The Demonization of the Opposition by SoupCatcher

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Proportional is a valid concept in 'the real world'.

True enough. Some things are more important than others. Some things, not so much. I think you are confusing the process with the end product here, Which is probably a valid point.

But again, I don't see the utility of your "shades of grey approach. Did I miss that rebuttal, or was all this talk of potentometers it?

Quote:
(When DOES a human individual come into existance, Drakon?)

You put me in a bit of a bind here, since you already chastised me for repeating myself. As I have stated before, in this very thread, from Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:30

Quote:
The purpose of a law against murder is that serves as a means of protecting folks against murder. We have exceptions, such as self defense. And we also recognize legally death as a result of unintended consequences, and call that "Manslaughter". But to the victim, it does not matter. They are still dead.

I don't know when life begins. You are killing something. It does not have the characteristics of a tumor, a frog, or any other living entity. It will someday, if everything goes normally become a infant human. When is that magic dividing line between life and not life, between human and not human, I don't really know.

One side says at conception, the other says at birth. If the latter is wrong, then abortion is murder. If the former is wrong, then it still becomes a baby, a human, later in life. So again, to err on the side of caution seems prudent.

Quote:
So I'm back to my original assessment of you. This is not an 'oops' kind of thing, you deliberately disable honest discussion.

Let me see if I get this right. Because I do not respond to each and every point in a timely fashion, as you desire, you judge me dishonest. You see that as the only possible conclusion. You chastise me for repeating myself and then demand an answer to a question that I have already answered. While it is apparent that you missed that answer, I am going to refuse to return the favor and mirror your judgement.

Now, lets talk about purpose. You see, you have to ask yourself what are you trying to do here. Is it to convince me of the correctness of your views? To play to the audience? In either case, I think you will find calling your opponent dishonest, in the manner you have chosen is not going to work.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, you and I have nothing to discuss.

Then why bother?

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 16, 2004 4:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

edited b/c computer glitch

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 16, 2004 10:36 PM

Yeah sorry about that. Fixed now.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:07 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

bump

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier
What came to mind were hate and naivete. The lefties are nothing if not kind and gentle and compassionate, aren't they? And if you call a conservative naive, he'll just laugh and blow smoke in your face, right?

After 9/11 the left really pushed their own agressive rage way way down, and projected it on the right. I think that fueled a lot of the whole, "We deserved it" rhetoric that was flying around before a lot of the families in New York even knew if their loved ones were still alive. It was spooky. So I think a lot of formerly left leaning folk out there kinda moved away from the left. They felt their rage and owned it instead of burrying it and a lot of them supported the "War on Terror" because it spoke to them.

What I keep hearing very loudly and often from the right is that liberals "LIVE IN A FANTASY WORLD!!!" But at the same time, and to a larger and larger degree it seems, the right live in the imagination of their President. If Bush says it, it must be true. Period. I don't hear a lot of rightwing skepticism about the right. Even Denise Miller, snarkiest man on Planet Earth, doesn't have a mean thing to say about George! But without skepticism we lose our ability to discern truth from illusion and are likely to swallow anything our trusted source hands us.

So we get liberals who are full of rage and painfully naive conservatives. Hijinks ensue...

I read your post, HK, and got really excited because you introduced a new element into the discussion of demonization: projection. Then the dualism debate was quickly brought back online and there hasn't seemed to be a response. You raise a valid point: that we tend to hate in others what is part of our own personality but that we don't want to acknowledge. And this is probably a component reason for the increase in demonization. But I'm not convinced that this is the predominant reason. (Of course, I'm not convinced that there is a dominant reason. I lean more towards the explanation that there are a variety of reasons with varying levels of importance - just like most real world problems - which is why I was hoping for a large number of possible explanations rather than the three we have come up with).

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 17, 2004 4:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I used to have an intimate knowledge of Canadian politics. I don't know how things are today. Back then it was civil and respectful, even when hotly contested. One example is during Canada's annual conventions to "bring the Constitution home". Up until 1982 Canada's Constitution was the British North America Act which had been passed by the British Parliament (in 1867?). Anyway, for Canada to have its own home-grown constitution, they needed to ammend, vote on, and pass it. Which they tried to do every year for I don't know how long. In 1982 Alberta (tar sands, oil) wanted ammendments about provincial control of resources. And Quebec wanted to separate from Canada (still does I think). There were some other provincial disputes which I don't recall. No unanimous agreement could be reached. I still remember hearing Trudeau's 'deep divisions' speech at the end of the convention. But he wanted to leave a political legacy, and rather than sign the bill on a unanimous vote (as was thought should be done), he signed it on a majority vote. It stunned the hell out of everyone. But it got the Constitution home.

Something like that would rip the US apart.

In Britain, they might still even use the phrase 'loyal opposition' to describe the party(ies) not currently in power.

I do seriously think the US has a system which leads to two (and only two) major parties, and feedback that's so delayed it doesn't count. And that, I still think, leads to a level of struggle not seen in other places, and therefore demonization. IMHO.

Or, maybe it's just a US cultural quirk.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"Demonization" occurs pretty frequently in politics- unfortunately often as a prelude to war or coup. Hutus demonized the Tutsis, Nazis demonized the Jews, and USA demonized the Germans in WWI ("Huns", barbarians, "Fritz") and Bismarck deomonized the French, Italians, and Austrians.

What I observe is that demonization is not usually a spontaneous occurence but is driven by the ruling elite to further their agenda. The demonization is picked up and magnified by a fearful population. (Gulf of Tonkin attack, Iraq WMD, "drug running" in Panama)

Unfortunately demonization WORKS. It's an effective tool in a population that is panicked and economically unsettled and poorly educated about the world and its own elite. Nothing causes a band of baboons to clump together faster than tha call of "leopard!"

I find that the right-wing is doing most of the demonizing and that the left-wing has been very slow to respond. "The Federalist" and Max Boot and other right-wing publications are replete with rhetorical tricks- I could fill page after page of examples that should turn everyone's stomach on sheer sleaze. If you really want to see some typical examples I'll post them a bit later. The left wing, and the ex-generals, ex-Cabinet members, ex-ambassadors, ex-intelligence agents who criticize the Bush admin feel they have to prove their contentions, so they bring 19,000 pages of documents leaked secret memos and direct observation and videotapes and pictures and just get blown off. (See, that's not enough proof.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Drakon, I see that your post isn't here. I'm going to assume that your rhetoric is driven by honest panic and not cold-blooded manipulation. Take a deep breath, come back and let's talk.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 18, 2004 8:00 AM

HKCAVALIER

Thank you Signy for making the connection between demonization and wartime pathology. War is of course the ultimate expression of political demonization: the enemy deserves death. The enemy has "abdicated its humanity."

Demonization is central to the training of any army. The soldier mustn't see her enemy as human, she mustn't identify with their suffering. That's why Michael Moore showing children flying kites in Baghdad is considered propaganda by the Bushites. It undermines the demonization necessary for us to tolerate a war. Same with the demonized prisoners at Abu Ghraib. They were all terrorists deserving of the worst, right? Well, no, many were simply taken off the street "more or less at random." Whenever this discrepancy is brought to the attention of the Bushites, they fall silent.

The secret evil in teaching our troops and our civilians to demonize the enemy is that it works both ways: not only does it help us to tolerate the destruction of the enemy, but it helps us to tolerate the destruction of our own troops. Convince us that the enemy is evil and dangerous enough and we will dutifully offer up our sons and daughters for years at a time. I think it was Orwell who said that war is perpetrated by the governing elite upon its own people.

Demonization also insures that abuses like the rapes and murders that we are hearing about at Abu Ghraib will happen. It is a natural, almost mechanical consequence of denial and projection: you will become what you hate.

There is a saying in therapeutic circles: what we don't forgive, we will repeat. If my father was abusive to me and I grow up hating him for it, then when I become a father I will find myself with the same unexamined fury and desperation as he; to my certain horror, I will have no tools to keep me from repeating my father's violence upon my own children. But if I do the work of grieving the pain and loss of my own childhood and grow to understand the doubtless painful and ungrieved circumstances of my father's upbringing, I can come to genuinely forgive him and actually learn from his mistakes and end the cycle of violence.

Forgiveness cannot happen over night, or by a simple act of will. We must go through the pain and chaos of grief first. It was perhaps innevitable that we would go to war immediately after 9/11, as a race, we're still pretty unconscious and full of denial, but the desire for vengence fades. We are beginning, I think, to awaken to our own loss of life and humanity over there and we, as a people, want out.

The best definition of evil that I've been able to come up with is simply this: the denial of one's own rage and hate. The same work is done when we ascribe our hatred to God. Saying it is Gods will that we slaughter the enemy is another form of denial. To the degree that we deny our personal darkness, even our capability to commit evil, we are able to perpetrate the most horrendous crimes, because we keep their criminality secret even from ourselves.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 18, 2004 11:29 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BOING !!!!

Light bulb goes on.

THANKS !!! SignyM

Maybe two subtly different ideas were confounded here: demonization and personalization. Many people think Bush and cohorts are pure evil, but that is personalization. What distinguishes personalization from demonization is personalization is, well, personal, and based on experience with the individual. A person does certain negative things over and over, and so one makes negative character assumptions about the person. Demonization is the opposite, in the sense that it seeks, in contradiction-to - or in the absence of - experience, to strip individuality as well as humanity from its target(s). It creates faceless groups of non-humans. (Serbs and other groups lived side by side in the same villages for at least a century. In the run-up to war, there was generalized demonization of the non-Serbs. I think I remember reading an article about that in Newsweek, of all places. In fact, the author said that war was GOING to occur, as evidenced by the propaganda. And they provided some telling interviews of non-Serbs, who were saying - we've always lived side by side and never had a problem, but now with all this going on, we don't feel safe. And so a cycle of hatred and fear was created. In fact, the author was prescient by about 8 months.)

