolshevik Revolution as counter-revolutionary, and have since 1917. So, I'm really not sure where the right gets any connection at all between the left and any totalitarian system. Perhaps some totalitarian communists would have believed this, but they were a small fraction and always have been. Kind of like the small fraction of rightwing extremists in the U.S. right now gaining more and more power, or so they believe, thanks to the anything-but-liberal media.(Another fun myth to decontruct in about 20 seconds if you wish)

To show you just how far right the spectrum of debate has been moved, there are actually people from the right, the few who know about him, who think Chomsky is anti-American, anti-Semitic, was a Pol Pot apologist, communist, etc...Or even funnier, that Michael Moore is a lefty. Is it really going out on a limb to think that these right/facist tendencies aren't just below the surface? And much of the time they aren't below the surface at all, as in the previous oj support of imperialism. Can't wait to hear him try and wriggle out of this one. KB

At that CBC meeting, Harry Belafonte called for Republicans to be "amputated" at the legs. Hillary followed by praising Belafonte's speech.

That's kind of hate-speech you don't hear from conservatives.

KB:

Wow.
What a target-rich environment.

When you have steps being taken which are reminiscant of the kind of rightwing extremism which led to all of the Hitler's around the world, do you think it's that difficult to recognize?

Apparently so, since you seem to believe that it's happening in America today.
Examples, please.

Giving the gov't the power to see what titles you've checked out of the library isn't just-a-hair-away from Nazi Germany.

I mean, oj defended imperialism on another thread. He pretended to be unashamed by the admission.

He wasn't pretending.

PNAC is the map of the 21st century.

How do you think folks all over the world view this type of arrogance? [...] [T]hey really do view this as just more ugly "Americanism"...

So what ?

I'm not being facetious, I'd really like to get a cogent answer someday.
The rest of the world may not much like America, but they still sell us their wares, and buy from America.
As long as they continue to do so, of what possible utility could their approval be ?

I don't know of anyone from the left who has ever supported Stalin...

What, do you mean personally ?

Because history shows AMPLE evidence of that being true.

[T]hanks to the anything-but-liberal media.(Another fun myth to decontruct in about 20 seconds if you wish)

Yes, about twenty seconds of research would convince any rational person that the popular media is somewhat liberal, and mildly hostile to conservative ideas and persons.
The idea that twenty seconds of research would prove THE OPPOSITE is, like, crazy, man.

To show you just how far right the spectrum of debate has been moved, there are actually people from the right [...] who think Chomsky is anti-American...

Only because he is.

That's what's known as recognizing reality.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 23, 2005 9:49 PM

KB:

We're a product of British Imperialism. We worked out pretty well, no?

If Iraq turns out as well think they'll mind having been our colony for a couple years? The Japanese and Germans seem to think it worked out well for them.

KB,

Most of these people are brainwashed fools. Sometimes i think this website is an elaborate parody on conservative minsinformation. Ive been trying various tactics for weeks, and I've made only limited headway on getting them to admit that the current trends in our government are so destructively evil that they should be ashamed to call themselves Republicans. But they would rather ignore all that disprove their logic, and argue against the straw-men of the Democratic party.
And yes, Michael Herdegen, there are many examples why our country is going closer to that of Nazi Germany. The type of idiotic polazizing simplification of politcal views into conservative = good therefore liberal = bad is one really good example.

KB,

Most of these people are brainwashed fools. Sometimes i think this website is an elaborate parody on conservative minsinformation. Ive been trying various tactics for weeks, and I've made only limited headway on getting them to admit that the current trends in our government are so destructively evil that they should be ashamed to call themselves Republicans. But they would rather ignore all that disprove their logic, and argue against the straw-men of the Democratic party.
And yes, Michael Herdegen, there are many examples why our country is going closer to that of Nazi Germany. The type of polazizing simplification of politcal views into conservative = good therefore liberal = bad is one really good example.

And the more you deny it, the more true it is. So don't bother.

What "current trends in our government are so destructively evil"? The only example you give is that people say unkind things about so-called liberals. The same kind of liberals who call those who disagree with them "brainwashed fools."

