AV: Milton Friedman once said that "the free market is the only mechanism that has ever been discovered for achieving participatory democracy." Milton Friedman was wrong, as the free-market-loving yet participatory-democracy-hating China demonstrates.
Did Friedman mean that one always, inevitably and instantly follow the other, or could he have meant that a free market is a common mechanism that leads to participatory democracy. Did he give a time frame?
Also what did he mean by 'free market'? Isn't that a question of degree? Also, is it not reasonable to ask whether China is more democratic since the economic freedoms have been introduced?
I am prepared to accept that there might be some correlation. How causation would work seems to be a very open question. Maybe it is the fact that the free market may be accompanied by the growth of the middle class who will, by one means or another, demand greater political freedom. How long are you prepared to allow for this to take place? Or do you want instant gratification?
How long are you prepared to allow for this to take place? Or do you want instant gratification?
Perhaps these questions are better put to Chinese citizens.
Meanwhile, we're better off keeping our fingers crossed and wishing really, really hard, eh?
Maybe it is the fact that the free market may be accompanied by the growth of the middle class who will, by one means or another, demand greater political freedom.
Hasn't this happened already?
Friedman's remark perhaps highlights one of the differences between the left and the right. The left value political freedom more than market freedom; the right prefer it the other way around.
Oh yes, Friedman was a hero to the middle class. Friedman's economic prescriptions had plenty of noble sounding language, but the mechanisms were anything but democratic.
If you have to kill off the leftists to stop labour from organizing, it is anything but a free market. It's Trotskyite elitism.
I'm blocked also as i expect most of the Western World is.
Mine's blocked as well.... There is a mirror service for blogs that gets around censorship in some countries... can't remember who they are atm... I'm off to a wedding and don't have the time! arrrggghhh!
My blog was blocked too... perhaps I shouldn't be surprised about that.
AV: Perhaps these questions are better put to Chinese citizens.
No. You put the proposition. You shouldn't try to duck the question like that. Of course some of Chinese citizens may want change sooner, that is independent of how long it actually takes, and what are the causative factors.
AV:As to Tiananmen Square, is that the end then? Fail once, very early in the process of opening up markets, and apparently we should forget about all future change - is that it?
AV: Friedman's remark perhaps highlights one of the differences between the left and the right. The left value political freedom more than market freedom; the right prefer it the other way around.
I agree with the first sentence. If the second is true then that is why I am happy to be neither left nor right. I think political freedom is equally imortant, which is why I utterly despise the Victorian Blasphemy laws and the Federal anti-terror laws which have gone further than necessary. Our system of concentration camps for refugees is an abomination.
I don't think that Friedman has made the case that economic freedom leads to political freedom but it is interesting to speculate about it nonetheless. Friedman also had a major causation issue with his theory of moneterism. Historical data showed a correlation between money supply and economic growth, and he assumed causation.
justaguy: If you have to kill off the leftists to stop labour from organizing, it is anything but a free market. It's Trotskyite elitism.
I am not aware of Friedman killing off any leftists. I think the decline in union activity in Australia is a result of factors like the improving economic circumstances of Australians, laws that make union activists accountable for their actions and the fact that there is no foreign funded communist push to organise any more, communism being little more than a sad joke these days.
Unions are by nature monopolistic, and usually produce the best outcomes for their members in monopolistic industries.
Me too, but the Great Firewall of China is unpredictable; I have had visits in the past month from Beijing and Shanghai...
No. You put the proposition. You shouldn't try to duck the question like that.
The question you asked didn't apply to anything I actually said. The point I was making concerns China's simultaneous embracing of economic liberalism and political authoritarianism, and how it falsifies Friedman's free market-->democracy thesis. I also remarked how this makes China seem more right wing than left wing.
I should add that I don't see how acquiescence on the part of the West--such as, for instance, Google's self-censorship--will help to change things.
AV: The question you asked didn't apply to anything I actually said. The point I was making concerns China's simultaneous embracing of economic liberalism and political authoritarianism, and how it falsifies Friedman's free market-->democracy thesis. I also remarked how this makes China seem more right wing than left wing.
Now, the questions I asked concerned the time-frame for the change, and what constituted a free market. Both of these questions are highly relevant to your view that Friedman is wrong.
I also asked whether China had become any more democratic since the economic changes. Another relevant question you avoided.
It is not that I have any great faith in Friedman's thesis, but rather I am concerned at your simplistic dismissal of it.
Also, although economically China is moving away from a leftist position, it is certainly maintaining the old leftist position on human and political rights that has been in place since the communist regime took over.
Now, the questions I asked concerned the time-frame for the change, and what constituted a free market. Both of these questions are highly relevant to your view that Friedman is wrong.
No, they're not, since answering any question about a time-frame presupposes that I accept Friedman's free market-->political freedom thesis. I've made no claim about a time frame, so there's no point asking me for one. What I'm actually doing is offering China--a country where economic liberalism thrives in a totalitarian state--as a counter-example to Friedman's argument.
I'm no expert on the country, but China is still a one-party state, it still detains pro-democracy activists, it still curbs religious freedoms, it still persecutes ethnic minorities such as the Uighurs, and it still curtails freedom of expression (as the Google example demonstrates). (Not to mention problems associated with economic liberalisation.)
None of the above are supported by any individual or organisation associated with the Left in the West that I can think of; indeed, in the West, the shift towards Chinese-style authoritarianism is being embraced by the right--as the Bush Administration's Patriot Act and Howard's terror laws demonstrate.
I guess the real question is this: how does the acquiescence of Western nations and businesses to Chinese totalitarianism and human rights abuses help move China towards political reform?
"I am not aware of Friedman killing off any leftists."
Really? Can't say I'm surprised. Amused though.
AV: I've made no claim about a time frame, so there's no point asking me for one.
Of course you have! By saying that Friedman is wrong you are assuming a time frame such that the relevant change ought to have occurred by now, and its absence is evidence that Friedman is wrong in the case of China.
I guess the real question is this: how does the acquiescence of Western nations and businesses to Chinese totalitarianism and human rights abuses help move China towards political reform?
It's not just the west. Many leftist African states are on board as well.
I thought that after Iraq people understood that military adventurism is out in such cases.
So you must be suggesting cessation of trade - in which case you ought to be attacking Adam Smith. Personally, I think cessation of trade would see China become more like North Korea.
Of course you have! By saying that Friedman is wrong you are assuming a time frame such that the relevant change ought to have occurred by now, and its absence is evidence that Friedman is wrong in the case of China.
Friedman is wrong (thus far) because economic liberalisation coexists with totalitarianism in China. I haven't ruled out definitively the possibility that things will change politically in China--I'm just saying they don't appear to have any incentive to do so.
Indeed, the danger is that more Western nations might adopt aspects of the Chinese model of economic neoliberalism and state authoritarianism. Certainly the US under Bush and Australia under Howard have shown evidence of this tendency.
I don't know why you think I'm suggesting either cessation of trade or military adventurism, since I never mentioned them. The question I asked was: how does the status quo bring China closer to political reform? Are the outright cessation of trade or military intervention the only alternatives to the status quo?
AV: I don't know why you think I'm suggesting either cessation of trade or military adventurism, since I never mentioned them.
I was trying to work out what solution you were advocating.
I think the presence of a substantial middle class, rather than free trade per se, may result in political pressure for greater rights. However, this may take centuries, if history is any guide.
I guess when enough people are of a mind that political freedoms are really important they will fight for them.
Conversely your suggestion may be that if people are economically well off they will cease to care about their political rights and be content to see them eroded. I am disturbed that the people of Australia are prepared to have sedition laws, and the people of Victoria tolerate blasphemy laws.
I was trying to work out what solution you were advocating.
I agree with you that neither military action nor wholesale economic sanctions are likely to do any good.
But I do think the West ought to give greater support to pro-democracy groups.
Friedmann's neoliberal model is an obvious failure for all but the elites.
