perfidy

I do not support, as a rhetorical device, the shouting down of one's opponents and describing what they think without asking them. I am all about reasoned discourse. When I hear people on the left whining of the perfidy of American aims and actions; ascribing almost every conceivable ill in the world to American behavior (global warming, poverty, species extinction, you name it); and attacking American institutions as racist, bigoted, and generally inherently oppressive; these things make me consider the possibility that they really don't like America, and what it stands for. I can provide examples of all of these things. Noam Chomsky embodies all of them, and is apparently well respected on the left. 

Saying that the left "hates America" is certainly a broad brush. But there is a large element of truth to it, and it is for some conservatives a convenient shorthand to describe behavior that they see in the left. I do not have to take polls to notice these things in the media, in the words of actual leftists. When I fail to see other leftists castigating them, I presume that these beliefs are commonly held. While the left is no more unitary than the right, there is a core of beliefs that are generally held by most people on the left. And just as with conservatives, leftists are self-identified. When I hear some one describing himself as a liberal, or leftist, I take them at their word. Mike, don't pretend that this isn't the case. "What left?" We both know what it is. 

I do not believe that saying there are significant injustices in America means that the speaker is un-American, or hates America. I have said this myself. But where does that statement lead? Do you condemn the institutions of our nation, and advocate their replacement entire through revolution? Or do you think that reform of our oppressive society is impossible? Do you think that things are as bad as they have ever been? These seem to be typical attitudes on the left. What solutions do you propose for these problems - do you propose more liberty, or less? More state control, or less? More personal responsibility or less? Do you ascribe blame to groups or individuals? Do you believe more in equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? What follows the first question indicates what the speaker thinks of America. 

When I see the left, embodied in the Stalinist group International ANSWER, (but certainly represented elsewhere) protesting the war - making the most outrageous claims about America, and openly supporting a murderous thug over our liberal, tolerant nation, I am outraged. When leftists openly wish for a thousand Mogadishus, and for the death of American soldiers, I begin to think that the speakers hate America. We have found mass graves with thousands of victims in Iraq, but we were evil to remove Saddam's regime? Supporting the enemies of America must mean that you don't care too much for America. 

So, why don't we take a poll? Mike, you're a low-income grad student/adjunct professor in a major urban area. Do you hate America? I know that you hold socialist beliefs that are completely at odds with the ideals of the founding fathers. No problem. Part of my belief structure insists that I accept that. I oppose it, but I do not deny your right to hold those beliefs. But do you think that revolution is necessary here, as Marxist orthodoxy would insist it is? I never got the sense that you hated America, even if you have rather more issues with things as they are than I do. 

For many of your fellow leftists, it goes further. I see contempt for everything that America stands for, for patriotism, and for the choices of actual individual Americans, when they disagree with leftists. Calling Michael Moore a liar is not name calling, because he is. Saying that Noam Chomsky hates America is not name calling, because it's true. Saying that I think someone's entire political belief structure is inimical to the ideals and history of our nation is not necessarily hateful. Sometimes it's just fact. When I see many, many leftists offering the same viewpoints, it is not so unreasonable to say, in general, that the left hates America. It is ridiculous to complain endlessly of "negative campaigning" when what you're complaining about is your opponent pointing out your voting record, or saying he disagrees with you. Negative campaigning is saying your opponent's wife is a whore. 

But as I have said before, on this site and elsewhere, America is unlike every other nation on earth. We were founded on the most perfect set of ideals ever conceived, and we come closer to the realization of those ideals every day. Slavery is gone. Institutional racism is gone. Racism in public discourse is gone. Racism in general is in rapid retreat. This is the progress we have made on one issue. The office I sit in right now has four white men, two black men and a Hispanic woman. Out of seven random people in the tech industry, this sample shows no evidence of the racism that the left insists is still dominant in our culture. 