If we are headed down such a road, why can't the GOP at least start breaking some heads and making their loudest critics disappear? I keep waiting for my local Gruppenfuehrer to tell me to put on the brown shirt and bring the baseball bat because we are going to bust up a Peace March or a Democrat fundraiser, but he never calls...

Rick:

OK, we don't have to talk about Stalin or the Soviet version of totalitarianism. But your defense of Rangel reminds me of those who dispassionately defend Hitler because he improved the German economy. Fair enough?

Rangel won't retract what he said, and he probably won't even qualify it that much. He is just an angry man because he gets thrashed by guys like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity every time he goes on 'conservative' talk shows. He isn't shown the fealty he expects (and is used to) from the mainstream media. Plus, he knows he will never be chairman of Ways & Means, so he is getting crankier by the minute.

Your statements about conservative whining are too rich. Don't you realize that the Democrats have worn out the "mean-spirited" charge? Who was the first major political figure to voice sadness about "the politics of personal destruction"? Hint: he never achieved his dream - to be Speaker. The only reason Republicans keep bringing this stuff up is that the Democrats have claimed to be the party of tolerance, of open discussion, of moral and spiritual goodness, of all sweetness and light - but they sure don't extend any of it when the cameras are on.

The real whiners are the donkeys. All we are doing is pointing out the foolishness of the left.

The racism merchants are desperate to perpetuate paranoia among poorly educated blacks who reliably vote democratic out of an inculcated believe in republican racism. The largest bastion of white racism in the US is among industrial union workers - a key democratic constituency.

Moreover, in congress, the percentage of republicans who voted for the civil rights act of 1964 was higher than the percentage of democrats who voted for it.

Yet moreover, the republicans reliably purge their ranks of racists - look at David Duke, Joseph Sobran, Pat Buchanan (who had a constituency it was numerically painful to do without). Have the dems done that with Sharpton or any number of others?

Fred:

You can believe that garbage if you want to, but when you compare our country to Nazi Germany you guys look pretty damn foolish to the vast majority of Americans who aren't patently delusional.

And when you guys sit here and pat each other on the backs and ignore the fact that our country has lots of problems so that you can continue the high school pep rally of the Bush administration, you look pretty foolish to the majority of the world's population who does not agree with you.
Maybe when our country goes to hell you will realize how much of a fraud our political system is.

Fred: List the problems and we'll respond, but you really haven't been paying attention if you think that we don't see any problems with the country.

Rick: It must really hurt when the less-talented players on your team come running in immediately after you post and completely undercut your point.

Fred: You've been challenged to give examples of the Nazification of modern day America, and you've responded only with conclusory statements. You won't persuade anyone of the rightness of your premise if all you do is parrot what Mr. Soros and Michael Moore tell you to believe. How's about some evidence?

Nor will you win us over by insulting us at every turn. "Agree with me or you're an idiot" is not a persuasive line of argument. You might try having some respect for your debating opponents. It's a matter of common courtesy, and it may also keep you from underestimating them.

Of course, that assumes that you're actually looking to persuade people. If all you're doing is posting provocative and over-the-top comments so you can call yourself the Brave Dissident Who Spoke Truth To Power And Stuck It To The Man Using The Man's Own Bandwidth, well, we've not much to say to each other, apart from this: I have known people who were actual political prisoners in actual tyrranies. Neither you nor I have ever lived through anything even remotely like what they've suffered, and neither of us is in the slightest danger of ever doing so as long as we live in this country--even during the years when the opposition party is in power.

Please don't puff your own ego up by pretending that catching a few rhetorical jabs from Orrin is anything like surviving a gulag. It's an insult to those who've done the real thing.

It can't be that much fun to be on Rick's team in the first place. Spinning for the likes of Rangel has got to be a pretty humiliating way to make a living, Rick. Why don't you guys at least take your party back?

By the way, the Bull Connor reference isn't the best part. This is:

"If there's one thing that George Bush has done that we should never forget, it's that for us and for our children, he has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all," the congressman said.

Maybe he was quoted out of context.

Fred:

You guys have got to learn that the rest of the world's population, while important, does not decide our elections. If you're going to defeat the opposition, you have to try to convince Americans of the rightness of your cause. Newsflash: Comparing our country to Nazi Germany is not a good way of doing that.