That it still is the received wisdom amongst the business/economic punditry, and thus the general public, is really a product of political and media self interest propaganda.
It is in their interests, but for everyone else but a lucky and/or talented few who can break into the elites, it is a clear loser.
Since Friedmann the gap between rich and poor has accelerated dramatically no matter which way you care to measure it.
The mirage that we are all better off is bunkum because much of the perceived improvements in our economic well being are the result of other factors and a like with like comparison can only be made with countries that have resisted the neoliberal assault. When you do, the comparison is a stark one indeed.
The fact is we work more for less while the elites have reaped the bulk of ours and our forebears common wealth. It is the road to serfdom.
Paying lower taxes, even if it really happened, is not an end in and of itself. Quality of life has to count for something.
And before you jump in SB, please don't give me the usual "Scandinavia is crumbling" misinformation.
The Scandinavian model is doing just fine. It is the US and UK that are crumbling under debt mountains. We would be too if it weren't for the global resources boom.
Donald Duck could have balanced our budgets in the Howard years. A Treasurer Duck could probably have done it without an assault on our valued institutions and infrastructure as well.
The class war is a right wing hoax that is running in tandem with that other great hoax, the war of terror.
The point being, that neoliberalism and/or monetarism won't bring forward a powerful middle class.
Only fair and equitable redistribution can do that and that requires a political will as that provided by western trades unions until recently.
I can't imagine that fits into China's authoritarian structure as things stand. Corruption on a massive scale is more likely.
justaguy I will not wade through your offtopic delusional rant.
I note, however, that we would be very much better off as a country if Keating had been PM through the Howard years.
Footnote: I was taught macro-eonomics by John Hewson when he was a mad moneterist. I am not a hard-core Friedmanite.
SB Unions are by nature monopolistic
As is capital.
Just so as you know SB. The Pinochet regime killed most of the labour activists and practiced brutal state terrorism to crush worker dissent to implement Friedmann's monetarist design.
He may not have personally thrown anyone from a helicopter and he may not have appeared in person at the footbal stadium, but his hands were covered in blood as are most of his accolytes on their journeys through 3rd world resource rich economies.
Hardly delusional if all the statistical and empirical evidence evidence supports it.
Not in what I like to call the real world anyway.
Fact is SB, unbridled capitalism as dictated by the US is looking shaky.
No fan of Keating or Hewson. Shovelling public money to the already wealthy is no solution to anything.
justaguy: The point being, that neoliberalism and/or monetarism won't bring forward a powerful middle class.
Finally you get to the point. I did not have your most recent post when I did my previous reply. Is there any evidence that the Chinese are applying neoliberal or moneterist policies? Looks more like a hodge-podge of corruption and an arbitrary relaxation of some restrictions on trade.
Only fair and equitable redistribution can do that and that requires a political will as that provided by western trades unions until recently.
There is no such thing as a fair and equitable redistribution carried out by humans. That is why all the communist countries are such miserable failures. Trade Unions are dying because the communist regimes that sponsored them are dead and nobody believes that nonsense anymore. Trade unions will only succeed insofar as they benefit their members as oppossed to sponsoring revolution.
The class war is certainly a hoax and all the fools who wasted their lives studying Marx are victims of that hoax. War on terror is indeed a misnomer - "Post-Communist Jihad" is more accurate although one could argue that it is a continuation of the original jihad that spread islam by the sword after the death of the Prophet.
justaguy Fact is SB, unbridled capitalism as dictated by the US is looking shaky.
I don't know what capitalism is, and I suspect I wouldn't like it much if I did, particularly if it is unbridled.
Economically, things are looking up. Unemployment is down, people seem happy with the economy.
Chinese are applying neoliberal or moneterist policies? Looks more like a hodge-podge of corruption and an arbitrary relaxation of some restrictions on trade.
Chinese monetary policy being an example.
Economically, things are looking up. Unemployment is down, people seem happy with the economy.
Hmmm. I'm wary of inflation when China inevitably floats its exchange rate. Or at least lowers it.
Sorry... got that back to front lol... raises exchange rate (and subsequent consequences)... I was at a wedding last night alright?
I'll ignore the snark for the moment.
The US economy is looking good somehow? In the media maybe, but these are people that tell us that budget deficits don't matter.
They also don't tell the facts regarding the decline in real wages.
The real story is that the US$ is tanking under the weight of debt and negative sentiment of the owners of $ mountains. The uberrich are selling dollars as quickly as they can.
The structural weaknesses in the economy will have real effects as foreign creditors shy off. It is already happening.
SB Unions are by nature monopolistic
justaguy: As is capital.
Exactly. The true vice is monopoly. The friend is the free market, which is anathema to monopoly.
justaguy Just so as you know SB. The Pinochet regime killed most of the labour activists and practiced brutal state terrorism to crush worker dissent to implement Friedmann's monetarist design.
Why is Pinochet so derided, yet Che and Castro (who killed 20 times as many people), are folk heroes to the idiot left? At least Pinochet's economics worked.
It was wrong for Pinochet to order the extra-judicial killings, but I don't see how you can blame that on Friedman.
"There is no such thing as a fair and equitable redistribution carried out by humans"
Bollocks. Everything between communism and laisseze faire capitalism is a compromise and our best decades were when we had a fair balance.
The ability of a billionaire to increase his wealth is no concern of mine, but equal opportunity and a functioning society without huge inequity is.
Your delusional ranting about communism (which is irrelevent) and islam is not worth comment.
"The friend is the free market, which is anathema to monopoly"
Logical fallacy. A common one but 100% wrong. A free market, not that there is such a thing, must inevitably result in a monopoly.
You'd have to refer your silly moral relativism question to someone on the "loony left" I'm afraid. I don't know any.
Why do you, on the terrified widdle bunny right revise the history of islam but laud the British Empire which killed many more people in the name of capitalism and white man's burden than islam ever could? Or the ongoing US empire for that matter?
It was wrong for Pinochet to order the extra-judicial killings, but I don't see how you can blame that on Friedman.
SB | 04.30.07 - 3:09 pm | #
Oh well I do because I know more of the history than you do. Kissinger and Jean Kirkpatrick were in there too. All neocon icons. The US has killed a lot more South Americans than all the others combined SB.
justaguy: A free market, not that there is such a thing, must inevitably result in a monopoly.
This is a whacko idea pushed by statists. There is no reason that this should be so, and in fact it has not occurred in practice.
The ability of a billionaire to increase his wealth is no concern of mine, but equal opportunity and a functioning society without huge inequity is.
Then we are agreed.
Oh well I do because I know more of the history than you do. Kissinger and Jean Kirkpatrick were in there too. All neocon icons. The US has killed a lot more South Americans than all the others combined SB.
Your modesty is killing me. But how do you pin this on Friedman? (and then next tell me how Mossad brought down the twin towers).
"At least Pinochet's economics worked"
Missed that little gem. They actually didn't. Pinochet destroyed the middle class and set the working class back decades in favour of foreign capital investment i.e. crony capitalism.
You can argue that he created a basis for a successful economy but not convincingly IMO.
Chile was a basket case while he was in power. Similar to preChavez Venezuela. Great for the elites, serfdom for everyone else.
"This is a whacko idea pushed by statists. There is no reason that this should be so, and in fact it has not occurred in practice."
What?????? Are you mad or asleep?
Google the Chicago Boys.
Your islamic conspiracy theories are obvious to all. Your attempt to project conspiracy theories to me is pathetic.
You're a truly conceited ass.
There are lots of articles written about Chile's economic performance in the 90's, like this. But it seems facts don't mean much to you.
Chile had an outstanding economic performance during the 1990s, in particular in the first half of the decade, achieving a remarkable reduction in poverty, which contrasts with the experience of its neighbors in the Southern Cone. Poverty reduction was mainly due to economic growth, since inequality has remained very high.
Now we will see what Chavez does with his buffoonocracy. He has already established rule by decree.
You high rwa follower types have all the little catch phrases handy don't you?
Like little shiny objects.