As a conservative, I am conserving the ideals of the founding fathers. I feel confident enough in my arguments about any issue - taxes, the war, welfare reform, affirmative action, anything - to win debates. And if you convince me, I'll change my mind. I am not dogmatic. But it is the left seems to go out of its way to avoid debate - on college campuses, by invoking racism whenever a conservative questions affirmative action, by calling conservatives "mean-spirited" when they advocate change in welfare or social security, by calling conservatives Hitler, etc. When you have been called a racist, a bigot, a fascist, and worse as much as I have, because I am a conservative, the temptation to rochambeaux my political opponents is strong. Conservatives, with the exception of Anne Coulter, almost universally stipulate the good intentions of their left leaning opponents - while disagreeing with their policy solutions. But the reverse is not the case. 

PS. Reagan (and Thatcher) did win the cold war. And, I don't fear the French, I hate them - very, very different. And was the Civil War a rich man's war and a poor man's fight? 

PPS. The Democratic Party will discredit itself. Over the last decade, it has proved that it is a tired dinosaur. The ideas come from the conservative side, and the Democrats define themselves in opposition. The democrats are not as conservative as I am. They do not approve of tax cuts. (by the by, the poor don't pay income taxes, so by definition any tax cut is for the middle and wealthy classes.) Lieberman was the only significant Democrat who supported the war. There are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. (Johno is both of those categories.) But the parties are different, and have a different outlook on what is best for our nation. Compromise means that the actual policies implemented by either party will be closer to the mean than people like me (or you) would like.

From DailyPundit: Bill Clinton has mentioned that he'd like to see the 22nd Amendment overturned. Well, of course he would. Not that the he's sayin' anything about wanting to be President again, you see, (see the original WaPo article), but, ya know.... 

DailyPundit says what we're all thinking: "Man, what an idiot he is. I thought he was supposed to be a political genius, but all it would take is for the GOP to put this quote on every Congressional and Senatorial fundraiser they send out. If they didn't raise five billion dollars in campaign money overnight to keep BJ from creeping back from the political graveyard, I'd eat my shorts." 

Erm, indeed. The Democratic Party has a whole passel of problems to deal with, but one of the greatest is that Bill Clinton is still the best thing they have going, and he's a sex-addicted pathological liar with a jive so potent even Jesse Jackson takes off his hat in awe. As long as he is still around making all the other Democrats look like even bigger chuckleheads then they are, the Dems are screwed. The worst part for them is that Bill is out for himself alone, and will let the party crumble into ruins around him as long as he remains the Respected Public Figure We All Adore. If they were smart, they'd cut him loose, just disown him, and figure out a way to win without his fat ass dragging them down. But that would be if they were smart. 
 

Is it just me, or does Lyndon LaRouche remind anybody else of Jack Chick?

Folks, Lyndon LaRouche has entered the 2004 Presidential Race. Woo-HOO!!

Recently I have sighted numerous flocks of LaRouche supporters around Boston, waving pamphlets and shouting about Gauss' First Theorem, dead babies, and the price of oil. It's all very touching. I love a good clown-show.

A side note. Every supporter of Old Man LaRouche I've ever seen is from the same demographic: middle-aged, white-haired white guys with bellies, pocket protectors, and a chilly relationship with personal sanitiation. If that's not an advertisement for your candidate, I don't know WHAT is! Now... if only Howard Dean would staff his campaign teams with bikini models, he'd have this thing all sewn up by September!

[moreover] Check out Lyndon's website for his latest batch of crazy.

Mmmmmm... that's good crazy!

The Washington post reports today that Bush administration officials are now conceding that " it may take a long time, if ever, before they are able to prove the expansive case they made to justify the war." 

Glad they made it to the party. I'm not quite sure what to make of this admission by the Bush camp that their Weapons! Of! Mass! Destruction! are currently nothing but VaporWare. I see three possibilities.