Fred:

Let me be blunt - I don't give a hoot what almost every Arab, European, or anyone else in the rest of the world thinks about 'our' politics or standing in the world.

You can keep on studying for your global test. America has better things to do.

I'm with Fred, when our country goes to hell I hope we do realize it. Of course, we're living in the meanwhile....

Oh man. This has been the most enjoyable thread in quite a while--keep it up, everyone.

The only way it could possibly get better is to see Rick & Fred have an extensive debate on the propriety of calling Republicans Nazis. Please, guys? Bring a little joy into the world.

Fred:

Ever read anything at all about the political violence in Weimar Germany? When the closest thing to it here is the Left calling names at the President we're an awful long ways from Nazification.

Rick:

"The thing conservatives these days get angry about is when people use MEEEEEEN words to describe them. I liked it better when conservatives used to say complaining about language that offends someone was "politically correct," and forbidden. It at least showed a little backbone, a recognition that politics ain't beanbag."

A standard assertion of the Left is that it is truly open-minded, tolerant, compassionate etc.

Pointing out Nazi\KKK\Confederate\troglodyte comparisons made by liberals puts the lie to that.

Fred:

"Maybe when our country goes to hell..."

I've been standing by waiting for that to happen for decades now. The left has been confidently predicting it for ages, along with gloomy assurances that this or that country (the Soviets, Europe, Japan and now China)is soon to overtake and marginalize it. You should ponder Canadian philosopher George Grant's quip that the left is always forseeing the imminent advent of fascism in America, but when the real thing comes, it always seems to descend on Europe.

PJ said:
"At that CBC meeting, Harry Belafonte called for Republicans to be "amputated" at the legs. Hillary followed by praising Belafonte's speech."

Yes, so? What does this have to do with hate? Sounds just like some comment from a football game. If there's a current problem with the left it's that they're too wimpy and should start playing as dirty as the right always has. They need to shelf their morals for a while and quit attempting to not lower themselves to the usual agry discourse which the right has always excelled in, and slap them upside the head with something they'll understand. Detached logic, rationality, facts, etc...doesn't work. They think it's lowering themselves down to the intellectual level of the right, which, actually, it is, but the right has never understood the intellectual realm. I mean, that's what makes them the right. Right?KB

"That's kind of hate-speech you don't hear from conservatives."

Well, I don't see any hate at all in the statement. But then again, I'm sure you don't see any hate in Ann Coulter either. Unfortunately, there's not only a qualitative difference in the hate speech, the right having a long history of it, but a quantitative difference in that the right dominates almost completely the mass media, and it always has. The more honest conservatives will tell you as much. Would you like some links?KB
=================================================
Michael said:
"Wow. What a target-rich environment."

Yes, PJ was a pretty easy target.KB

"When you have steps being taken which are reminiscant of the kind of rightwing extremism which led to all of the Hitler's around the world, do you think it's that difficult to recognize?"

"Apparently so, since you seem to believe that it's happening in America today."

If you don't see current trends, as well as those trends that have been around a LONG time, and you need to even ask about them, then what do you really think my pointing them out will help? Do you think you're going to change your pre-conceived notions that there aren't tendencies in this direction? And when I make these statements I'm not saying at all that the U.S. is LIKE Nazi Germany. Not yet anyway. I'm saying that there are trends. Anyway, see:
http://www.chomsky.info/books/washington03.htm

"Examples, please."

There are only hundreds for those interested in finding out about such things. Why don't you do your own research? I'm tired of doing all the work for you guys on the right who ask for things, I give them, they're rarely read, and nothing changes. I've been trying to get an anti-Chomskyite friend of mine to read at least one of his books for 4 years now, but he can't/won't, even though he continually writes about him on his blog as if he knows something about him. The extent of his research into Chomsky is reading other folks, folks like Horowitz, Kamm, Carnell, DeLong, etc..., and others who haven't a clue, and then assumes he knows Chomsky's thought. It's quite humorous, as well as lends valuable material for my dialogues.KB

"Giving the gov't the power to see what titles you've checked out of the library isn't just-a-hair-away from Nazi Germany."