Interesting that Pinochet who deposed a democracy with US backing is a hero, yet an elected president whose people rescued from a US inspired coup is a pariah. Incredible.
Rule by decree was popularly mandated and is limited. Given the parlous state of the economy he inherited and the overt threats of violence from the US it seems a fair idea.
But from your all white POV, one can't have those brown people gettin' uppity eh, SB?
Kind of makes me feel dirty talking to you.
Chile's economy was outstanding under Pinochet for the movers of big capital. For every one else it was a disaster.
But, being not white people, I guess they don't count.
"Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope and therefore accept the fact that wealth, power, status and other resources favor an affluent few while traditional autocrats maintain the masses in misery. So therefore our lack of concern is quite proper; indeed, quite decent and moral because the lower orders feel no pain."
Jean Kirkpatrick
justaguy, what's with all the racist stuff? Why taunt me because of my skin colour? If I have any issues with you, they relate to your logic and your rhetoric, and nothing else.
You were probably jerking off when you wrote this with your one free hand: Kind of makes me feel dirty talking to you.
Chile's economy was outstanding under Pinochet for the movers of big capital. For every one else it was a disaster.
You might want to read the facts, and this time try not to ignore the ones that don't suit you, my cave-dwelling friend.
Kirkpatrick's quote was bad, but looks slightly better in context, which you conveniently ignored.
"justaguy, what's with all the racist stuff?"
What other reason could there be for your views? One law for us and another law for them. They do as your side of white culture demands or we demonize them.
That is of course now that you've deemed your chosen race as white, to seperate yourselves from other arabs.
And all this when you support butchery, mayhem and mass murder.
What else could it possibly be? It doesn't help that you are an insulting snob without any cause for your feeling of superiority.
You are a follower not a thinker. Just a little walking hasbara projector.
I don't think I need to follow your reading of economics when you are so clearly ignorant.
Noooooooooooooooooo! Me too!
Why PRC? Why???
justaguy that is really silly. I respect a clever rant, but that is incoherent and boring. Hell even Mikey could give you lessons!
It is really not about race: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a hero because of her ideas and because she was able to reason her way out the bedlam that is islam. You should read her book.
I repeat what I said above:
If I have any issues with you, they relate to your logic and your rhetoric, and nothing else.
It is really not about race: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a hero because of her ideas and because she was able to reason her way out the bedlam that is islam. You should read her book.
So every single person who is islamic is therefore insane, or deluded, or a freak, etc etc etc. Does that extend to the other Abrahamic faiths like Christianity and Judaism? Or what about the Dharmic ones too? Sure you'll prob come back with 'wah, non of those other religions are trying to kill people' in which case you'd be wrong, either historically they have, or currently they are and the fact is that the Middle East tensions we experience are a result of many factors including both Islam, colonialism, a sought after commodity that does absolutely nothing for a society save provide it money (oil; whose corrosive effects on a society can be seen in Nigeria and other places; much the same way the influx of gold destroyed Spain in the 15th and 16th centuries), not to mention Western interference which basically involved their supporting and still supporting brutal dictatorships all they while pretending to install a democracy in Iraq.
I could go on. Bad Islam. Bad.
Mikey: So every single person who is islamic is therefore insane, or deluded, or a freak, etc etc etc.
Did I say that? No. But don't let that stop you. By the way the word for 'person who is islamic' is 'muslim'. No wonder your posts are so long!
I was talking about a woman who had enough sense to reject a religion which viciously violated her and whose adherents hunt her down across the globe, and who for her troubles is universally hated and derided by muslims. Having read her biography I think I was, if anything, understated in describing the society that treated her so badly as bedlam. It was hell for anyone who chose to think differently.
But if you would prefer to criticise me for stating the bleeding obvious, if you would prefer to avoid the facts and dish the dirt, riff away you poisonous poltroon.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a hero because of her ideas and because she was able to reason her way out the bedlam that is islam.
The Bedlam that is Islam. If Islam is Bedlam, ergo those that follow it are insane. Yes?
You see SB. You keep making sweeping statements rolling in everyone of a particular belief or ideology as behaving exactly as bad as its worst adherants. And every time I see you do it I will jump on you.
Which is my point. You know what?
I find it interesting that you unquestioningly accept her account of trials and tribulations. But not that of other people - say Kerry, Franken, Moore et al. Still, no surprises from you SB.
That was me obviously. And I find it delish that SB accuses me of "avoiding the facts" when almost all his posts do exactly that - selecting the facts that best fit his righty/not right! world view.
Mikey If Islam is Bedlam, ergo those that follow it are insane. Yes?
No! As Ayaan Hirsi Ali showed, not all the inmates are insane. However the culture that Islam has built resembles an insane asylum, particularly from the point of view of the women.
I can't for the life of me understand why you are defending the culture which forcibly circumcised Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she was five, but I think bedlam was a mild descreption.
Read her book Mikey, then you might see there is lot more to her than the gigolo traitor and his professional liar mates.
traitor
As an aside: traitor against whom or what? And on what grounds?
Hey, cool Senryu, thanks for the mention, we got you linked...
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
censor everything...
.
AV, the statement that "Kerry is a traitor" has a lot more truth in it than the statement that "Bush is a liar".
We know now that Kerry had clandestine meetings with Mme Binh in Paris. Now that we have documents setting out the North Vietnamese strategy we can see that Kerry's actions conformed precisely with that strategy.
The incident where he threw someone else's medals away, pretending they were his, is consistent with the above, and also conclusive of his inherent dishonesty.
In Bush's case there may be evidence that what he said was not correct, but there is no evidence that he knew it was not correct when he made the relevant statements. George Tenant's book may add new evidence to this question.
MIkey: I find it interesting that you unquestioningly accept her account of trials and tribulations. But not that of other people - say Kerry, Franken, Moore et al. Still, no surprises from you SB.
What are you saying here, Mikey? That I should disbelieve her because there is ample evidence that Kerry, Franken and Moore are disreputable?
The fact is there is no such evidence against Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The muslims hate her because she is an apostate who has disrespected islam. She has seen her collaborator gunned down in the street by muslim maniac, and pinned to his chest with a knife was a note telling her she's next.
The other group that derides her is the left, as exemplified in Newsweek and the New York Times. These sick fucks are no doubt acting out their role as part of the leftist-islamofascist alliance.
She is a woman who has absorbed and then used enlightenment values to escape the clutches of a vile religion. I would have thought that her stand would be appreciated by the left, but apparently not by the doctrinaire delusionists like you eh Mikey.
If I hadn't seen how leftists excused the mass-murder of the communists in the past, I would be puzzled by your stand, but sadly it is just the left being true to form.
That you can't find any sympathy for this woman, one of a growing number of people having to live their lives under 24 hour protection is completely repugnant to any sense of decency. But then the left has long history of indecent behaviour. And no, in my references to the left I don't mean every leftist, but rather an influential and significant part of the left.
We know now that Kerry had clandestine meetings with Mme Binh in Paris.
SB, you have an annoying habit of dropping references like this without filling us in on the details. (e.g. Who's Mme Binh?)
I can't find any information on this (sorry, I don't consider WorldNetDaily to be a credible source of information) other than a Boston Globe article from 2004 indicating that he met with Binh on a fact-finding mission prior to peace talks in Paris between the South and North Vietnamese.
To help other readers out, SB is contending that Kerry is a traitor because there is a US law forbidding citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on peace treaties and such. Kerry maintains that while he did meet with both sides, he was not involved in the negotiations.
the leftist-islamofascist alliance.
SB you come across as far saner when you refrain from indulging in rhetoric like this.
Where is the evidence of this so-called "leftist-islamofascist alliance?" It seems to me to be cut from the same cloth as the Darwinist Inquisition, the Homosexual Agenda and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
What I'm referring to by reference to the leftist-islamofascist alliance is not a formal alliance but the rather puzzling tendency by the left to align itself with radical islam.