• The WMD's exist, but in the run-up to the war, Iraq had time to sell, hide, or export them. If this is the case, both the US and its erstwhile opponents (France et. al) will blame the other side for allowing this to happen. The US will claim that the delays they conceded to while the Weapons Inspectors did their thing allowed Iraq the time to play their shell game, and the US' opponents will claim that if said Inspectors had been given just one more day we'd now know where the 120 tons of Anthrax have gone.
• There never were any WMD's. Whatever!
• Hussein is wilier than we thought, and as we ruminate, the chemical weapons are now in various undisclosed locations on the Syrian border, in bunkers deep underground, defended by the Elite Republican Guard, and a big robot Saddam Clone at the end. Jeez, where's Sgt. BJ Blazcowicz* when you need him? 

In my unprofessional and uninformed opinion, I'd lay 3:2 odds the first is true, 100:1 on the second, and 5:1 on the third, except the Robot Saddam part. 

EVERYBODY knows Hussein had ridiculous amounts of biological and nerve agents after the end of Gulf War I: First Blood. He proved that when he gassed the Kurds. But, in the eleven years since, isn't it possible that every two-bit terrorist who could put together a suitcase of nonconsecutive bills came away from a visit with Saddam with a couple armloads of Sarin and a bag o' Anthrax? Granted, we haven't seen these weapons used by any Islamic terrorists, but there's a LOT of caves we haven't looked in yet, and the War! On! Terror! will never be over. 

*I can see the ad now: "He vanquished the Nazis, he destroyed the Zombies, now Sergeant BJ Blazcowicz faces his most dangerous assignment ever. WOLFENSTEIN III: IRAQ & ROLL!" Now THAT would be a game I would play. 

[moreover] Calpundit links to a loooong list of quotes from the Bush administration about WMD's, saying, "So please don't insult our intelligence by pretending that WMD wasn't the main selling point of the war. We all know it was." Yup.

Oh, now this is just too much! A pregnant woman in New York was fined for loitering, because she got tired coming up out of the subway and sat down on the steps for a breather. No kidding. "A spokesman for the police union says cops on the beat are being pressured to generate cash for the financially strapped city....The Bloomberg Administration says there is no ticket quota for police." Gee, it's almost as if the NYPD wanted Mayor Bloomberg to seem like a giant flaming A-hole or something. In-teresting.

It occurs to me that New York is a very different place today than it was even when I lived there three years ago. That was the Late Rudy Years and the city was still pretty damn cool. The no-dancing law was a pain in the butt, as was the no-nudie-bar law, and you'd periodically hear about some poor homeless guys getting kicked off the steps of a church, but overall the city experience was fabulous. The Upper East Side was tony, the Lower East Side was gritty without any menace, the subway was cheap, Queens was nice (for me!), one could still enjoy a beer and a cig, and any minor city-as-nagging-mother statutes were just that, minor drawbacks to a good quality of life.

Not so much anymore, it seems. The Nagging Mother State is fully in charge, and it sucks worse than a lunchtime show at Score's with the pasties on. I was thinking about a trip to New York in a couple months to revisit my old stomping ground, but now I'm gonna forget it and just read "Naked Lunch" instead. For no good reason, a rather lengthy excerpt follows here:

BENWAY

Dr. Benway had been called in as advisor to the Freeland Republic, a place given over to free love and continual bathing. The citizens are well adjusted, co-operatives, honest, tolerant and above all clean. But the invoking of Benway indicates all is not well behind that hygienic facade: Benway is a manipulator and coordinator of symbol systems, an expert on all phases of interrogation, brainwashing and control. I have not seen Benway since his precipitate departure from Annexia, where his assignment had been T.D.-- Total Demoralization. Benway's first act was to abolish concentration camps, mass arrest and, except under certain limited and special circumstances, the use of torture.

"I deplore brutality," he said. "It's not efficient. On the other hand, prolonged mistreatment, short of physical violence, gives rise, when skillfully applied, to anxiety and a feeling of special guilt. A few rules or rather guiding principles are to be borne in mind. The subject must not realize that the mistreatment is a deliberate attack of an anti-human enemy on his personal identity. He must be made to feel that he deserves any treatment he receives because there is something (never specified) horribly wrong with him. The naked need of the control addicts must be decently covered by an arbitrary and intricate bureaucracy so that the subject cannot contact his enemy direct."