And of course demonization is propaganda. And propaganda is of necessity a tool of the controllers.

I too noticed that Drakon hasn't responded. Good luck to you both.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 18, 2004 11:36 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

HKCavalier,

I read somewhere that 9 out of 10 children will repeat an abusive pattern, but 1 out of 10 will decide early on to do better, because of the negative example. The 'Horse Whisperer' (the real person) was a '1 out of 10'. I don't know quite how this fits in with acknowledgement vs denial, so if you can put your thinking cap on and help me out, I'd be TRULY much obliged.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I love

to learn, and I've already learned a lot from people on this board. So thank you SignyM, HKCavalier, and others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

HK Cavalier- beautifully said. I believe that the opposite of denial would be called consciousness or awareness. It's a life-long work to become aware not only of your most basic assumptions (which are the hardest to see) but also of your physical state and your ugliest motivations- as well as your best.

If anyone can tell me how to get there from here, be my guest!

Rue- Demonization. The scary thing is how frightfully EASY it is to do- a few months of newspaper and TV bias can undo a lifetime of direct experience. I don't know how it is that a German who had known penniless Mrs Goldstein for years can suddenly turn around a believe in the Jewish banking conspiracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:57 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Sorry, no help available from me on the consciousness (awareness) thing. I have yet to even find a single personal basic assumption, let alone get past one.

It's a work in progress, I guess.

Out of curiosity, have you found a basic assumption of your own? If yes, how did you do that?

PS I read in a science fiction story about a traveller who'd gone a few days without food. At the end of the trip, he was eating in a cafeteria, sitting next a stranger who was carping about something or other. The story went that the traveller was listening to the whining, but the 'hind part' of his brain was saying 'Food now. Food good.' and so just blew it off. In another book, I read "I was young, and fed, and was allowed to sleep, and so I had hope." I think the authors had some insight into the effect of physical state on thought (a biophysical rendition of Maslow's (?) hierarchy).

It's knowledge about the world AND insights like that, about basic assumptions, effect of physical state etc, that come from others, that I appreciate.

So thanks again to the many who've enriched my life.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:05 PM

There's multiple types of demonization that serve different purposes. There's wartime demonization of the citizens of countries who we are fighting, such as what Signym talks about, the purpose of which is to help us get behind the destruction of our enemy. But there's also demonization of people who are within our own borders, the purpose of which is to marginalize. Something they both share is to turn people from individuals into faceless groups and to change opponents into enemies so that any means used against those groups become acceptable. Sometimes demonization spills over across these categories. [warning: painting with the broad brush].

In California, we have a history of demonization. During the gold rush there was an influx of people from around the world. Too many people competing for the same resources led to groups demonizing each other. One of the results being legislation to give groups an edge: foreign miner taxes and anti-Chinese-immigration being two examples. The unfortunate result of this was that people who were basically murderers and bandits were elevated to heroic status by those being demonized (the legend of Murieta and the factual Vasquez). There were parallels to this in the border states after the Civil War with groups such as the Jesse James gang (who my relatives from Missouri still insist did more good than harm much in the same way that my relatives from Arkansas talk about the good things the Klan did). Another example from the depression would be more in line with the demonization that Drakon talks about: poor farmers demonizing the banks and bankers who foreclosed on them rallying behind bank robbers like Pretty Boy Floyd in Oklahoma and Bonnie and Clyde in Texas.

The migrants from the Dust Bowl who showed up in California were routinely lumped together and the epithet of "Okie" still had power for my parents generation ("Well you know she married an Okie," said in such a tone that you expected a spit in the dirt to follow. Or, "Bakersfield is the armpit of California, that's where all the Okies ended up."). The "boat people" who followed in the seventies for different reasons fell into the same category. As did the Latin American illegal immigrants who started coming in greater numbers in the eighties but were still being mis-labeled as Mexican, who had been illegally immigrating all along.

The sub-humanizing of the Japanese during WWII spilled over to Americans of Japanese ancestry and led to the forceable incarceration of tens of thousands. In a classic move of pitting two marginalized communities against each other, property confiscated from Japanese-Americans was often given to Mexican-Americans.

There is also demonization against homosexuals. Just listening to some of our elected representatives will show that to you.

So I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I kind of just ran out of steam after talking off the top of my head for a while

.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:17 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Talk away!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

There've been some interesting recent studies on whom do people recognize as 'human.' Since I think they were done on Westerners, this might qualify the results.

Generally, one recognizes as 'human' and has empathy for, a person who resembles those you grew up with. So middle class white kids growing up in a middle class white family in a middle class white neighborhood will include someone from that category as as 'like them' - human. That may make it possible for middle class white people to pass-by the homeless, the demented, the poor, the darker-skinned, etc and not flinch at the pain.

The photographer who took the picture of the man in the suit going down headfirst out of a Twin Tower said - people cringed because they thought 'it could be me'. (And in fact the photographer compared that reaction to the lookey-loo reaction to other death photos, like those of John Kennendy, Robert Kennedy etc. They weren't 'like us'; they were rich and famous; and so people didn't flinch.)

On the other hand, I have a strong belief that people in a society become what society tells them 'people' are. (Otherwise how could you have gotten the Aztecs to sacrifice tens of thousands of their neighbors to ensure the return of the sun?) In the US people are competitors. There isn't a strong ethic of thinking of others as brethren.

As to how this fits into the process of 'demonization', I'm not sure.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:43 PM

Wow! What an intersting thread between some obviously smart folks. A person could spend hours going through all the information here. I must say for the record that I lean toward Drakon's point of view in this discussion, but have to say those of you on the other side of the issue are giving him a run for his money. It amazes me how civil things on this board remain even in such heated debates. While that has been some squabbling and name calling, both sides have shown remarkable restraint, something you don't see a lot of in other discussion boards. I thought I would chime in to the discussion with a response to CAPNHARBATKIN's challenge to Drakon about the prison scandals:

Drakon's Assertion:
"Second, again we are talking about bad guys, folks who have gassed Kurds, killed both civilian Iraqis and US troops, terrorists and thugs. "

My offered evidence that this is not true:

" Many of the prisoners abused at the Abu Ghraib prison were innocent Iraqis picked up at random by US troops, and incarcerated by under-qualified intelligence officers, a former US interrogator from the notorious jail told the Guardian."
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211374,00.html)

"Military officials said 70% to 90% of the Iraqis swept up for interrogation were arrested by mistake, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-09-our-view_x.
htm

I have to say it is very difficult to defend this assertion, but I will take a stab at it. Firstly, you quote the Manchester Guardian, not exactly an unbiased source, having said that, Torin Nelson mentioned in the piece sounds like a credible witness and doesn't appear to particularly bias, but even he states in the article "...So, in theory it is in fact very possible that purely innocent Iraqis could be placed in an environment where they could be brutalised, abused, "softened up" or even killed." Notice that he did not state categorically that he had any knowledge of innocent people being submitted to the problems at Abu Ghraib, only that in theory it is a possiblilty. I would say that in theory it is possible that no innocents were abused as well.

Drakon's Assertion:
"...this was all being handled by the military courts long before we ever heard about it, or saw one picture"

My offered evidence that this is not true:

"Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also shares in the shame. Myers asked “60 Minutes II” to hold off reporting news of the scandal because it could put U.S. troops at risk. But when the report was aired, a week later, Myers still hadn’t read Taguba’s report, which had been completed in March. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also failed to read the report until after the scandal broke in the media"

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2903288.php

(BTW: Gotta love that as a source!)

"Secretary Rumsfeld has clung so blindly to his own vision that even after the media began to publicize the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, he said last week that he had not yet read an official Army report on the Abu Ghraib abuses --- a report that had been completed in March."
http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gbase/Gyrosite/Content?oid=oid%3A260
5

Here Drakon's position is easier to defend. You yourself say that a the army's report (also called the Taguba Report, see it here - http://www.agonist.org/annex/taguba.htm) was completed in March. Since 60 minutes aired the stories in early May Drakon's assertion that the military was already investigating and pursuing the matter through proper channels before any pictures were seen seems obvious. I like your comment about the Army Times source btw. I also find it ironic that an OpEd piece from on of the military's own newspapers would tend to refute the position of many on this thread that our civil liberties are being eroded on a daily basis. Open criticism of the top military brass in a military paper, hardly an indication of a country on the rapid track to a police state.

The subject of this discussion thread is a very pertinent one to our current political climate. I find it very unsettling that forces on both sides find it necessary to denigrate their colleagues in the opposition. It is not necessary to view your political opponent as a cursed enemy, and for the most part I do not believe most politicians hold this view. Election years have a way of bringing out the worst in everyone in our very american desire to win, unfortunately. Hopefully the vitriol will not be so great that we fall in to the trap of destroying ourselves as Lincoln predicted:

"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be
its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

Keep Flying

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza
Wow! What an intersting thread between some obviously smart folks. A person could spend hours going through all the information here. I must say for the record that I lean toward Drakon's point of view in this discussion, but have to say those of you on the other side of the issue are giving him a run for his money. It amazes me how civil things on this board remain even in such heated debates. While that has been some squabbling and name calling, both sides have shown remarkable restraint, something you don't see a lot of in other discussion boards. I thought I would chime in to the discussion with a response to CAPNHARBATKIN's challenge to Drakon about the prison scandals:

Hi Razza. I haven't been following the prison scandals in enough detail to feel informed enough to comment on the particular details you bring up but I wanted to welcome you to the discussion. I, too, have been heartened by the overall tone of this conversation and those of others on this particular board. It only took me a few minutes reading the yahoo message boards to realize how civil things are here. It might be because we all, no matter what our political beliefs, are fans of firefly and so there is at least some commonality. At least I'd like to think so.