We saw evidence of this with certain news articles on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and we had a very clear example recently where PBS would not broadcast a doco they had commissioned when they realised that it showed moderate muslims being persecuted by islamists. Even Wapo called them on this.
Now I suspect the majority of leftists do not take this line, but the phrase is not entirely devoid of merit, and a little colourful language is fun.
Rightwing Nuthouse has a piece on the Kerry/Binh relationship. If you don't like that source, there are another 65,000 hits arising from a search of "Kerry Binh".
What I'm referring to by reference to the leftist-islamofascist alliance is not a formal alliance but the rather puzzling tendency by the left to align itself with radical islam.
Why does criticism of Ayaan Hirsi Ali = aligning oneself with radical Islam?Have those critical of Ali actually espoused sentiments consonant with those held by radical Islamists? Because when I think "radical Islam," I think "right-wing theocracy."
If you don't like that source, there are another 65,000 hits arising from a search of "Kerry Binh".
Most of which are representative of the GOP/wingnut echo-chamber, and most of which date from the pre-2004 election period during which endeavours to smear the challenger were routine (and by no means unexpected).
According to the Washington Post, Kerry told Congress way back in 1971 about his meeting with Binh. If his actions were indeed illegal (and if the use of the word "traitor" is not an exercise in nationalist cant), why wasn't he ever charged?
AV, your reference to "the GOP/wingnut echo-chamber" shows that you also enjoy a bit of rhetorical flourish, and collective condemnation.
most of which date from the pre-2004 election period during which endeavours to smear the challenger were routine (and by no means unexpected).
The fact is that presidential candidates have their careers examined in more than usual detail. It happens with both sides, only the left has the MSM to do its dirty work, although, if they are not careful they can lose their reputations and jobs as 'Forger Dan' Rather and Mary Mapes found out when they tried to fraudulently attack Bush, in conjunction with the Kerry campaign.
The fact that Kerry told congress about one of his meetings with Mme Binh doesn't mean he was innocent. The fact is the meetings with Mme Binh and Kerry's subsequent advocacy of the North Vietnamese agenda are reasons for concern, especially as Kerry has been reluctant to be interviewed about this issue in recent times.
AV, your reference to "the GOP/wingnut echo-chamber" shows that you also enjoy a bit of rhetorical flourish, and collective condemnation.
They're all singing from the same song sheet (a.k.a. being "on message") at the same time and in the same context (i.e. the run-up to the 2004 presidential election). How else would you describe it?
The fact that Kerry told congress about one of his meetings with Mme Binh doesn't mean he was innocent. The fact is the meetings with Mme Binh and Kerry's subsequent advocacy of the North Vietnamese agenda are reasons for concern, especially as Kerry has been reluctant to be interviewed about this issue in recent times.
Soooo . . . is Kerry a "traitor" in the legal sense of the word (and if so, why was he never charged with breaking the law?), or the flag-waving uber-nationalist sense of the word?
The fact is that presidential candidates have their careers examined in more than usual detail.
I wasn't disputing that. I was merely pointing out the context of the Kerry-Binh links: a presidential campaign in which neither side (neither side, SB) was innocent of smear tactics. The attempts by the Right-wing Bush-supporting groupthinkocracy to portray Kerry as a commie pinko traitor need to be viewed in that light.
The fact that Kerry told congress about one of his meetings with Mme Binh doesn't mean he was innocent. The fact is the meetings with Mme Binh and Kerry's subsequent advocacy of the North Vietnamese agenda are reasons for concern...
No, but in instances of suspicion rather than established guilt (especially confected suspicion), innocence is assumed.
Bruce No, but in instances of suspicion rather than established guilt (especially confected suspicion), innocence is assumed.
In the context of an election campaign it is almost enough reason to call him a commie pinko traitor. We all do it. Poor benighted AV is still doing it, trying to defend his "the GOP/wingnut echo-chamber" references - happy to slander the lot of them without taking the trouble to sort the decent from the delusionary. It is in the same category as my rants against leftists in general - bombastic braying based on a sliver of truth. Its like wanking you know you should give it up but it is too much fun.
I can't for the life of me understand why you are defending the culture which forcibly circumcised Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she was five, but I think bedlam was a mild descreption.
Read her book Mikey, then you might see there is lot more to her than the gigolo traitor and his professional liar mates.
I did not for one second suggest what happened to her was wrong or that she was a liar. I just pointed out yet again you're wanking on about blaming the sins of the few on the rest. You continuously put the boot into Muslims and Islam in general. You're nothing more than an anti-semite equivalent of Muslims. Except of course there is no hate word for an Anti Muslim yet. Except perhaps bigoted dickhead. Wait, that's words. I apologise.
Hey SB is brining up the demented loon ravings against Kerry again. Boy I've been waiting for this. WARNING this is from a left wing site that uses words and facts to debunk right wing f/ckheads.
Enjoy.
right wing bloggers have a tendancy to spread bullshit ... funny that
What I'm referring to by reference to the leftist-islamofascist alliance is not a formal alliance but the rather puzzling tendency by the left to align itself with radical islam.
Yes, they all speak as one SB. Because the left fails to condemn treatment of people in Islamic countries ergo its clitorotomies for all and burkas and all that shit.
BULLLLLLLCCCCRRRRRAAAAAAPPPPPP.
Just because SB, with eyes shining, thinks (like others on the right) if you say it enough suddenly the left is in bed with radical Islam. Bull fucking shit.
The left condemned the treatment of women in Afghanistan - as they condemn what's happening in Dafur (where's SB on that I wonder). Did you know the rulers of Sudan are Islamic? Yep. Then why on earth is the left complaining? Oh - the genocide. Time and time and time again the left have stood up for people being fucked on. Sometimes they're Islamic. For example when they are vilified in western countries like Oz and cockheads label anyone Islam as an inherent threat. Not naming anyone. Their poo themed ravings are more than enough.
This is what I love about all of the 'where's the left condemning Islam' crap the right spew out. Where was the right BEFORE S11 on these issues.
I will tell you.
Nowhere.
Why? Because them boys in Arab land were our son of bitches. In fact SB riddle me this. If you righties are so enamoured of the bad left in bed with radical Islam (no proof offered save for lefties pointing out invading countries can cause problems - and I will doubt you will find many on the left that complained about Afghanistan's invasion - perhaps however the manner in which it is conducted) - why were the right - yep the right - continuously embracing hard line regimes like the Taliban (oil pipe deals), Saudi Arabia (hardly democratic; insane vice cops that push young women into burning buildings because they are in their fucking nightie), Egypt (torture common; US sends people there to be tortured), and indeed many former soviet republics that are Islamic where air bases are given in exchange for the US not complaining when people are boiled alive.
SB may claim piously he is not of any ideology. He even claims he votes Green. But his deluded constant anti left rantings and fact free sprays quoting right wing opionists says far more about his own beliefs than anything else he actually claims of them.
Oh the Islamofacist thing. Hilarious. I love it. It’s especially funny coming from a pseudo fascist like SB.
Oh Mikey you are like a breath of ... fetid farted air.
What on earth does this mean:
You're nothing more than an anti-semite equivalent of Muslims.
There is no need for an equivalent because, by and large, muslims are anti-semites. Also, and you'll have to trust me on this, I am not am antisemite.
And what is the good of citing one entirely biased pro-leftist site to provide evidence of bias. Duncan Black's little pot of toss is every bit as biased as the sites it attacks.
I am finally glad the left got around to criticising the genocide in Dafur. Lord knows it took them long enough.
If you want to se the 'alliance' in full effect checkout the gutless reaction of PBS when it had the opportunity to support moderate muslims over the islamists persecuting them. Got anything to say about that? Didn't think so.
In fact SB riddle me this. If you righties are so enamoured of the bad left in bed with radical Islam [...] - why were the right - yep the right - continuously embracing hard line regimes like the Taliban (oil pipe deals), Saudi Arabia (hardly democratic; insane vice cops that push young women into burning buildings because they are in their fucking nightie), Egypt (torture common; US sends people there to be tortured), and indeed many former soviet republics that are Islamic where air bases are given in exchange for the US not complaining when people are boiled alive.