Every citizen of Annexia was required to apply for and carry on his person at all times a whole portfolio of documents. Citizens were subject to be stopped in the street at any time; and the Examiner, who might be in plain clothes, in various uniforms, often in a bathing suit or pyjamas, sometimes stark naked except for a badge pinned to his left nipple, after checking each paper, would stamp it. On subsequent inspection the citizen was required to show the properly entered stamps of the last inspection. The Examiner, when he stopped a large group, would only examine and stamp the cards of a few. The others were then subject to arrest because their cards were not properly stamped. Arrest meant "provisional detention"; that is, the prisoner would be released if and when his Affidavit of Explanation, properly signed and stamped, was approved by the Assistant Arbiter of explanations. Since this official hardly ever came to his office, and the Affidavit of Explanation had to be presented in person, the explainers spent weeks and months waiting around in unheated offices with no chairs and no toilet facilities.

Documents issued in vanishing ink faded into old pawn tickets. New documents were constantly required. The citizens rushed from one bureau to another in a frenzied attempt to meet impossible deadlines.

All benches were removed from the city, all fountains turned off, all flowers and trees destroyed. Huge electric buzzers on the top of every apartment house (everyone lived in apartments) rang the quarter hour. Often the vibrations would throw people out of bed. Searchlights played over the town all night (no one was permitted to use shades, curtains, shutters or blinds).

No one ever looked at anyone else because of the strict law against importuning, with or without verbal approach, anyone for any purpose, sexual or otherwise. All cafes and bars were closed. Liquor could only be obtained with a special permit, and the liquor so obtained could not be sold or given or in any way transferred to anyone else, and the presence of anyone else in the room was considered prima facie evidence of
conspiracy to transfer liquor.

No one was permitted to bolt his door, and the police had pass keys to every room in the city. Accompanied by a mentalist they rush into someone's quarters and start "looking for it."

The mentalist guides them to whatever the man wishes to hide: a tube of vaseline, an enema, a hand-
kerchief with come on it, a weapon, unlicensed alcohol. And they always submitted the suspect to the most humiliating search of his naked person on which they make sneering and derogatory comments. Many a latent homosexual was carried out in a straitjacket when they planted vaseline in his ass. Or they pounce on any object. A pen wiper or a shoe tree.

"And what is this supposed to be for?"
"It's a pen wiper."
"A pen wiper, he says."
"I've heard everything now."
"I guess this is all we need. Come on, you."

After a few months of this the citizens cowered in corners like neurotic cats.

Mnnnn, sounds like my kinda place! While making a comparison between Annexia and modern New York is a bit of a stretch, it doesn't seem like much of one when pregnant women are fined for the express purpose of raising money for the state. (Not to mention cops dressing up like homeless people and standing in intersections keeping an eye out for seat belt violators. Isn't there a murder somewhere to investigate? My mom can take care of wiping my face, thank you very much!)

Recently, I have observed a great deal of rhetoric from various pundits such as those on the Fox News Channel, the Weekly Standard, this little banner above our blog, and other media outlets that profess to be conservative, right of center, what have you, about how "the left hates America." I have some observations and questions in regard to this assertion. 

First, an observation. The aforementioned pundits have a little song with a good beat and you can dance to it. The little song begins with how Reagan won the Cold War. The next line is some sort of attempt at name-calling, IE "I think liberals [MADL] are a bunch of whiners," from Anne Coulter, for example, or Michael Moore is telling lies, from Fox News. The next line has something to do with support for the troops or war is good or something to that effect, and this often comes from people who have never served in the military nor would they allow their children to do so (I believe that it is because American wars are usually, if not always, a rich man's war and a poor man's fight, but this is beside the current point). A recently added line dealt with Francophobia. The new line in this ditty is how "the left hates America."

A second observation. As I have mentioned before, debate in this country typically involves an attempt to shout the other side down and describe what their opponents think without actually consulting them. Buckethead indicated that this rhetorical methodology is acceptable; I believe it is not. But disagreements between the two of us are frequent to say the least. Be that as it may, arguing that "the left hates America" falls into the category I have described in the current paragraph. 