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza
The subject of this discussion thread is a very pertinent one to our current political climate. I find it very unsettling that forces on both sides find it necessary to denigrate their colleagues in the opposition. It is not necessary to view your political opponent as a cursed enemy, and for the most part I do not believe most politicians hold this view. Election years have a way of bringing out the worst in everyone in our very american desire to win, unfortunately. Hopefully the vitriol will not be so great that we fall in to the trap of destroying ourselves as Lincoln predicted:

Yeah. I'm worried about the next few months. In the past I have operated under the assumption that no matter how my views differ from others politically we all still want what is best for the country, we just have different ways of going about it. The strategy is similar if the tactics are different. But the demonization appears to be growing and I sincerely hope wounds are not opened that can't be healed, no matter what the November outcome.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 19, 2004 2:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

YOu can find an editorial by Max Boot, a noted right-wing editorialist here: / www.cfr.org/pub6857/max_boot/the_fringe_fires_at_bush_on_iraq.php

The topic is Lt Colonel Karen Kwaitkowski's statements that the Bush administration set up the Office of Special Plans (OSP) to funnel specious pro-war information, mostly from Chalabi, around the CIA and other intelligence organizations directly to the Office of the VP. (The CIA had already dtermined that Chalabi was unreliable.)

Lt. Colonel Kwaitkowski was assigned to the OSP but was troubled by its mission. What she said was:

Quote:
It wasn't intelligence -- it was propaganda ... they'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, usually by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together.

Read this editorial carefully. I challenge you to find a substantive discussion whether her statements are true or false.

The entire editorial consists of name-calling and personal attacks, not only on Lt. Colonel Kwaitkowski but also on Joseph Wilson and retired CIA officers. Nowhere does Max address their statements- that the war was based on a lie, that intelligence was deliberately subverted, and that the neocons had taken over foreign policy. Their "crimes" are that they publish their views in non-mainstream outlets- you know, like FF fans. Here are a few tidbits:

Quote:
Since her retirement in March 2003, she has become a prolific contributor to isolationist publications like the American Conservative, Pat Buchanan's magazine, and lewrockwell.com, an ultra-libertarian website. Pretty much all her work is devoted to uncovering "neoconservative warmongers" who have supposedly taken over U.S. foreign policy.

No discussion about whether the neoconservatives HAVE taken over policy... personally, I think they're the ones who got us into this mess. BTW, you Libertarins can tell me if the site he points to really is ultra-libertarian or if he's mischaracterized it.

Quote:
The best-known example is Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who has accused the administration of spreading misinformation about Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium and of deliberately outing his wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA operative.

All of this is true, so he avoids the topic strenuously and settles for name-calling....

Quote:
Wilson is ...a world-class publicity hound who makes Paris Hilton look meek by comparison...
Wilson is motivated by more than a desire for fame and fortune. He's also an ideologue. (And Max isn't?)

Quote:
Equally biased are the former CIA officers who call themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ...have many decades of intelligence experience among them... What is seldom mentioned is where the VIPS-ters publish most of their anti-Bush screeds: on Counterpunch.org, a conspiracy-mongering website run by Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn.

This is just one example of hundreds. Now, how does one heal the rift after this kind of demonization? I'm not sure that it's possible or even desireable. What Republicans voters might want to consider is that some people within the administration don't represent the majority Republican view.

BTW, there is a SERIOUS internal power struggle going on withing the ranks. I've mentioned this before, I'll mention it again: career diplomats, military officers, and intelligence agents are livid with the Bush administration. They think that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and Feith got us into a mess against both State Department and CIA recommendations, chose the wrong political startegy (de-Baathification) and hung the troops out to dry with insufficient forces and supplies- and no exit strategy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 19, 2004 4:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I know the previous post may have seemed off-topic. The point is that I find this kind of dirty politics to be sourced mainly in the right wing of the Republican Party who, when challenged with a dissenting view, shift the topic, accuse the dissenters of being "publicity hounds", "unpatriotic", "extreme", and bring up "information" that is patently false.

That isn't indicative of wanting an honest discussion. The Administration has to be especially careful if it truly wants an exchange of views because they have the military, police force and intelligence agencies behind them... and now they have the legal right to "dispapear" citizens, at least for awhile. It doesn't matter whether the Administration is Republican or Democrat- during the Vietnam War we had the National Guard kill demonstrators and satellites tracking Jane Fonda.

When an Administration only intends to shut down the opposition, you're not in a mode of "politics as usual" and I don't think it's possible to reach an accomodation with that kind of mind-set and you will probably negotiate away too much of your position if you try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 19, 2004 6:32 AM

==================================================

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I know the previous post may have seemed off-topic. The point is that I find this kind of dirty politics to be sourced mainly in the right wing of the Republican Party who, when challenged with a dissenting view, shift the topic, accuse the dissenters of being "publicity hounds", "unpatriotic", "extreme", and bring up "information" that is patently false.
==================================================

SignyM, you cannot be serious? You only see demonization as coming from the right? You accuse Drakon of being "..too close to his own viewpoint to be able to think about it. A little distance is a good thing." (Post dated 7/14/04 on this thread) That is good advice I think.

If you truly believe that the demonization is one-sided then how do you explain Moveon.org's ads which equated Bush with Hitler, the recent Hollywood fundraising bash for the Kerry Campaign, or Michael Moore's Bush bashing film "Farenhiet 9/11"? These are only a few examples of the left's efforts to demonize the current administration.

I refuse to delude myself into believing that those who hold an opposite view than myself are the sole purveyors of demonization. I recognize that both sides are equally responsible and am abhored by it. I do not see this as a good thing in any way shape or form. I see real hatred in our political discourse today, whether it be rabid Anti-Clinton conservatives or angy Bush Bashing liberals is beside the point.

==================================================
"Keep Flying"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 19, 2004 7:04 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

bump

Quote:
SIGNYM
Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:22
Drakon ... Show me a single post where I blew you off as paranoid.

SIGNYM
Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:59
... I expect to see that post by Sunday noon Zulu time. Without that post, by your own black and white extreme way of looking at things, you either lied or you're incompetent to judge reality.

SIGNYM
Friday, July 16, 2004 - 15:10
Drakon, redeem yourself. Did I, or did I not, call your concerns "paranoid"?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 19, 2004 8:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Demonization ... turning people into a faceless non-humans, that are to be thought of with revulsion. A two-part response - depersonalization of others AND creation of hate-response?

You can't demonize if you don't depersonalize.

And depersonalization happens naturally in the US. Perhaps demonization serves a specific psychological purpose. In stratified and uber-competitive US society, most people view most others as inhuman and have very little social empathy for them. (That also goes for the very wealthy - like Bush and Cheney - looking down on the rest of everyone. They really DON'T view nearly all people as human.) But everyone experiences physical pain. And except for the born-sociopaths, people learn to fear and avoid it, and recognize it in others. And so most people probably have some empathy for others' physical pain. It may take the installation of loathing to reliably make people take the initiative to personally inflict pain on another. (As opposed to the Milgram experiment where 70% inflicted 'pain' at the specific direction of an authority. http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html)

It might seem like I went past HK's posting, I didn't. Better minds than mine will need to put this all together.

And personalization (assigment of motivations to another based on experience) followed by revulsion - can it be a rational response to an attacker? Or can one defend against an attacker without hating them as an enemy?

Demonization IS obviously propaganda. By its nature it must be untrue. It is the first step in seeking to obliterate an 'enemy', however defined, whether it is the Hatfields or the dissidents.

I see demonization coming from Repulicans - logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks, evading issues etc. As SignyM points out, everyone else documents their case.
........
My understading was that the military didn't start investigating until a soldier sent letters and a videotape home. That was after the torture at Abu Ghraib was brought up to superiors many times and simply buried. It was sheer luck that the letters and videotape didn't hit the media BEFORE the investigation. If I am wrong, direct me to reliable sources. (with urls - too many people make claims that aren't true).

........
A military campaign - a war - is a special type of social effort for obliteration. War is only fought when one side thinks it might win. And it is started during uncertain times. These are two necessary conditions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 19, 2004 9:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
SignyM, you cannot be serious? You only see demonization as coming from the right? You accuse Drakon of being "..too close to his own viewpoint to be able to think about it. A little distance is a good thing." (Post dated 7/14/04 on this thread) That is good advice I think.

Was I turning Drakon into a "faceless being" ready to be hauled away? No, I was responding directly to HIM, personally, and what I said was that he lacks objectivity. I still think it's true and frankly I consider it to be a useful observation (useful for Drakon, not me). How is that "demonization"?

OTOH, Drakon dodged, wove, called me a lot of names and repeatedly tacked a number of opinions onto me that aren't mine. Now, I'm not sure that I'm ready to call THAT demonization, but it sure isn't an attempt at two-way conversation!

Quote:
If you truly believe that the demonization is one-sided then how do you explain Moveon.org's ads which equated Bush with Hitler, the recent Hollywood fundraising bash for the Kerry Campaign, or Michael Moore's Bush bashing film "Farenhiet 9/11"?

It wasn't MoveOn.org's ad. I don't know why they posted it in the first place; maybe they didn't screen the submissions before posting them- but they pulled it within hours.

'Fraid I don't know about the Hollywood bash- you'll have to explain it to me.