Maybe you want to ask Bill Clinton, who was in power when a lot of this happened.
The problem with that argument is that it conflates normal foreign policy, where a country seeks to benefit itself, with support for particular ideas or practices like you see with George Galloway or with Michael Moore comparing civilian-murdering terrorists with the minutemen of the American revolution.
There is no need for an equivalent because, by and large, muslims are anti-semites. Also, and you'll have to trust me on this, I am not am antisemite.
Holy shit, what a nob. I meant I believe you are an anti-mulsim in the sense that someone who hates "the jew" is anti-semite.
I think that's fairly evident even for a fecally obsessed pea brain.
Yeah... that's right all those regimes were only in power when Clinton was in. Let's forget about Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I
Remember how Saddam may have been a son of a bitch but was Reagan's son of a bitch? Remember that SB? Where were the right RE Islam in the 90s. Nowhere. They were around, they may not have been in power, but all their think tanks were putting out stuff. And the only regime change they were calling for was the one secular state in the region - Iraq.
That's your political spectrum SB. Deal with it.
Oh an piss off about Moore and Galloway. Yes, they believe the things they do. Do they represent ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL of leftist thinking. Of course they fucking don't. But you harp on as usual bleating about them as if they speak for all. It be like me pointing at David Duke and saying he speaks for you in matters of race relations. Get a brain SB. And try and embrace things like fact and reason.
And what is the good of citing one entirely biased pro-leftist site to provide evidence of bias. Duncan Black's little pot of toss is every bit as biased as the sites it attacks.
Blogger lost my comment. Anyway, instead of posting my detailed hilarious response to your crap I will just point out how SB consistently refers to "evidence" on right wing partisan hack sites - without disclaiming potential bias of his sources (oh what a surprise) yet feels he can blanket disregard a line by line factual rebuttal of the crap spewed out against Kerry because ... erc ... why is that SB? Don't want to spend the hours reading how almost everything slandered against Kerry was nothing more than an evil attack on a pretty honourable person? Of course not. That would conflict with SB's world view.
As for his little crack about confusing foreign policy with morality what an absolute crock of shit. It's only reality based when it's the right doing it it seems, not the left. Who I should pointed out have long campaigned on Darfur and the person who has effectively let thim piss in the wind is ... Bush.
There is no need for an equivalent because, by and large, muslims are anti-semites. Also, and you'll have to trust me on this, I am not am antisemite.
Nobody was calling you an anti-semite, Mikey was saying as anti-semites are to Jews, you are to Muslims. And you just went and confirmed it.
Most Muslims anti-semite, what a vacuous accusation. I'm actually surprised SB. To the extent that I'm even a little suspicious you didn't write the post.
Incidenatlly, I've been watching your comments on Islam for a bit without responce. Riddle me this; If radical Muslims practice Islam, what do moderate Muslims practice?
Maybe you want to ask Bill Clinton, who was in power when a lot of this happened.
I was actually critical of the Clinton admin at the time, so I needn't really position myself on this.
Anyway, my position is not the point; while Clinton was in for a lot of it, the Right were in with their hands dirty for most. So the question still stands.
Michael Moore comparing civilian-murdering terrorists with the minutemen of the American revolution.
I'm no Moore fan, but you should really make a disinction here; Al Queda in Iraq or (pre-vote) insurgents? Your statement is potentially misleading.
Mikey: Oh an piss off about Moore and Galloway. Yes, they believe the things they do. Do they represent ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL of leftist thinking. Of course they fucking don't.
All I was trying to demonstrate was that there are leftists who support the islamist agenda. It is perfectly proper to refer to this grouping as the leftist/islamofascist alliance. I did not say that all leftists are party to it, but don't let subtleties like that get in the way of a good rant.
And you still don't get the irony of a biased leftist site like MM running around pretending everyone but leftists are biased.
At least when I link to "Rightwing Nuthouse" its leanings are there for all to see.
I can't believe you can't see the difference between supporting an ideology (like PBS was doing by refusing to screen that doco) and seeking trade and security benefits, notwithstanding that you reject the ideology. You're taking the piss, right?
All I was trying to demonstrate was that there are leftists who support the islamist agenda. It is perfectly proper to refer to this grouping as the leftist/islamofascist alliance. I did not say that all leftists are party to it, but don't let subtleties like that get in the way of a good rant.
Absolutely no qualification as to numbers was offered. And you did it again! Leftist/Islamofascist alliance. As in everyone on the left. Because if they're leftist - they clearly are in alliance with Islamofascists. Priceless.
Piss off - Media Matters is factual based reporting in nature. They present EXACTLY what right wing opinionists say then debunk it. Sure it's left in the sense that they are pissed off with filthy continual lies and hyperbole from the right. But hey it's facts. Challenge the facts SB. Oh wait you can't. You just label them biased without even reading the evidence.
And crap you highlight the fact you send people to right wing sites. At least I note potential bias of sources. You're like 'see, if you execute people it SAVES lives as per this report!' (written by right wing think tank types).
Hang on - you're always claiming support for ideology. You do it for the left. Hell I recall your outrage for Carter NOT invading Iran. Despite the fact A) it would have left the US in an Iraq esq situation and B) would have started WWIII quite possibly.
Your distorted world view SB is simply delicious. Esp love the 'I'M NOT RIGHT WING' overt rightiness you put out. I'd suggest talking to someone about that. It must be hard tooling around with such a confused set of political beliefs.
The right wing and ayrians are in alliance. How can I tell? Because David Duke doesn't like jews. And he's right wing. Case closed.
Great logic huh? Obviously I didn't mean all on the right are in an alliance. I am only using that as an example.
Using a minority opinion to represent the majority views of a broad ideology is fun!
As I said before: All I was trying to demonstrate was that there are leftists who support the islamist agenda. It is perfectly proper to refer to this grouping as the leftist/islamofascist alliance. I did not say that all leftists are party to it, but don't let subtleties like that get in the way of a good rant.
What part of that don't you understand? For more evidence of this faction just look at the Middle East studies movement, a bunch of idiots like Juan Cole, who are leftists in love with islamists. They spent the nineties assuring us that there was no threat from islamists, and then post 911 they changed their line to "They hate us because of our foreign policy. Quick quick lets appease them.
Why is it so important that this connection doesn't exist. I never made the claim that all leftists support the islamists, yet that is the one you choose to refute. Have you any idea how moronic that makes you look?
The really funny thing with your style is that you resurrect episodes from past conversations as though they are somehow relevant now. I think you are secretly in love with me in a creepy sort of way!
No SB. You implied it by saying Leftist/Islamofascist alliance. It's right there in black and white. Sure now you're back peddling with a "er ... obviously I didn't mean everyone on the left". Keep making moronic fully inclusive sweeping statements about 50% of the political divide and people will call you on it.
For example. Every single time you wank on about "the left" being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions - implying that A) it was because they were left that they did it and B) anyone today who calls themself left should take responsibility for those actions.
It's pathetic and it makes you look like a goose.
Oh wait -- you just did it again! Look leftists who LOVE Islam. Yummy! Everything radical Islam stands for we embrace! Hooray!
Oh SB - I use past conversations to point out how time and time and time and time again you use biased sources without noting biased, rhetorical over fact, and sweeping generalisations based on isolated examples of people who hold more extreme views.
In other words. You're a right wing nob. Is that fair to bring up all this stuff? Damn right it is.
I'm not in love with you SB. I see you as a case example of a right wing tool who can't even get it together to have his own blog, but cruises around other blogs making outrageous factless biased partisan statements then declares he's not partisan at all.
Wear your ideology on your sleeve mate. It's the only part of you that is missing your clearly overt political leanings.
Still hands down my most favourite thing you've ever said is that you vote Green. Hilarious stuff. You couldn't make it up. Seriously and editor would say 'sorry mate, that's just not believable'.