Yes, you're right on this one. It's probably over the line in this regard.KB

I mean, oj defended imperialism on another thread. He pretended to be unashamed by the admission.

"He wasn't pretending."

Really? I mean, I had heard that there were actually a few imperialist apologists around, but it's actually quite rare to capture one (a)live. These folks are almost as depraved as the anarcho-capitalists. I still think he's joking. And I hope he knows that if he isn't, he's just made apologetics for every other type of imperialism which has existed. And, as I said before, if he says something silly like "Well, we're different. We are REALLY good. The others were not." They all said that as well. How can you even ask for examples of creeping fascism when oj is making statements like this? Don't really need to go far to find what I was referring to.KB

"PNAC is the map of the 21st century."

I guess?KB

How do you think folks all over the world view this type of arrogance? [...] [T]hey really do view this as just more ugly "Americanism"...

"I'm not being facetious, I'd really like to get a cogent answer someday."

Answer for what? Why many folks dislike the U.S.? Once again, it's hard NOT to be able to find the reasons. I mean, there are MANY things about the U.S. which folks from all over the world appreciate(freedom of speech, civil rights, etc...), and there are many things they don't appreciate(supporting murdering dictators all over the globe, leading the U.N. in vetoing virtually every issue which matters to the planet, etc....) So, the thing to do is to weed out the bad stuff and emphasize the good stuff, hence, the position of the left, historically speaking anyway.KB

"The rest of the world may not much like America, but they still sell us their wares, and buy from America."

Yes, they do right now. So even do it willingly, too. Unfortunately, there are many countries in which our "trade" has been at the expense of the local populations, and have only benefitted a few percent of the elite, mostly corrupt, many murdering tyrants. Perhaps many folks in the U.S. aren't familiar with these aspects of U.S. actions around the globe, but the folks on the receiving end are quit well aware. Even most folks who aren't on the receiving end are quite well aware, hence, the BBC's much better coverage of international affairs, generally speaking. Of course, this objectivity is viewed as hostility of the U.S. by the more indoctrinated of the population, but that's to be expected. Objectivity becomes hostility towards the state, and those being objective are anti-American. Nothing new. Orwellism at it's finest.KB

"As long as they continue to do so, of what possible utility could their approval be?"

Yes, yes, yes, we know, we know. They "need" the U.S. And if they didn't, we'd make them. Wait! We already do that in many places, don't we?KB

I don't know of anyone from the left who has ever supported Stalin...

"What, do you mean personally?"

You know, kind of the opposite of non-personally. I simply mean that I've never known anyone from the left who has ever said anything good about Stalin. I've heard a few factual statements about the Soviet Union, things like the Soviet Union grew by leaps and bounds within one generation while those countries under U.S. control only did not grow, but underdeveloped, which were then transformed into apologetics for Stalin in the usual ignorant way. They have nothing to do with one another.KB

"Because history shows AMPLE evidence of that being true."

Really? Where?KB

[T]hanks to the anything-but-liberal media.(Another fun myth to decontruct in about 20 seconds if you wish)

"Yes, about twenty seconds of research would convince any rational person that the popular media is somewhat liberal, and mildly hostile to conservative ideas and persons."

Nope. Doesn't exist and never has. Of course if you take a VERY narrow definition of the word liberal there may be a few items here and there which are presented to give the appearance of being balanced, but on the whole, there's VERY little in the media which comes close to being leftist. Almost nothing. I have dozens of places to send you for examples of this if you wish.KB

"The idea that twenty seconds of research would prove THE OPPOSITE is, like, crazy, man."

Yes, I'm sure it would sound crazy to someone who has been indoctrinated with the myth of the liberal media for years. You still see circles whenever squares are presented. I mean, you've been told that those round things are squares, you actually believe it after a while. And, actually, it only takes about 3 seconds to destroy the myth of the liberal media. Perhaps you should study a little about the history of propaganda, public relations indistry, etc...There are many good books on these topics. Personally, I think it's probably a good idea to study and see how my own country's propaganda system has been developed. It's easy for the right to see the gross propaganda of Salinist Russia, but it's amazing to see how difficult it is for them to see it happening in the U.S., or even acknowledge that it exists at all. Talk about being successful.KB

To show you just how far right the spectrum of debate has been moved, there are actually people from the right [...] who think Chomsky is anti-American...