As far as F911- Have you even seen the film? Go see it first before you tell me about it.

Quote:
I refuse to delude myself into believing that those who hold an opposite view than myself are the sole purveyors of demonization. I recognize that both sides are equally responsible and am abhored by it. I do not see this as a good thing in any way shape or form. I see real hatred in our political discourse today, whether it be rabid Anti-Clinton conservatives or angy Bush Bashing liberals is beside the point.

IF I were to call Pol Pot a tyrant, is that demonization? The problem Razz, is that it's only demonization if it isn't true. Now, I realize that both sides in the USA believe fervently that they hold the truth. But what I find is that the right-wing conistently refuses to engage in dialogue about the facts. THis administration has a particular history of witholding information- on everything from the cost to Social Security for drug coverage to the makeup of Cheney's energy commission to identitees of detainees to reconstruction fund exepnditures to Presidential papers.

The left-wing, OTOH, generally tries to back up its assertions. O'Neill brought 19,000 pages of documents. Lt Colonel Kwiatkowski brought her presonal obervations. Ambassador Wilson really did write a report which turned out to be true- and his wife Victoria Plame really was outed. Videotapes and photos came from Abu Ghraib. There really was a memo that said that torture was legal. The Administration really did have a court case where they were contending the right to hold detainees- even US citizens- indefinitely, without cahrge, without legal recourse, and without notice. So, bringing this up really isn't "demonization" because it happens to be fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 19, 2004 9:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Now HERE'S a typical demonizing political statement:

"If they don't have the guts to come up here in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you, I want to represent those special interests, the unions, the trial lawyers ... if they don't have the guts, I call them girlie men," Schwarzenegger said to the cheering crowd at a mall food court in Ontario.

The first sentence is a straw man argument- attaching a indefensible position to the oposition.

The second is an ad-hominem argument- attacking the opposition personally, in a way that has nothing to do with the point under discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 19, 2004 11:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I do seriously think the US has a system which leads to two (and only two) major parties, and feedback that's so delayed it doesn't count. And that, I still think, leads to a level of struggle not seen in other places, and therefore demonization. IMHO.

Or, maybe it's just a US cultural quirk.

Possibly. But I think you are missing something here.

The two party system is a result of the voters, rather than the parties themselves. They want to be in power and have to offer something (policies, programs) that the voters want, that the voters think will work, and in general that appeal to the voters. It is because of those voters that you end up with just two major political parties.

Some have remarked favorably on various concepts of portional representation, but I think have failed to make their case effectively. The fact this comes mostly from parties that cannot appeal to enough voters to become even a contender is problematic for them and their case. But the bigger hurdle is they need to explain how including voices that have already been voted against, how they will not end up with political power incommensurate with their demographic appeal.

One worry is that under such a system, a government ends up with no majority. So in order to get a majority, one of the majority parties forms a coalition with a minor party, thereby giving it far more power than the voters had agreed to in the first place. That does not have a lot of appeal.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 19, 2004 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Drakon, I see that your post isn't here. I'm going to assume that your rhetoric is driven by honest panic and not cold-blooded manipulation. Take a deep breath, come back and let's talk.

My post was not there, because I had other things to do over the weekend. Besides which, your style and tone does not lead me to even suspect you are interested in what I have to say. Even now, you blow it off as "honest panic" rather than any thinking or rationality.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 19, 2004 11:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
That's why Michael Moore showing children flying kites in Baghdad is considered propaganda by the Bushites.

This is false. The reason why MM scenes of kite flying is seen as propaganda is that is leaves the audience with a completely false impression of Saddam's government. It ignores the plastics shredder, the torture, the offical sanction of terror to impose Saddam's rule.

It ignores the circumstances under which the "no fly zones" and economic sanctions were initiated, the fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait, warred with Iran, and threatened the region. That he gassed the Kurds or filled the mass graves. It also dodges completely whether we were at war with Saddam, or the Iraqi people.

Its a classic "dropping context" style of argument designed to give viewers a false impression. And thus it is dismissed as propaganda.

Quote:
Forgiveness cannot happen over night, or by a simple act of will. We must go through the pain and chaos of grief first. It was perhaps innevitable that we would go to war immediately after 9/11, as a race, we're still pretty unconscious and full of denial, but the desire for vengence fades. We are beginning, I think, to awaken to our own loss of life and humanity over there and we, as a people, want out.

It has nothing to do with vengence. Pretending that there do not exist folks who want to kill you is not a successful strategy for surviving. Especially when they demostrate time and time again just how far they are willing to go to kill you. You either stop them, or end up dead. Considering their use of suicide tactics, its pretty hard to deter them, so you have to undermine their desire first, if you want them to stop, and you do not want to simply kill all of them.

War is about political objectives. In this case its not payback. Its to get them to stop it. Stop trying to kill us.

Quote:
The best definition of evil that I've been able to come up with is simply this: the denial of one's own rage and hate.

To me, evil is the willful and unwarrented destruction of human life. Granted there is a lot of that in warfare, but sometimes warfare is the only way we have of fixing problems and systems that are not functioning. And in warfare, at least with smart commanders, any destruction that does occur, is purposeful, and warrented, especially in light of the alternative, such as death for yourself, or your way of life.

Saddam wanted to stay in power, even increase his power over the Middle East (note invasion of Kuwait and Iran). He did not want to end up tried for crimes against the Iraqi people. And he was willing to fight for his beliefs. Despite the objections and disagreement amongst others. We wanted him out of power, not out of jealousy or anything so trivial, but simply he was a danger. To his own people, to the people of the region, and to the US as well. Not an imminent threat, but one that would just get worse as time moved on.

Pacifism is all well and good, but only amongst pacifists. Once it encounters more aggresive ideologies and philosophies, it either dies out, becomes enslaved or has to garner the support of one such mental framework for its very survival.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
There's multiple types of demonization that serve different purposes. There's wartime demonization of the citizens of countries who we are fighting, such as what Signym talks about, the purpose of which is to help us get behind the destruction of our enemy. But there's also demonization of people who are within our own borders, the purpose of which is to marginalize. Something they both share is to turn people from individuals into faceless groups and to change opponents into enemies so that any means used against those groups become acceptable. Sometimes demonization spills over across these categories. [warning: painting with the broad brush].

Or to put it another way, to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger.

But sometimes when you charge your opponent with something, when you say he is a liar, or a flip flopper, those terms have meaning and the charge itself has meaning. Sometimes you have evidence which supports the conclusion, the label. And that has got to be dealt with.

Otherwise, you end up without the ability to label, classify or distinquish between candidates, ideas and policies. While that serves the interests of those who want to see everything as a shade of grey, or all political parties as identical, I don't see it as too useful.

Sometimes demonization ain't demonization. And unless you look at the underlying charges and cases made to support the characterization, you get locked into indecision.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Was I turning Drakon into a "faceless being" ready to be hauled away? No, I was responding directly to HIM, personally, and what I said was that he lacks objectivity. I still think it's true and frankly I consider it to be a useful observation (useful for Drakon, not me). How is that "demonization"?

OTOH, Drakon dodged, wove, called me a lot of names and repeatedly tacked a number of opinions onto me that aren't mine. Now, I'm not sure that I'm ready to call THAT demonization, but it sure isn't an attempt at two-way conversation!

That is not the way I saw it. What you were doing was not to disappear me, or to set me up to get hauled away. It was simply to get others to stop listening. Not argue my points, but to ignore them. The effect is the same, even if the means change.

You took issue with my characterization of your views of me, as paranoid. I stand by that assessment. No, you did not use that specific word, but it is implicit in your posts, especially when you talk about my "fear". The belittling and uncivil manner you have consistently behaved in this discussion indicate that it is you that do not want any kind of rational discourse. Your 'demands' and threats don't give me reason to change that assessment either.

And since you are not taking your own advice, I see little point in continuing with you. I don't act the way you want, or think the way you would like. So you chalk it up to "panic" or some other reason.

The irony is, you fail to see you are doing just what you are accusing the Republicans of doing.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ambassador Wilson really did write a report which turned out to be true- and his wife Victoria Plame really was outed.

Context dropping again.

First off, in Wilson's own report, he noted that Iraq had sent emisaries to Niger during the 90's to try and buy uranium yellow cake. He says they did not succeed, but again, the basis of his confidence is his pool side tea sipping with certain government officals in that country. By his own admission.

Second, whether Plame was outed is a crime or not, is still under investigation. It was offered to Novak as an explaination of why someone who apparently had no interrogation or investigative experience, would be given such a sensitive mission. The explaination was that his wife got him the job. It is still possible that whatever undercover or covert status she had was unknown to the leaker.

To put it another way, the charge was nepotism at the CIA. But that got all muddied up because of Plame's covert status.

It should be pointed out that at this late stage, bringing up the Wilson affair is not a good idea for your side. Wilson said it "defies logic" to think that his wife got him the job. We now find out that there are memos with her signature, recommending him. Wilson says his wife did not get the job, later investigations shows she did.

And that has wrecked Wilson's credibility. Not the leak of his wife's status at the CIA, but the context in which that leak came about. Which is pretty inconvenient in such discussions. Unless you think nepotism is prefectly okay, or okay solely in the CIA. It makes it difficult for you to defend any future whistleblowing, even if it would help your side.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Drakon, fear/panic is not the same as paranoia. To use your phrase, look it up in any dictionary. However, to help you out (in my snide a belittling way) paranoia is when you're convinced that someone is out to get you- and it's not true. Panic is when someone IS out to get you, and it frightens you so much you can't think clearly about it. The difference is in one case the danger is imaginary, in the other case it's real.