"They hate us because of our foreign policy. Quick quick lets appease them.
According to Dinesh D'Souza, they hate us because of our secularism, our atheism and our abandonment of traditional family values. (This is all the fault of the "cultural left", btw.)
Ergo: Rightist/Islamofascist alliance!
AV, it is hardly surprising Dinesh has a different view to the the MESA (middle east studies association) members.
It may be they are both right - the west is hated for both reasons.
Mikey you are still being terminally obtuse. I don't know how many times I can say this, but here it is yet again:
All I was trying to demonstrate was that there are leftists who support the islamist agenda. It is perfectly proper to refer to this grouping as the leftist/islamofascist alliance. I did not say that all leftists are party to it, but don't let subtleties like that get in the way of a good rant.
As for bringing up past comments. The only problem I have with this is that it is usually irrelevant. In the case of Carter and Iran, my previous view still stands. I note that that this will not always be the case, because in sharp distinction to you, I am capable of learning and changing my view. The idea that you should have one view and hold it for ever is pure egomania.
It is beyond hilarious that you can't see the humour in a biased leftist group making it its business to point out bias in others. I thought you lot were supposed to be good at irony.
I am still leaning to the Greens, but I may vote for Rudd, depending on how things look at election time.
AV, it is hardly surprising Dinesh has a different view to the the MESA (middle east studies association) members.
It may be they are both right - the west is hated for both reasons.
The point about D'Souza, though, is that he's not just making an observation. The secularism and abandonment of traditional values that D'Souza claims the West is hated for--well, he's just as condemnatory of those things as the Islamic fundamentalists (blaming them on the cultural left, whose fault it is that the US was attacked on Sept. 11).
D'Souza, then, is a rightist who supports the Islamofascist agenda.
D'Souza was heavily criticised by both sides for his latest book. I did not see one conservative cite it approvingly.
All I was trying to demonstrate was that there are leftists who support the islamist agenda. It is perfectly proper to refer to this grouping as the leftist/islamofascist alliance. I did not say that all leftists are party to it, but don't let subtleties like that get in the way of a good rant.
No, it is not "perfectly acceptable". Because you are clearly inferring all leftists are in this "alliance". As opposed to one (1) George Galloway. Who isn't even in an alliance but is just a stupid old man addicted to the limelight.
Witness the fact you had to back peddle and explain yourself when pressed. News flash SB. If you didn't want to have people think once again a classic piece of bumper sticker mentality was coming from the mental footlocker of SB then try presenting your bizzaro land theory of scheming lefties and devious rag heads as something less than total.
For example.
"There are some who identify with the left that believe in issues akin to that of radical Islam".
That's perfectly acceptable.
A blanket "Leftist/Islamofascist alliance" is clearly not.
Of course if SB had learnin' he'd know about the interpretation of bias and how generalisation can distort fact. Oh wait, this is a man who thinks Fox is the most balanced media org on the planet.
Again I say pathetic. And everytime I see SB wank on again with one of his macro left are evil bull twangery I will say so. And indeed I will ask if others feel SB's statements are in fact clearly evident as per the wounded SB's claim that "oh obviously I just meant one or two extreme examples as opposed to everyone".
It's pathetic you can't see that. It's
It is beyond hilarious that you can't see the humour in a biased leftist group making it its business to point out bias in others. I thought you lot were supposed to be good at irony.
A) I noted the bias, which you ALWAYS fail to do.
B) The rebuttal by media monitors against right wing blowhards who you clearly take to heart is factually presented with errors in what you righties say clearly identified. As in X said Y which is a complete crock.
But then you're a man who considers the ABC to be a hot bed of rag head loving latte sipping leftists as I recall from one of your past 'the ABC are nothing but soft lefties and peddle leftism' bull wanks over at Mr Leftys.
You sir are priceless. Logic need not apply in SB land. Is that because of my dangerous fact based logic? I'd say so. Keep speaking from the gut SB. You only make yourself look foolish every single time.
D'Souza was heavily criticised by both sides for his latest book. I did not see one conservative cite it approvingly.
I haven't heard one leftist cite the "Islamofascist agenda" approvingly, if by such you mean theocracy, the oppression of women, the restoration of the Caliphate, etc. (And I'm not sure what else you could mean, since you've only asserted that x, y and z leftist support the Islamic agenda, without further elaboration or substantiation. And no--being critical of Bush does not = wanting to have Osama's babies.) The Left and Islamic fundamentalists are diametrically opposed politically--the latter constituting the Islamic far right--and by no means do they share the same cultural values.
Poor Mikey and his interminable Rectum Monologues. First we have this:
No, it is not "perfectly acceptable". Because you are clearly inferring all leftists are in this "alliance".
Clearly I am not. There is no basis in the term "leftist/islamofascist alliance" to infer that all leftists support this alliance. When AV refers to "Right-wing Bush-supporting groupthinkocracy" I don't take him to mean that all Bush supporters are involved, just members of this groupthinkocracy. Nor do I take it to mean that all right wingers or all Bush supporters are meant to be included.
This really basic comprehension.
I noted the bias which you ALWAYS fail to do.
Which shows that you can see the irony?
Also if I link to a site and state clearly that it is "Rightwing Nutjob" do you think that is failing to note bias? Because if you do .... oh dear.
Any way seeing as how I am and ignorant biased rightwinger how am I supposed to know the difference.
And everytime I see SB wank
Only in your dreams old boy!
AV: The Left and Islamic fundamentalists are diametrically opposed politically--the latter constituting the Islamic far right--and by no means do they share the same cultural values.
The funny thing is, if you read Counterpunch or ZMag etc you don't get much sense of this. The left don't seem to be out in front on this one, and the right don't seem to be supporting their fellow rightists in the same way the MESA academics support the islamists.
The funny thing is, if you read Counterpunch or ZMag etc you don't get much sense of this. The left don't seem to be out in front on this one, and the right don't seem to be supporting their fellow rightists in the same way the MESA academics support the islamists.
Can you elaborate, though? Saying "MESA academics/Zmag/Counterpunch support Islamists" doesn't tell me anything--and it might just be, for all I know, a strawman. Which Islamists are you referring to? Which cultural values do MESA academics, or contributors to ZMag and Counterpunch, share with Islamists? What evidence can you point to that demonstrates this?
I think SB's already been given enough oportunity to show some evidence the last few times he's blindly asserted this. Not sure asking again will help.
And I'll repeat for SB;
Riddle me this; If radical Muslims practice Islam, what do moderate Muslims practice?
Just wondering if we are using the same terms here.
AV: Can you elaborate, though? Saying "MESA academics/Zmag/Counterpunch support Islamists" doesn't tell me anything
Actually that is not what I said. I said of ZMag and Counterpunch that if you read tem you do not get the impression that they are diametrically oppossed to the islamists. By this I meant that I don't see on those sites many, if any, attacks on the things you assert they are diametrically oppossed to. In the context of your assertion this is odd.
As to MESA, an academic, Martin Kramer has written a book, Ivory Towers in the Sand explaining the pro-islamist bent of the MESA academics (and no, I do not mean each and every one of them). Fortunately Kramer's site has a selection of readings on Middle East Studies. In fact his whole site is woth a look.
Bruce (channeling Mikey): Riddle me this; If radical Muslims practice Islam, what do moderate Muslims practice?
Bruce I didn't say that, so I don't see why I should have to answer too it. Do you not think that people can interpret the same religion differently. The trouble with islam is that the moderates are a tiny minority, and if PBS is anything to go by they are not getting much help from the left.
The only time I hear of them are in the horrible rightwing groupthink echochamber. I have yet to see a leftist site promoting them.
No, it is not "perfectly acceptable". Because you are clearly inferring all leftists are in this "alliance".
Clearly I am not. There is no basis in the term "leftist/islamofascist alliance" to infer that all leftists support this alliance. When AV refers to "Right-wing Bush-supporting groupthinkocracy" I don't take him to mean that all Bush supporters are involved, just members of this groupthinkocracy. Nor do I take it to mean that all right wingers or all Bush supporters are meant to be included.