Now for the questions. What is this left of which you (aforementioned pundits) speak? Who is this enigmatic left that you are pointing your fingers at and shouting, "J'accuse!" Oh, pardon me. In their language it is, "I freedom-accuse you!" But still, who are you talking about? At least Fox News singled out Michael Moore to provide something other than a broad stroke. But I can remember my early teen years, when I would describe myself as a leftist, my Dad challenged me to think about what that means. Similarly, I challenge the pundits, who and what are you talking about when you say, "the left?" 

Second question. How do you know this left of which you speak hates America? Have you asked them? Have you polled urban areas, started with a question about their political orientation and then proceeded to ask them what they think? "Do you hate America?" the pollster asks a low-income grad student/adjunct professor in a major urban area. Has that been done? Or, do you simply glance at what has been written, taking a statement such as, "There are significant inequities and injustices in American society," and shout, "Freedom-accuse!" Such a statement as that indicates that you hate America!” 

Third question. If this left does indeed hate America, what are you going to do about it? May I make a suggestion? Perhaps you could use this to discredit a political party. But hmmm, what oh what party could that be? Perhaps one that is part of this left? Maybe the SWP? The SDP? The Green party (though I take some issue with their inclusion into a left camp, but others see it that way). No, no, those parties are insignificant. Perhaps you could set your sights on the Democratic Party! Why yes! Never mind the fact that the Democrats are capitalists and just as conservative as you, still in favor of tax cuts for the rich, just at a reduced rate! Never mind the fact that the Democrats didn't oppose the war as much as you made them out to oppose the war, who cares? There are two parties defined by their opposition to each other who really think pretty much the same thing, and this country ain't big enough for the both of them. So go ahead, hurl insults and engage in name-calling to discredit the other party who thinks the same thing as you just has a different lever on election day! Make wild broad stroke accusations about people you haven't even spoken to! So who cares if we're lying or telling the truth! If we say that this one group hates America, we discredit the party that pretends to represent them only really doesn't! 

My last questions. Why do these pundits feel the need to do this sort of thing? It strikes me as dirty pool. Maybe they don't feel confident enough in their arguments or beliefs to win debates solely on the basis of those arguments. Or maybe it's just quicker and easier to throw sand in a man's eyes and kick him in the balls instead of a straight fight. So I'll ask, either rhetorically or prevailing on Buckethead to pose the response on behalf of those who might or might not be his ideological brethren. Why the name-calling? Why are you insisting that the left (whatever that is) hates America? On what do you base your opinions? What are you trying to achieve? "I hate you and you hate me and you hate America." What does this accomplish?

Why else are we doing what we do here? 

A Canadian commentator, David Warren, makes a valid point here. Especially this:

It is the American way to stress optimism, and to be extremely empirical. They learn by doing, and did not have much experience governing demolished Arab countries. They make ghastly mistakes, and as often as not, turn around and fix them. They have, if I may make one of those generalizations about national character that aren't all the rage, a national disinclination to panic. The media are delegated to do the panicking on their behalf, the American people are fairly hard to scare.

While carping about mistakes is valuable, in that it calls attention to them; the real important thing is that they get fixed. We are making the attempt to fix things, and the constant whining of "blood for oil" and other canards is truly off base. If you judge a nation by its enemies, we are doing pretty well. 
 

Burt Rutan, founder of Scaled Composites and designer of many a cool aircraft, has made the first test flight of the SpaceShipOne, their entry into the X-Prize Contest. Apparently, they are shooting for a suborbital flight by Dec 17, the centenary of the Wright Brother's first powered flight. That would be very, very cool.
 

Useless movie quotes, from all your favorite movies. While the selection of quotes is not as thorough as I would like for some of the movies, it is a fun little website. For instance, I found this quote:

I would like to direct this to the distinguished members of the panel. You lousy cork-suckers. You have violated my fargin' rights. This suminonbatching country was founded so that the liberties of common patriotic citizens, like me, could not be taken away by a bunch of fargin' ice holes, like yourselves.