Now, I have said repeatedly that terrorists are a real problem. I'm not dismissing your concern as baseless. What I AM saying is that your fear is twisting your thinking.

I have responded to your points. I (and others!) have pointed out factual, logical, and semantic errors in your posts and you haven't responded directly to any of those comments. However, if you feel that I haven't responded, tell me which points you'd like to be discussed and we'll have another go at it. Feel free to cut and paste- it sure saves typing! But try to keep it short because if you put too many things into one post I can't adequately respond to all of them- my time here is pretty short, I can get in maybe fifteen minutes to a half-hour at a time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SygnM 7/19/04Was I turning Drakon into a "faceless being" ready to be hauled away? No, I was responding directly to HIM, personally, and what I said was that he lacks objectivity.."

Okay, I have to admit I'm a little confused here, not sure where I accused you specifically of demonizing anyone, if you interpreted my statements as such I apologize, certainly not my intent.

I just wanted to make a quick observation about your posts here on the thread, and I stipulate that this is solely how I percieve things, and do not speak for others. To me, you come across as a little abrasive, and the tone of your statements seem to lean more at irritating the person you are addressing rather than actually wanting to hear what they have to say. I hope that is not your intent, but that is how it comes across IMHO. Now, please do not come back at me with a response about how I am ignoring your arguements and trying to demonize you because my arguements are faulty. I'll try to address your points now.

Quote:
It wasn't MoveOn.org's ad. I don't know why they posted it in the first place; maybe they didn't screen the submissions before posting them- but they pulled it within hours.

Yes, you are correct, they were not Moveon.org's ads (it was actually two ads; see here http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/bush-hitler-ads.htm), rather they were ads solicited by Moveon.org in a contest designed to portray the Bush administration in a bad light. I'm not sure how that makes it better, the net result was that the ads were published by Moveon.org and sanctioned by them until they pulled them due to the negative publicity they received for them.

Quote:
'Fraid I don't know about the Hollywood bash- you'll have to explain it to me.

This is the now infamous Whoopi Goldberg tirade of anti-Bush insults which made innuendos about our President's last name and certain female body parts. I cannot actually find the quote because all news services have refused to post it due to its vulgarity (I hate censorship!). I'm afraid I'm at a loss to what was actually said since I wasn't there and can find nothing except vague references to it.

Quote:
As far as F911- Have you even seen the film? Go see it first before you tell me about it.

Here again I think you are assuming some things about the person your are addressing. Your powers of perception are truly amazing if you can tell about the movie watching habits of someone simply by reading two posts on an internet discussion thread. As it happens, I have seen the film, and was not amused to say the least. I'll let Christopher Hitchens speak for me on this issue (see here http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#ContinueArticle).

Quote:
IF I were to call Pol Pot a tyrant, is that demonization? The problem Razz, is that it's only demonization if it isn't true. Now, I realize that both sides in the USA believe fervently that they hold the truth. But what I find is that the right-wing conistently refuses to engage in dialogue about the facts. THis administration has a particular history of witholding information- on everything from the cost to Social Security for drug coverage to the makeup of Cheney's energy commission to identitees of detainees to reconstruction fund exepnditures to Presidential papers.

Okay, here are some links to the White House's website where you can find out how much we will be spending on Social Security, Drug Coverage, and Reconstruction ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/24_12.xls). Are you saying that posting these figures on a publicly accessible website constitutes witholding information?

The makeup of Cheney's Energy Commission is a whole nother story that could take up an entirely new discussion thread. But let's equate it to Hillary's Healthcare Task Force and the Clinton administration's witholding of that information. Conservatives back then had shouldn't have asked for that information just as Liberals today shouldn't have to ask for this information.

Okay you got me on the Cuban detainees, cannot find a comprehensive list provided by the administration of who is down there, but lists do exist (see here http://observer.american.edu/2004/mar0304/gtmo.html) Since a Graduate Student jounalist could find the info, with some effort granted, it must not be held too tightly. Now I am sure that you and I can come up with a diametrically opposing reasons of why the administration is not openly publishing these lists, but why beat a dead horse?

As to your comments about not demonizing someone through the use of factual statements, I agree with you. You do not demonize a murderer by pointing out his crime, his actions did that for you. Again, I go back to my initial statement of this post, I never accused you of demonizing anyone. I was speaking of the Left in general not you specifically.

"Keep Flying"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, I'm snide and irritating. I admit and apologize.

As far as the costs to Social Security, a staffer an actuary whose name I forget (I'll have to look it up again) calculated the costs of drug coverage and found it to be much higher than what was being touted by the Administration. He was threatened by his boss with being fired if he gave the info to Congress, which was just about to vote on the bill. Many many months later the estimate came to light when another staffer- a Congresional aide, I believe- was looking into the matter of costs and got an anonymous fax with the higher estimates. The figures put out by the Bush administration were phony. I'll have to google up the info. There was a recent court ruling on this matter that said that while threatening the actuary with dismissal and withholding information from Congress was unethical, it WAS within legal bounds.

My time's up. TTUL

---------------------------
Edited to add-The actuary was the Chief Medicare actuary, his name is Richard Foster, the Congressional aide is Cybele Bjorklund, and the person who threatened Foster is Thomas Scully.
www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/medicare/national_news/nyt3_18_
04.cfm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The makeup of Cheney's Energy Commission is a whole nother story that could take up an entirely new discussion thread. But let's equate it to Hillary's Healthcare Task Force and the Clinton administration's witholding of that information. Conservatives back then had shouldn't have asked for that information just as Liberals today shouldn't have to ask for this information

Frankly, I think the whole idea of "executive privilge" is hogwash. Everyone should be able to find out who is advising their government.

But Cheney didn't claim executive privilege, and since his group contained members outside of the government (as did Hillary's) it's clear to me that both "task forces" failed to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), a LAW that was written to make advisory- committe dealings open to the public.

In point of fact, the Health Care Task Force submitted to a ruling by the DC Appeals Court and opened their records in 1994, while Cheney named the DC Appeals Court as a litigant (!) and still refuses to open the records, in apparent violation of FACA.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza
Okay, here are some links to the White House's website where you can find out how much we will be spending on Social Security, Drug Coverage, and Reconstruction ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/24_12.xls). Are you saying that posting these figures on a publicly accessible website constitutes witholding information?

This is the whole Richard Foster thing. I’m linking to the San Jose Mercury News just because it’s the newspaper I read on a regular basis but any Googling on Richard Foster and Medicare will turn up tons of newspaper links (this is to forestall the “that’s a biased source” distraction).

Thirteen House Republicans had drawn a line in the sand on the cost of the proposed Medicare legislation (They would not vote for it if it cost more than $400 million). The White House assured them that the cost would be $395 million. Even with that assurance, the vote had to be held open for hours instead of the customary 15 minutes for the whip to get enough votes for the legislation to pass by one vote. Richard Foster was the chief cost analyst for the Medicare administrator. His analysis predicted that the bill would cost between $500 and $600 million. His boss, Thomas Scully, ordered him not to report those numbers to Congress. Here is the timeline: June 2003 – House passes by one vote. June to October 2003 – Scully blocks Foster from providing analysis to Congress. November 2003 – House/Senate compromise passes by 5 votes. January 2004 - Administration acknowledges that the bill probably would cost $534 billion, not $395 billion. July 2004 – “Former Medicare administrator Thomas Scully broke no law when he repeatedly directed his chief cost analyst to withhold information that members of Congress sought about the cost of the Medicare prescription-drug bill, a report released Tuesday concludes.”

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/9096028.htm?1c
(editted to add: I just realized that this link only works if you are a subscriber. So I'm including a link to another paper)

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/9096227.htm?
1c

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza
Yes, you are correct, they were not Moveon.org's ads (it was actually two ads; see here http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/bush-hitler-ads.htm), rather they were ads solicited by Moveon.org in a contest designed to portray the Bush administration in a bad light. I'm not sure how that makes it better, the net result was that the ads were published by Moveon.org and sanctioned by them until they pulled them due to the negative publicity they received for them.

What is interesting to me is that the Republican party has gotten a lot of mileage out of these two ads. Back in January, the text was copied and posted on the gop web site. In June they were incorporated into a short video clip by the Bush/Cheney campaign and featured prominently on their website as well as being e-mailed to tens of thousands of individuals. Here's the timeline: December 2003 - MoveOn sponsors contest. December 2003/January 2004 (I haven't been able to determine an exact date) - ads posted to contest website. January 2004 - GOP demands apology; ads are removed; MoveOn apologizes. June 2004 - ads incorporated into video ad for Bush campaign and distributed.

But saying these ads are from MoveOn is like saying anything posted on this site is from Haken. In retrospect, MoveOn should have been more proactive in setting up screening procedures. But it's interesting that market forces doomed the ads to failure since they didn't make the voting cut. So, in my opinion, we have two independent fringe ad makers who made a product that was not successful. The voters for the contest made the statement that these ads were not good enough to be considered as finalists by not voting for them. Then we have a political party adopting these ads and presenting them as evidence of the views of the majority of their opposition. So the ads were not successful with their intended audience but extremely successful with another audience and used as evidence that the intended audience shared the viewpoint of the ad-makers.

This, to me, is an example of demonization. Effective demonization has some element of truth that is then extrapolated out to include a broader set of people. There are people out there that believe Bush is a modern day Hitler. That's a fact. These people are on the fringe and most others ignore them. The GOP and the Bush campaign use the work of the fringe to portray all those involved with MoveOn as having the same beliefs. And then, in a surreal twist, open themselves up to the same criticism by interspersing images of Hitler from those ads with images of Kerry, Gore, Dean, Gephardt, and other prominent Democrats speaking with emotion.