--------
What utter shit. Of course you are inferring all leftists are like that. Here's some more classic sweeping statements from the pen of SB.
Abu Grahib and Gitmo was nothing more than the hijinks you'd find in a private school
Leftists killed hundreds of millions of people
All Jihadists must die. All of them, without exception.
Israel won the 1967 war and therefore as the winners they should be allowed to do what they like in the occupied territories.
All statements similiar to crap you have spewed out in the various blogs you lurk at (yet can't be arsed to have one of your own)
Basic comprension is that SB wanks on with generic statements broadly assuming EVERYONE does X when only some do, or even one or two.
Hence why I am stomping on you SB. And will continue to do so. Sure defend ALL you want but everyone knows that you're nothing but a right wing blowhard who can't possibly fathom use of things like objective fact.
Which shows that you can see the irony?
Also if I link to a site and state clearly that it is "Rightwing Nutjob" do you think that is failing to note bias? Because if you do .... oh dear.
Oh piss off once more SB. If you reference a FACT where presentation of those facts has a potential for bias, such as quoting global warming is a hoax stats from a think tank funded by petro dollars, you do the right thing and say so. Your inability to fathom basic bias considerations merely underscore the fact you're a right wing partisan troll hack with an inability to process information sources. Again I say pathetic.
I and I'm curious SB. Did you actually read the evidence at the media matters site which took the swifty claims out the back and shot it? Did you? Or did you merely dismiss it as "partisan leftist lies"?
I'd be interested to see whether you were able to actually bear reading something you appear to assume is grounded in lefty mythos. I've gone and read most of the stuff you've linked to, which is delish since a lot of it is of the black helicopters tin foil hat variety.
Go on. Read it. I suspect you'd be like one of the commentators who demanded photographic evidence of three .50 cal shots above the waterline or something.
I said of ZMag and Counterpunch that if you read tem you do not get the impression that they are diametrically oppossed to the islamists. By this I meant that I don't see on those sites many, if any, attacks on the things you assert they are diametrically oppossed to.
False dilemma. You're suggesting that by not explicitly attacking those things, ZMag and Counterpunch support them.
(And actually, I said "The Left and Islamic fundamentalists are diametrically opposed politically. You have yet to produce any evidence that refutes this.)
Anyway, I just took a glance at both sites. I see articles on labour rights, gay and lesbian activism, racism--hardly the stuff of Islamic fundamentalism.
Of course, they're highly critical of the Bush administration and of the Iraq occupation, but that doesn't make them pro-Islamofascist by default.
The trouble with islam is that the moderates are a tiny minority,
Evidence? (Something more substantial than one documentary favourably reviewed in a Moonie rag, please.)
As to MESA
But what aspects of Islamism do not-all-of-the-MESA-academics support, exactly? You're the one making the allegation, so you should be able to provide a summary without directing us to the website of a MESA critic. Where in their publications do they express support for Islamism?
Mikey: What utter shit. Of course you are inferring all leftists are like that.
Am not.
How many times can I tell you, Mikey? This is basic grammar. Unles I specify all there is no basis for asserting all. "leftists" unqualified means at least some leftists. Anyway, if you can't grasp that then I have clarified the matter for you many, many times.
Look it like this: if I note that the Dutch are tall, this does not mean there are no short Dutch people.
Come om Mikey, hit me with a few more air-swings.
Actually, Mikey it is funny that you think you are any more rational or unbiased than me. Time for another glance at the grinning mirror, I think.
And just to please you I will wade back into the MM fever swamp and sample their wares, whihc usually consist of talking points for leftist wannabes.
"leftists" unqualified means at least some leftists. Anyway, if you can't grasp that then I have clarified the matter for you many, many times.
No it does. It is standing for all of them. If you meant some or a few use the words, wait for it, some or a few.
It's just that easy.
My point is this.
SB makes a sweeping generalisation. People point this out. SB "corrects" or more like "back peddles" to say "Oh didn't mean that exactly" even though that's what you said.
How many times do I have to say it? One more time than you it seems. Of course you don't believe it at all.
Here's another great SB from the vault.
"The ABC are all leftist."
When asked for proof out comes the back peddle.
Classic SB. It's most amusing. I can't wait for the next one. And when you do it I will keep pointing out that you have.
Aw widdle SB actually admits he never looked at the evidence and now he's going to.
Claps loudly.
Point of course completely proved. SB immediately dismisses without looking at the evidence (because only now is actually going to do it). Because it's just too east to parrot the righty bull from the various "... non partisan or non agenda driven..." sites he goes to.
Classic SB.
The trouble with islam is that the moderates are a tiny minority,
Look!!!!! He did it again!!!!! I tell you what SB. Even the fucking State Department in the US declares that radical fundamentalist Islam is probably at about 1% in volume.
Hilarious. SB declares he doesn't just froth factless rhetoric, claims I "air swing" just because I point out time and time again he provides massive generalisations that people interpret that way, point it out, then forces him to "correct it", then he does it again.
Most amusing. No wonder he doesn't have a blog of his own. He'd be too much of a target.
Mikey: Point of course completely proved. SB immediately dismisses without looking at the evidence (because only now is actually going to do it). Because it's just too east to parrot the righty bull from the various "... non partisan or non agenda driven..." sites he goes to.
The point I made is that it is beyond parody that a biased site would set itself up as an arbitrator of bias. I draw that conclusion from my previous visits. I don't need to have visited the specific link you gave to draw the conclusion that MM is biased, a fact which you rightly have not contested.
(Did you notice that on the front page today they are slamming in advance a show they haven't seen yet?)
Admitting stuff, and honesty generally are probably completely beyond you.
Mikey: Even the fucking State Department in the US declares that radical fundamentalist Islam is probably at about 1% in volume.
Earth to Mikey, the state department are a bunch of whacko leftists if ever there was. A home to Soviet spies at teh highest levels in years gone by and supine Arabists in more modern times. Hell, the real leaker of Valerie Plame's name was Richard Armitage.
The fact is, there are not a lot of moderate muslims. Let me know if you can see any. Exclude everyone that believes the Koran must be read literally. Exclude everyone that believes that the Danish cartoons out as a matter of law not be published. There aren't many left.
I haven't the time to do a blog of my own. Also there is something beautifully transient about merely commenting. Blogs need commenters - its a symbiotic relationship.
Earth to Mikey, the state department are a bunch of whacko leftists if ever there was. A home to Soviet spies at teh highest levels in years gone by and supine Arabists in more modern times. Hell, the real leaker of Valerie Plame's name was Richard Armitage.
Ahhahahahahahahahahah (wipes away tears at SB's continued massive generalisation offering no proof beyond mentioning an espionage case from the 1950s). Ahahahahah.
You are desparately priceless SB you really are. You can hack the fact that a left wing site uses fact to retort to pig ignorant biased statements of falsehoods to prove once again many righty emperors are completely naked, then you accuse the State department of being nothing more than a pinko factory. You are choice mate.
Talking about digging yourself a hole. Let me know what the great wall of china looks like.
The fact is, there are not a lot of moderate muslims. Let me know if you can see any. Exclude everyone that believes the Koran must be read literally. Exclude everyone that believes that the Danish cartoons out as a matter of law not be published. There aren't many left.
So that's how you define fundamentalist radical Islam is it? More hilarity! Everyone who is a Muslim who holds a a tenant of their faith that the image of Mohammed should not be present (some; it's a debated point given the numerous depictions from the middle ages by Islamic artists); plus presumably anyone who holds the Koran literal is a frothing at the mouth bomb chucker. Most amusing.
Let's see you turn that logic on other religions. You take the cake man, you do.
I also enjoy the fact you "don't have time to blog" and "you're the pilot fish of the blog world" when clearly you spend a lot of time hanging out on blogs making wild encrazed statements of hyper nobness. When you could simply put them on your own.