"Only because he is."

Well, I guess that's all the proof I needed. As someone who has studied Chomsky for more than 20 years, has read all of his books(with the exception of some of the linguistic books), listened to hundreds of hours of lectures, read hundreds of articles, read most all of his critics "writings", mostly comical nonsense(See Horowitz), etc...I can say unequivocally, that he's anything BUT anti-American. Quite the opposite, in fact. However, due to a thorough indoctrination, you have managed to see black as white again. And please don't try and argue about this topic. Your statement has already told me loud and clear that you haven't read him at all, either that, or you're illiterate. I don't think you're illiterate.KB

"That's what's known as recognizing reality."

Uhhh...okay. Whatever you say. And while we're on recognizing "reality" I say your first stop should be P.I.P.A. to check what your perceptions vs reality are regarding several topics, Iraq, etc...Let me know what you find. Then, if you actually want to read a book or two you can start with Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent', 'Necessary Illusions', 'Deterring Democracy', and 'Hegemony or Survival', Elizabeth Fones-Wolfe's 'Selling Free Enterprise', oh, there are too many. I have dozens if you're interested in another reality. I mean, this one is a real reality.KB
=================================================
"We're a product of British Imperialism. We worked out pretty well, no?"

And the Soviet Union was a product of Soviet imperialism and went from a backwards third world country to a superpower in one generation. And China led most of the population out of illiteracy and hunger. And the Japanese modernized many of the places they invaded after slaughtering thousands of people. So? This makes it okay? So, if the Taliban, remember, the "Moral equivalents to our founding fathers" as one great U.S. president said, took over the U.S. and set up their system, they, too, could say it was successful. And most every other dictator has always said this. Are you actually condoning dictatorships as long as the trains run on time? Geez! I know many of the more cynical on the right think it's cool to pretend to be rebels by making silly statements about how imperialism is good, but grow up already. It's the intellectual eqivalent of wearing a "War is Good" T-shirt.KB

"If Iraq turns out as well think they'll mind having been our colony for a couple years?"

Why are you acting as if Iraq's well-being has anything at all to do with why we are there? Your presumption is already out of touc with the real world. Do you really think those in power give a rats ass about the well-being of the folks there? Or that this was EVER a serious consideration? That's quite funny. And let me guess, oil is incidental. Who gave the U.S. the right to do anything in Iraq? Do other countries have the same rights? If not, why not?KB

"The Japanese and Germans seem to think it worked out well for them."

Yes, as we can see all over the place at this very moment. I'm sure the Japanese really thank the U.S. for committing the biggest terrorist act in history in order to make them better. Hey, I live in Japan, and believe me, there 's a HUGE difference between what you think the Japanese think and what they actually think. I'd say about 98% of the population didn't support the Bush nomination. I have never met one, and I have done surveys. NONE. Zero. And while many do admire many of the good qualities about the U.S., I'd have to say that it's declining thanks to Bush, guns, it's anti-U.N.ism, being bullied into being a "supporter", and several other things. I teach about 600 students a week. When asked where they'd like to travel abroad a surprising low percentage say the U.S. Most say Canada, Australia, France, and a few others. I think they're primarily afraid of being shot. I mean, they actually report about the 20,000+ gun deaths a year in the U.S. on the news here. You probably have a better chance of not getting shot in Iraq realistically.KB

KB wrote:

"There are only hundreds for those interested in finding out about such things."

I just wanted to pick out the money quote here so the rest of y'all don't have to read the heaping pile of nonsense KB posted this morning.

American imperialism? Empire building?

Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

On a another post, oj said the left uses fascist when they mean anti-Bolshevik. Accurate, short and sweet definition.

KB:

Yes, Russia would have done better had we extended our imperialism to it in either the aftermath of WWI or WWII. What's your point?

We have the right and moral obligation to help any people whose government oppresses them.

Japan just had an election and close to 100% of the vote went to democratic parties, no? We made them like us and they're happy with it.