(editted to add: That link you provided to the Memory Hole web page was very informative. Thank you. I was surprised that I had never heard about any of the remarks from elected officials comparing the previous President to Hitler. When two unknown fringe ad-makers compare Bush to Hitler it is all over the news and the Republican party is outraged. When three elected Republicans compared Clinton to Hitler, not so much. All of these are protected free speech. All of these are hyperbole. All of these are attacks. Some of these were made by unknown people while the rest were made by elected officials. I just find the expressed outrage silly, forced, and hypocritical).

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:35 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I also read the Hitchens commentary, and have discussed it in a previous posting. There are too many points to discuss completely in one post, so I'll pick two for now.

The first six points of his commentary:

Quote:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

Points (1-5) are all proveably true. What is Hitchen's problem with them? (1) and (2) can be found by looking up any general reference, (3) I found on the Unocal website a few years back when negotiations were underway (they were competing with an Argentinian company called Bridas, which got the bid- not that it did them any good), (4)- well Osama is till at large isn't he? (5) If you look up the "coalition of the willing" you'll find what I found- although listed in the coalition, Agfghanistan had NO troops in Iraq. (6) It is still too early to tell whether the troops have been "wasted", but this point is "divined" by Hitchens.

The second point is the Saudi's supposed influence over US foreign policy, and Hitchens makes quite a deal about it.

Quote:
Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.)...why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad?

oh drats... later

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:42 PM

Quote:
Posted by SygnyM 7/20/04 Points (1-5) are all proveably true. What is Hitchen's problem with them? (1) and (2) can be found by looking up any general reference, (3) I found on the Unocal website a few years back when negotiations were underway (they were competing with an Argentinian company called Bridas, which got the bid- not that it did them any good), (4)- well Osama is till at large isn't he? (5) If you look up the "coalition of the willing" you'll find what I found- although listed in the coalition, Agfghanistan had NO troops in Iraq. (6) It is still too early to tell whether the troops have been "wasted", but this point is "divined" by Hitchens.

Well, how about posting his comments right after he lists these 6 items? Then you may have some insight into Hitchen's problems with them. Here they are in thier entirety btw:

Quote:
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

"Keep Flying"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon
Or to put it another way, to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger.

But sometimes when you charge your opponent with something, when you say he is a liar, or a flip flopper, those terms have meaning and the charge itself has meaning. Sometimes you have evidence which supports the conclusion, the label. And that has got to be dealt with.

I see this as combining the two categories that Rue talked about: personalization and demonization. Charging a single opponent with flip-flopping or lying would be personalization and might very well have some truth behind it. For example, John Kerry has changed his opinion on his vote as a senator in regards to the Iraq war (at least I think he has). So the charge of flip-flopping is leveled. Is the charge justified? I'll leave that for another discussion. George Bush, on camera, said that Hussein did not allow UN inspectors into his country. So the charge of lying is leveled. Is the charge justified? Once again, I'll leave that to another discussion. This, to me, is personalization. There is some element of truth to the two charges: Kerry did change his mind, Bush did say something that was wrong.

Demonization, in my mind, is when you label an entire group of people. The best demonizations have some kernel of truth in them but are incorrectly applied to a larger population. For example, I have personally heard some liberals say that we deserved 9/11. This viewpoint is NOT held by all, or even the majority, of liberals (my viewpoint). I have also heard some conservatives say that liberals (in the general sense of the term) think that this country deserved 9/11 and are therefore traitors. This is a demonization. For another example, I have personally heard some conservatives say that a homosexual dying of AIDS is God's justice for their evil ways. This viewpoint is NOT held by all, or even the majority, of conservatives (my viewpoint). I have also heard some liberals say that conservatives (in the general sense of the term) think that homosexuals deserve to die because they sin against God. This is once again demonization.

Now I've purposefully tried to give examples from both the conservative and liberal side in an effort to be balanced. But from my personal experience I see a lot more demonization coming from prominent conservatives than I do from prominent liberals. Does that make the demonization more wrong? No. Demonization as a form of argument is weak and a cop out for whoever uses it. It is, however, a highly effective strategy.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, I have said repeatedly that terrorists are a real problem. I'm not dismissing your concern as baseless. What I AM saying is that your fear is twisting your thinking.

Since you have already dismissed my thinking, there is no point in responding.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 1:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I see this as combining the two categories that Rue talked about: personalization and demonization. Charging a single opponent with flip-flopping or lying would be personalization and might very well have some truth behind it. For example, John Kerry has changed his opinion on his vote as a senator in regards to the Iraq war (at least I think he has). So the charge of flip-flopping is leveled. Is the charge justified? I'll leave that for another discussion. George Bush, on camera, said that Hussein did not allow UN inspectors into his country. So the charge of lying is leveled. Is the charge justified? Once again, I'll leave that to another discussion. This, to me, is personalization. There is some element of truth to the two charges: Kerry did change his mind, Bush did say something that was wrong.

I think your Bush example is flawed. I don't think that is what Bush said. But again that is another issue, altogether.

Lying I would consider unique. There is a difference between saying something wrong, a mistake of the tongue, using the wrong words, what have you. But lying is by implication, by definition, the willful telling of an untruth. You have to show that the defendent not only said the wrong thing. But also knew it was wrong when he said it.

While both are issues of, or revealing of the underlying character of the individual, one (flip flopping) is objectively provable. Look at his votes. The other requires a bit more research and probably mind reading. You have to show not only the statement, but prior knowledge that the statement known to the defendent as false when he made it.

But there is a more troubling aspect to this. Well several. The same people who are telling us Bush lied, told us not 6 years ago that lying was okay, when it involved their guy. So there is a problem of inconsistency here.

But even more important to me, is the implied argument that it poses. Since Bush lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, the entire operation is a bad idea. And that, I just can't buy.

I understand that especially in wartime, and it might be even more valid in this war, that secrets need to be kept. Even from the American people, like you and me, because we live in an age of communication satellites and CNN. There is no way to keep a secret amongst "just us Americans". You don't want the enemy to know enough to do us harm, unfortunately that means keeping secrets even from the American public.

Saddam was a bad guy, and was in violation of 17 UN resolutions. He also sits on one of the largest known oil supplies on the planet, in the heart of the middle east. But more importantly, he was one of many corrupt thugocracies in that region that was the root cause of terrorism in the first place.

Part of the purpose of the Iraq campaign was to start the transformation of the Middle East, to allow it to evolve into a more free, prosperous and thereby, less dangerous area of the world. To show Muslims that, Zarqiwi is wrong. Islam can be democratic, that they are not incompatible concepts.

But, saying so prior to the war would have scared the heck out of the other states in the region. None of them particularly liked Saddam, he'd been a hazard in the region long enough to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. But if it were widely known that Saddam was simply the beginning of a policy that would lead to job loss amongst Iranian mullahs, Saud princes, or Syrian despots, it is likely they would have helped out a fellow Muslim, as loathsome as they may find him, to prevent another "infidel crusade". Instead of facing one army, we might have had face maybe 4, maybe more. More death on both sides.

Unless one can argue that keeping Saddam in power was a good thing, how we got rid of him, what was said by who to convince folks to do the right thing, I don't think it matters a whole lot. But it does point to an apparent difference between the political left and right, at least as far as rhetoric goes.

For the left, it appears that intentions determine the morality of an action. Consequences don't matter, when factoring out the morality of an issue. The idea of doing the right or good thing, for bad reasons is ludicrous to many on the left. It is a concept I disagree with, but that is how I see them as viewing things.

For me, consequences determine the morality. If you do good, its good, whether it was an accident, unintended, or what have you, I don't care. After all, there is that old saying about how good intentions are what Satan uses for asphalt.

There is another break in that the left is more devoted to the concept of altruism than the political right. Selfishness is automatically seen as a bad intention. And hence, any selfish action (by intent) cannot be good, by definition. Again, I disagree. I see altruism as a con game. And an illogical one at that.

[Under the morality of Altruism, one's actions must be devoted to improving the life and happiness of others. Even if it is to the detriment of the actor. But if you are preaching altruism to others, you are taking in the role of the Other, and 1) not working for the betterment of your Others, 2) working for the betterment of their Others, which include you. In short, preaching altruism is selfish.]

[I also want to note that my reference to selfishness in no way, shape or form is to be construed as an endorsement of Neitschze's rather twisted concept of selfishness, where the Uber Mensch rule all. I don't see that as acting in one's self interest, as well, people are people. You mess with them, they are gonna mess back, defend themselves and remove the threats to their lives and happiness, just as you would do. And that can prove detrimental to your continued survival. But then I see Neitschze's views and altruism more two sides of a bad coin.]

Quote:

Demonization, in my mind, is when you label an entire group of people. The best demonizations have some kernel of truth in them but are incorrectly applied to a larger population. For example, I have personally heard some liberals say that we deserved 9/11. This viewpoint is NOT held by all, or even the majority, of liberals (my viewpoint). I have also heard some conservatives say that liberals (in the general sense of the term) think that this country deserved 9/11 and are therefore traitors. This is a demonization. For another example, I have personally heard some conservatives say that a homosexual dying of AIDS is God's justice for their evil ways. This viewpoint is NOT held by all, or even the majority, of conservatives (my viewpoint). I have also heard some liberals say that conservatives (in the general sense of the term) think that homosexuals deserve to die because they sin against God. This is once again demonization.

So its labeling a group? Then it is impossible, by definition to demonize a single individual? I am just trying to be clear.

You are right, in that it is not widely held in conservative circles, even theocon circles make an effort to distance themselves from such repugnant and inconsistent veiws. But I also think that the political right is better at policing themselves than the left.

Nixon resigned after a delagations of Republican Senators went to him and told him the game was over, and he would serve his country better by resigning than continuing the "nation's nightmare" Trent Lott lost his Senate leadership position after a comment he made during Strom Thrumond's birthday party. We are not seeing similar restraint, or control, over the opposition.

Quote:
Now I've purposefully tried to give examples from both the conservative and liberal side in an effort to be balanced. But from my personal experience I see a lot more demonization coming from prominent conservatives than I do from prominent liberals. Does that make the demonization more wrong? No. Demonization as a form of argument is weak and a cop out for whoever uses it. It is, however, a highly effective strategy.

This is odd, because it is contrary to my experience as a conservative. It is possible we are both suffering from a sample problem.

We may not be seeing as demonization what we say about the opposition. But are quick to recognize it when the opposition starts firing back. We see valid charges, backed up with a case. It is the other side that is not providing and adequet case, not backing up what they charge.

From my side of the aisle, when some moron makes comments like what you mention, we'll shout him down, or at least debate him openly. Perhaps you guys are doing it to, but I did not see a lot of "What are you, nuts?" coming from many liberals after 9-11 and the "we deserved it" argument.

You see this going on now with the Berger case. Some prominent liberals, Democrats and such are, instead of questioning Berger's actions, are questioning the timing of the information release. Not thinking that if Berger had not done what he had done, there would be no information to be released. Hopefully you guys will quash this line pretty quickly. We won't. We try not to interrupt an opponent when he is self destructing.

And I would argue that if your side did handle it more privately, you are creating a problem. Again, no matter the intention, its a bad idea not to publicly oppose such a statement, especially if it gets linked to a particular political party. Both sides are fighting for the militantly middle of the road, the independent voter, without which neither side wins. If the charge is left out there, and no apparent opposition from one's political allies is forthcoming, the silence is taken as agreement, whether valid or not. Punish in private is generally a good principle, but it can be damaging as well. You won't get the votes if you allow such memes to play themselves out, and get linked to your party.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 3:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Drakon, all I can say is "You started it". Yes, I know it's a three-year-old response, but I (and many others, especially Rue) tried bringing facts with multiple links to the discussion, I've tried questioning you intensely to get you to start at your basic assumptions and explain step by step how you got to a point, I've tried showing you what I thought were logical fallacies in your thinking, and you basically didn't respond. It was literally a conscious decision on my part to try using your tactics to see what would happen. If you look through my posts to you, you'll see a sudden tone shift about five posts ago.

You want people to argue with you using your definitions, your assumptions, your binary choices, your priorities, your facts. And you know what? IF we were to do all that we'd probably agree with you! But we DON'T share a lot of the same definitions, assumptions, etc. That's why we have a differences of opinion. And in order to have a discussion, we need to pinpoint where and why we disagree, then hash out whether one of us has better information, more durable assumptions, clearer definitions, better predictive capability etc. If this sounds condescending then I apologize, but this is has been my experience with deep heavy-duty discussions.

If we want to continue- and I sure don't mind- let's stop the rhetorical bs. Let's agree to stop name-calling, straw-man arguments, generalizing etc. Let's agree to address each other's points DIRECTLY, and stay on-topic until the point is either resolved or at least the fundamental differences are laid out. I really can't respond to long multi-point posts because I only get a few minutes here and there.

If this were a real debate, we'd have a moderator- but I can't see anyone voluntarily stepping in between us! We'll just have to resolve our differences on our own.

Is this something you can agree to? I can if you can. If so, let's begin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:13 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
"Saddam was a bad guy, and was in violation of 17 UN resolutions."

And that is one of the issues of this topic. Most countries did NOT think he was in violation - and that is why the UN didn't support the invasion. To assert that he was is to mistake an opinion for a fact.

Quote:
"he was one of many corrupt thugocracies in that region that was the root cause of terrorism in the first place"

You will find that the 9/11 Commisions refutes Hussein's connection with terrorism.

Quote:
"Part of the purpose of the Iraq campaign was to start the transformation of the Middle East, to allow it to evolve into a more free, prosperous and thereby, less dangerous area of the world."

A post facto reason, not made before the invasion.

Quote:
"But, saying so prior to the war would have scared the heck out of the other states in the region."

Bush lied?

Quote:
"Unless one can argue that keeping Saddam in power was a good thing, how we got rid of him, what was said by who to convince folks to do the right thing, I don't think it matters a whole lot."

But it does, not as a moral issue, but a practical one. To have defanged Hussein using ongoing inspections WITH world support would have lent a tremendous boost to global anti-terrorism coordination.

Quote:
I see altruism as a con game.

Reproduction is altruistic in the biological sense (they're still trying to figure out how it works, mathematically speaking). And for humans (due to dependent offspring - they don't swim away fast as their little tails can go), it is altruistic in the psychological sense. The fact one can cognate 'altruism' indicates a internal altruism mechanism.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 12:05 PM

This response is an experiment on my part. There are two assumptions I will make. The first is that you are a supporter of Bush. The second is that you are a supporter of the Republican party.

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon
I think your Bush example is flawed. I don't think that is what Bush said. But again that is another issue, altogether.

So what I did was set up a comparison between an attack made against Kerry and an attack made against Bush. The first thing you did was invalidate the comparison by saying that you didn't think Bush said that. So let's address that first point. The following link is from the White House web site:

Quote:

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.
George Bush - 14 July 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html
Now here is what I said in my post, "George Bush, on camera, said that Hussein did not allow UN inspectors into his country." From my point of view I have provided clear evidence that Bush did indeed say what I attributed to him. An interesting side note: Bush made these statements with Kofi Annan at his side. Annan does not correct what Bush is saying. I found that intriguing.

The next point you make is to define what lying is:

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon
Lying I would consider unique. There is a difference between saying something wrong, a mistake of the tongue, using the wrong words, what have you. But lying is by implication, by definition, the willful telling of an untruth. You have to show that the defendant not only said the wrong thing. But also knew it was wrong when he said it.

This is the often used defense for those who support Bush: to categorize what he says as misstatements, rather than lies, because he either does not intend to mislead or he does not know the statement he is making is false. Bush's statement is clearly wrong. The UN inspectors were in Iraq. They left before we invaded. We did not invade because Hussein did not allow the inspectors in. So the first test is: Did Bush know the statement he was making was false? Well, he made the following statement four months earlier as part of his ultimatum to Hussein:

Quote:

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.
George Bush - 17 March 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
So two possibilities arise: either he remembered what he had said four months earlier or he did not. Neither option is flattering. To go from "hundreds of weapons inspectors" to "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in" in four months time is pretty remarkable. Now if he forgot what he had said four months earlier (and had been saying for months before that) then he is incompetent. If he remembered what he had said four months earlier then he knew that his new statement was wrong, and he used it anyway, and used it as justification for the invasion, and that is a lie.

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon
While both are issues of, or revealing of the underlying character of the individual, one (flip flopping) is objectively provable. Look at his votes. The other requires a bit more research and probably mind reading. You have to show not only the statement, but prior knowledge that the statement known to the defendant as false when he made it.

I'll get back to flip-flopping in a second. You say that knowing someone is lying would probably require mind reading. By that definition we would never be able to say that someone is lying. And yet we do it all the time in the courts system. The accepted measure is: did someone make one statement and then later make a completely contradictory statement? We will probably never agree on whether or not Bush lied. I am assuming that you will continue to argue that we can never know what went on in his mind. I will continue to argue that the statements he made in the lead up to the war, and the indisputable fact that there were inspectors in Iraq, make his later statement that Hussein would not allow inspectors into Iraq a lie. In the end it's a judgement call but I feel that the evidence supports my position and that only belief supports your position.

You then go on to compare this with Clinton perjuring himself. I am not a supporter of Clinton. I am also not a supporter of Bush. Therefore it is probably easier for me to say that lying is lying no matter who is doing the lying.

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon
But there is a more troubling aspect to this. Well several. The same people who are telling us Bush lied, told us not 6 years ago that lying was okay, when it involved their guy. So there is a problem of inconsistency here.

By using the phrase "the same people" you are able to make a sweeping generalization. I will speak for myself personally. I never said, 6 years ago, that lying was okay. I am saying that Bush lied in this instance. I am not being inconsistent. However, I could turn the argument around and say that I know people who called Clinton a liar. These people now refuse to believe that Bush is a liar. These people are being inconsistent.

On an interesting side note, one way to judge the importance of a lie is to look at the intent for telling the lie. Just throwing that out there. All lies are lies but are not created equal in terms of the impact they have. Let me try this example on for size. I push you hard. That is considered assault. If I push you in the backyard you're probably not going to get hurt. If I push you when we are standing on the roof of a building you probably will get hurt. Both are wrong. One has a more disastrous outcome than the other. Not sure how well that example holds up but it popped into my head.

You then move on to the implications of the statement that Bush lied.

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon
But even more important to me, is the implied argument that it poses. Since Bush lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, the entire operation is a bad idea. And that, I just can't buy.

I understand that especially in wartime, and it might be even more valid in this war, that secrets need to be kept. Even from the American people, like you and me, because we live in an age of communication satellites and CNN. There is no way to keep a secret amongst "just us Americans". You don't want the enemy to know enough to do us harm, unfortunately that means keeping secrets even from the American public.

Saddam was a bad guy, and was in violation of 17 UN resolutions. He also sits on one of the largest known oil supplies on the planet, in the heart of the middle east. But more importantly, he was one of many corrupt thugocracies in that region that was the root cause of terrorism in the first place.