KB:

Pithiness isn't your friend, is it? If you can't write your ideas (points, arguments, even screeds) in a few (shorter) paragraphs, you aren't going to convince anyone of anything, least of all yourself.

There are really only two points to be made to KB. First, Chomsky is stupid. Second, 30 seconds of Googling would find any number of complaints by relatively sane leftists that the anti-war movement is being run by a Stalinist (literally) front organization.

Well, Jim, I guess that's all one needed to come to the conclusion that the rest was nonsense. Is this an example of more of that fine rightwing anti-scholarship, or were you simply unable to read and understand the words. Don't be embarrassed. I'm sure there's a community college near your home.KB

"We made them like us"? That's the most absurd thing you've said since the last thing you said. Their democracy hardly resembles U.S. democracy. It does in certain ways, but then again so does China. Yes, I've been there several times. And yes, if we would just get off our lazy butts and take over the world it would be such a better place. Are you really still trying to make apologetics for imperialism? You really weren't kidding, were you? That's fine oj. You just keep on promoting your imperialism and I'll just keep telling the people I meet from around the planet that you really aren't like 99.99999% of the people of the U.S. Actually, I find myself making apologetics for folks like you and your positions. And to think that you're not even aware enough to be embarrassed or ashamed of your comments. It's like having an indoctrinated pseudo-patriot with Tourette's syndrome for a child and haing to keep apologizing for his behavior and where he may have heard the nonsense he uncontrollably blurts out. Oh, and by the way, why don't we just go ahead and invade Irian Jaya now. I mean, I'm sure we can force our God-given imperialist excellence down their kotekas, too. And besides, they may be a national security threat in about 200 years, so that "preventive terroi***I mean, war, is probably a good idea.KB

And, Jim, thanks for the advice. But I'll write how I like, and you can do the same. And what on Goddess's green earth does being short have to do with convincing anyone of anything? That's an odd assertion. I would be more convincing to you if someone said "Rain, today." than if someone said "I heard the weatherman on three stations say that there was a 98% chance of rain today." Personally, I find the latter more convincing. If you wish to write in short and empty of content soundbites, in the style of "Rapid Fire" of the "Crossfire" comedy show, then by all means. However, I've already been there and done that. Doesn't work. What ends up happening is that I'll write a few lines and leave things out which you will no doubt say that I left out and I'll have to write them anyway. I prefer to try and cover more bases all at once so as not to have to write 200 short sentences. It also makes it much harder to go back a find the passages your opponent has used when attempting to make arguments. So, once again, if you want to argue about something of relevance just make your point at whatever length you wish, and I'll do the same. And there's really no need to avoid topics by pointing out typing errors either. Waste of time. Now, did you have something to say, in your few words? Perhaps you can say "Bush good" and convince me that he is.KB

David Cohen:

You can't just say Chomsky is stupid. We need you to provide at least 2,000 words of unreadable, desultory composition before we're convinced.

Jinx!!!

Is this an example of more of that fine rightwing anti-scholarship, or were you simply unable to read and understand the words.

Yes, ad hominem attacks and inappropriate condescension are sure-fire routes to persuasion.

May I suggest this fine publication: How to Win Friends & Influence People, by Dale Carnegie.

I'm sure there's a community college near your home.

What's your gripe with community colleges ?
Isn't any place of learning better than NO place of learning ?

Anyway, it's clear from your writing style that you attended State U like most people, so why the attitude ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 25, 2005 6:48 AM

Here ya go: Chomsky IS Stupid.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 25, 2005 7:00 AM

KB:

You've missed a step here--why does Anglo-American imperialism require an apology? How many countries are worse off than we found them? I'll give you Vietnam and Cambodia, which anti-imperialist Democrats made us leave and North Korea which Republicans kept us from fixing. Other than that I can only think of Cuba, which we've allowed to fester for fifty years instead of getting rid of Castro--it was developing normally before we let him take over.

Meanwhile, the Brits get Zimbabwe on the bad side of their ledger, a black mark for letting Hong Kong revert to China and should have done a better job in the Middle East.

The apologies, as you can see, are due where we were insufficiently imperialist.