Part of the purpose of the Iraq campaign was to start the transformation of the Middle East, to allow it to evolve into a more free, prosperous and thereby, less dangerous area of the world. To show Muslims that, Zarqiwi is wrong. Islam can be democratic, that they are not incompatible concepts.

But, saying so prior to the war would have scared the heck out of the other states in the region. None of them particularly liked Saddam, he'd been a hazard in the region long enough to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. But if it were widely known that Saddam was simply the beginning of a policy that would lead to job loss amongst Iranian mullahs, Saud princes, or Syrian despots, it is likely they would have helped out a fellow Muslim, as loathsome as they may find him, to prevent another "infidel crusade". Instead of facing one army, we might have had face maybe 4, maybe more. More death on both sides.

Unless one can argue that keeping Saddam in power was a good thing, how we got rid of him, what was said by who to convince folks to do the right thing, I don't think it matters a whole lot. But it does point to an apparent difference between the political left and right, at least as far as rhetoric goes.

For the left, it appears that intentions determine the morality of an action. Consequences don't matter, when factoring out the morality of an issue. The idea of doing the right or good thing, for bad reasons is ludicrous to many on the left. It is a concept I disagree with, but that is how I see them as viewing things.

For me, consequences determine the morality. If you do good, its good, whether it was an accident, unintended, or what have you, I don't care. After all, there is that old saying about how good intentions are what Satan uses for asphalt.

I agree with you that the purpose of invading Iraq was to start a transformation in the Middle East. This is well documented by neo-conservative groups such as the Project for the New American Century as being a desirable goal. The think tanks have been advocating this goal for a number of years. The advocated order was Iraq, Iran, and then Syria. But this goal has nothing specifically to do with Al Qaeda and 9/11.
Do you honestly believe that if this Administration had come out and stated up front that we needed to go into Iraq to remake the Middle East and allow it to evolve into a more free, prosperous and thereby, less dangerous area of the world that the American people would have supported this war? I don't. I think the American people would have shrugged and said, "Doesn't affect me. I don't care." And I think this Administration shares my point of view. That's why the reasons they gave us for Iraq needing to be invaded all revolved around September 11, Al Qaeda, and weapons that could do substantial damage to our homeland.

Removing Saddam from power was a good thing. But you can't just look at this one act in a vacuum. What are the repercussions? I don't believe that the negative consequences of our decision to go to war with Iraq are outweighed by the positive consequences. And that's how I judge the outcome of the decision. If the outcome of your decision is one good thing and 45 bad things is that a good overall outcome?

So to get back to the whole Bush lied theme: If he can't even keep straight in his head why he led us to war in the first place, was going to war a good decision?

I wanted to get back to the whole flip-flopping thing. You said that flip-flopping is easy to prove because all you have to do is look at the voting record. And if you say that someone votes one way and then later votes another way he is flip-flopping that is correct. But what you are failing to take into account is that decisions are based on information. I make a decision that will give me the highest probability of a desired outcome based on the best information I have available at that point in time. If I learn new information later that changes the probabilities am I flip-flopping in saying that I would not make the same decision given a different level of knowledge? I am changing my mind. Now if I change my mind without any additional information that is a problem. But if I change my mind after receiving new information that is called learning. Some of what is labeled as flip-flopping is actually learning. Another part of what is labeled as flip-flopping is simply politics. Politics is horse trading. There are certain positions that you hold inviolate and never compromise on. There are other positions that you are willing to compromise on. As a member of a minority party in Congress you have to give up something to get something. As a member of a majority party in Congress you don't have to give up anything to get something. So any member of a minority party in Congress can be accused of flip-flopping simply due to the give and take nature of minority politics. The more important question is: are there positions that a person has stated are inviolate that they then later recanted on for political expediency? So I see the charge of flip-flopping as incomplete. If you can show me an example of someone changing their mind without learning any new information or going back on one of their core principles then I will agree that this shows a character problem. Otherwise, I think that changing your mind is healthy. Or, to put it another way, I distrust someone who is proud of the fact that they never change their mind.

The last thing I will address is in regards to the demonization part (since all I've been looking at so far is the personalization example). The rest of your post I may respond to later when I get the time. It also depends on how you respond to this post. That's why I am calling this an experiment.

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon
So its labeling a group? Then it is impossible, by definition to demonize a single individual? I am just trying to be clear.

I'll extend what I said: Demonization, in my mind, is when you label an entire group of people. For example: liberals are traitors or conservatives are hate-mongers. Now if I identify you as a conservative and I call you a hate-monger that is demonization. It may look like I am demonizing a single individual but it's only because of a number of assumptions and generalizations. And the reason why it's effective is because there are conservatives out there who are hate-mongers (hopefully a very small number. I only know three personally). But the mistake is in taking a small sub-group, applying their characteristics to a larger group, and then applying them to you as a member of that larger group.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 6:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

very interesting

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
"Saddam was a bad guy, and was in violation of 17 UN resolutions."

And that is one of the issues of this topic. Most countries did NOT think he was in violation - and that is why the UN didn't support the invasion. To assert that he was is to mistake an opinion for a fact.

I have to strongly disagree. That is why the last resolution was passed unanimously, which demanded compliance or else. If he had been found in compliance, no further resolution demanding compliance would be made, let alone voted on.

But this is getting into process versus product again, which I think is a central difference you and I have.

Quote:
Quote:
"he was one of many corrupt thugocracies in that region that was the root cause of terrorism in the first place"

You will find that the 9/11 Commisions refutes Hussein's connection with terrorism.

From what I have seen, there is no refutation of Saddam connection with terrorism. His bounty for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is proof. He was not connected in any provable way to the 9-11 attacks, which is a different and separate issue. (And still leaves the Chezch intel report of Atta's meeting in Prague an open question.)

His ties with Ansur al-Islam, Abu Nidal finding a home in Baghdad, (until his odd death, shortly before the war) and the head of the Achille Lauro hijackers being captured in Baghdad, all show things differently.

Quote:
Bush lied?

Sigh.

My defense is that Bush did not lie. Did not knowingly make a false statement. That is the first part of my defense. The second part is even if Bush did lie, there are very good, justifiable reasons for that. If you want to call this a lie of omission, fine. But think about it for a second.

Would openly declaring a desire to transform the Middle East, removing the autocratic and failed regimes of the region had made the probability of success more likely or less so? Would you have supported that as a reason for war? Or would it have made no difference to the popular support here at home, and resulted in stronger opposition in the combat zone, killing more of our and their people?

Quote:
Quote:
"Unless one can argue that keeping Saddam in power was a good thing, how we got rid of him, what was said by who to convince folks to do the right thing, I don't think it matters a whole lot."
But it does, not as a moral issue, but a practical one. To have defanged Hussein using ongoing inspections WITH world support would have lent a tremendous boost to global anti-terrorism coordination.

But the trouble was there was no support, either prior to, or after 9-11. The inspections were continually being thwarted, even Blix could not even bring himself to declaring Saddam in compliance with the inspections.

Russia, France and others were trying to get the sanctions lifted, which had been cheated on for some time. The UN is presently trying to figure out what happened to about 10 billion dollars in "Oil for Food" money, that appears to have been paid out in bribes.

As a practical proposal, it wasn't working. And that is a large reason why something else was tried.

Quote:
Quote:
I see altruism as a con game.

Reproduction is altruistic in the biological sense (they're still trying to figure out how it works, mathematically speaking). And for humans (due to dependent offspring - they don't swim away fast as their little tails can go), it is altruistic in the psychological sense. The fact one can cognate 'altruism' indicates a internal altruism mechanism.

We may be talking about two different things here. Altruism as a moral ideal, versus altruism as a result of action, regardless of the ideal or intent.

People reproduce, lets face it, not from altruistic ideals of continuing the human race. Sex is fun, its enjoyable. Sex is mostly, (and I would say especially these days) about self fulfillment, enjoyment, spiritual connection, what have you. The commonality in all these is how sex benefits the individual having it. Not necessarily whether kids result in it or not.

People have sex because they like it. The fact that sex causes people is secondary. And looking around at the birth control market, it appears that a lot of folks are taking active precautions to prevent procreation, rather than encourage it.

Now, back in the old days, the model was (and still in in many parts of the planet) that mom and dad would take care of the kids in the early years, and the kids would take care of their parents when they got too old to take care of themselves. So one can see how having lots of children insured a better life later on, despite the challenges that they may bring about. From a purely selfish perspective.

But even without that, and despite all the hardships, the worries that children can bring about, they are still worth it in a purely selfish sense. Mine have brought me more joy, and laughter than I would have otherwise thought possible. (But then, I got exceptionally great kids. They take after their mother

)

Going back to the Iraq war. I note earlier you rebut my latter points, yet leave my proposition that Saddam was a bad man, alone. May I assume you agree with that statement? Looking through the various reasons and justifications for the war, I see a very clear objective. Namely protect and defend the US, us. The fact that it removes a dictator, liberates 24 million Iraqis is, well I started to say secondary, but that ain't quite right.

A democratic, liberated Iraq will be less of a threat to us than one controlled by Saddam. It will make the people happier, and give them more control over their own lives. Now while I doubt the Iraqis care one whit about our security, they do care about their own lives, their own pains, and challenges and such. Removing such a threat helps them, even if our only intention was to protect ourselves.

It is probably one of the most counter-intuitive concepts I have ever come across. You can often get more altruistic results by acting in a selfish manner, than you can with intending to be altruistic. We want to protect ourselves from suicidal nilhists. We end up offering them a reason for hope, for wanting to live, and not kill people. We give them more power over their own lives. That is better for them, and better for us as well.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 22, 2004 2:30 AM