Great stuff man. You NEED to blog! You could be the next Western Heart! Imagine all the trolls at your feet worshiping you!
Hell, the real leaker of Valerie Plame's name was Richard Armitage.
If you knew anything about things beyond what you read in right wing land you'd know Armitage was a key neo-con, albiet one grounded more in reality, that has been a central figure in US foreign policy for the best part of 20 years. Indeed, in the dying days of the Vietnam war he was not only still fighting for his country he was bringing in thousands of boat people off his own bat as a junior officer because he didn't want them to be subject to what he saw as an evil regime.
This is a man whose politics I may disagree with but I respect him despite his bluner and I respect the fact he spent his entire life in public service, and put his life on the line for others.
Go read his wiki SB. And numerous other white house officials likewise leaked the same information at around the same time.
Jesus mate try researching issues instead of parroting crap. It may do your rep some good.
Go on - start your blog up! You clearly have the time. You're all over blog land with your dodgy views. Make people come to you!
Hell, the real leaker of Valerie Plame's name was Richard Armitage.
----------
Hmmm blogger ate my comment on that. Go read his wiki SB. I think you'll find no one can acuse Armitage of being a pink shill for the lefty factory. This is a man who risked his life for his country. Can you say as much? I fucking doubt it.
I risk my life every time I challenge your grotesque comments. Anyway Mikey where would you be if I wasn't around to set you straight. Lord knows the trouble you'd be in.
Armitage was pink enough to be a vocal opponent of the Iraq war.
I suppose helping boat people is indicative of conservatism. Blessed St Gough didn't want those 'yellow balts' here - he turned his back and let them die. Every bit as evil as Howard's refugee policy.
No blogging - its the tao of the commenter for me.
Armitage was pink enough to be a vocal opponent of the Iraq war.
That didn't make him pink SB. That made him a foreign policy realist who was proven 100% right.
Even you begrudgingly admitted the Iraq war has been a 100% total and utter fuck up but - like me - was more of the opinion of 'what do we do now'. Don't back out on me know SB. You don't want to be defending the Iraq war all over again and come back to that point where you again have to admit Bush et Al performed the single greatest foreign policy fuck up of the last 30 years.
Though of course your "bomb Iran now" stance of the early 80's is likely going to interrupt that logic flow.
Nice use of grotesque SB. You failed completely and utterly in your point by likening anyone with half a brain as being against the war as a pinko however.
Oh and Armitage was not a "vocal opponent of the war" whilst in the state department. He only went down that route after he left it - and even then as a moderate. He and Powell both tried in vain to point out to Bush the problems with his Iraq plan. But Bush's higher calling to god alas meant he couldn't hear his counsellors on earth.
Read State of War by Woodward SB. Yes I know it involves reading a balanced tome by a respected journalist who dared to bring down I can only presume one of your heroes but I think it's safe to say it's regarded as the most objective and best researched neutral account of the decision to go to war in Iraq.
Remember it involves actually reading a book. As opposed to watching Bill O'Reilly label psychologucally traumatised children kidnapped by pederasts enjoying their captivity like a holiday camp.
Hey - that's completely unrelated to the topic! Wait, that's my point. Just how fucked Fox is (which SB has declared simply terrifically neutral and lacking any partisan bias whatsoever!)
DISCLAIMER: I supported the Iraq invasion on both WMD grounds and regime change. Which proves I also lack half a brain. I fully admit I was 100% wrong. Of course I didn't support the utter unmitigated fuck up of the occupation, largely because those in power IGNORED THE HATED ADVICE OF THE DANGEROUSLY PINK STATE DEPARTMENT, and had they actually garrisoned the place properly and engaged the leadership properly and not sacked all the public servants and soldiers driving the now unemployed people into the arms of their AQ paymasters it might have gone a tad better.
I opposed the war, basically along Beazley lines - it was a close call, but not supportable without UN approval. There a times when it is right to be pinko.
I'll try and read the Woodward book - I bought a while back but haven't had time to read it. I've just read Hitchen's guide to a young contrarian - it was fantastic. AV would probably enjoy the two chapters on atheism.
Cheers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pla.../
Plan_of_Attack
I made a mistake. I meant Plan of Attack. State of Denial is about the continued war in Iraq and the inability of the Bush administration to deal with the conflicting ideology of what to do next.
You impress me SB with being civil before I am. Read it. Enjoy it. I found Hitchens hard to stomach and his hyperbole hard to endure; but I recognise he's a smart man who knows his topic.
Check out his Daily Show interview.
It's not blogger that eats your comments Mikey, it's haloscan. It ate this earlier;
Okay. I went and read the (now rather long) thread over again and found this which answers my question;
SB:By the way the word for 'person who is islamic' is 'muslim'.
C'mon, you could have just answered the question anyway SB, it's not that hard. I just wanted to know that when you said Islam, it's what we all mean by Islam, and not some invalid (or indeed just plain different) term.
(At the very least it would have saved me some work.)
The above quote of yours shows that we are on the same page definition wise, which seems a little odd considering some of the ways you have used the term over the months on this blog.
Incidentally SB, your "I didn't say that" phrase doesn't make much sense when nobody is attributing an argument to you (or indeed to anyone.)
As for interpreting the same religion differently; of course I think that. Cripes.
Now (that I'm back up to speed)....
As for your "most aren't moderate" accusation, lets have a bit of evidence shall we? First most muslims are anti-semites, now most are radicals.
How about you substantiate both?
Mikey,
This only applies to about the second half of the thread (I think SB was genuinely misunderstood in about the first half and I think that some others could have conceeded more than a single point to him);
As for SB's generalisations, I wouldn't try too hard to catch him out because you are being a tad redundant. He does this all the time; make a blatant generalisation then claim not to have.
I've caught him out on generalisations before, but his own weren't the worst. The worst was his defence of the premise behind the "why are Atheists so angry" debate?
The premise behind the debate was clearly an inference that anger was inate to atheists, that most if not all atheists are angry people. Citing a publication in question, this was made ubundantly clear.
If SB recalls, I pointed out that "atheists", not "some atheists" or "most atheists", is that same as saying 100% of atheists - 0%. Or 10 of 10 apples minus no apples = all apples.
Faced with this (pure) reason, SB tried the rhetorical line of calling it a rhetorical device, which is of course blatantly stupid; it's an accusation that falsifies itself in the eyes of anyone applyies even the most cursory of reasoned consideration. He did this of course because he couldn't (and didn't) falsify the reasoning.
He then persisted in his claim that the premise was not a generalisation (even when the cited author admitted that it was.) The point being; SB wasn't being honest (unless of course he was being monumentally stupid which is something I just can't credit him with).
This is the same deal. SB made a generalisation, a fact obvious to anyone reading that has half a brain. The generalism was a mistake, it's backing him into a corner, it's probably embarrassing and now he's fibbing that he didn't make the generalism rather than admit he was wrong.
Backpeddling is too weak a word for such a strong denial. Backpeddling also implies some corrigability, which SB isn't showing.
That he makes further generalisms and unsubstantiated accusations is par for the course. Pointing out precise instances repeatedly is just a tad reduntant (as is this sentence I just realised.)
The question you (and perhaps others) isn't "is SB making generalisms?" or even "is SB fibbing to us about what he said?" We know the answers.
The questions I think people should (perhaps) be asking are "when is SB going to show us some intellectual honesty?" and "what kind of environment would facilitate this?"
Less talk of Poo Froth maybe? I've seen SB be corrigable when caught out before. These times didn't involve generalisms though.
Maybe generalisms form some kind of heuristic for SB, and if he abandons using them, things will seem too ambigious; hence he has to protect them even to the point of denial... I'm speculating far too much now and I want to sleep.
THat and I'm starting to sound waaaaay to Freudian for my own liking.
Anyway, it's not r
Bruce: He then persisted in his claim that the premise was not a generalisation (even when the cited author admitted that it was.)
Bruce, you were wrong then, and you are wrong now on that point - see my comment about the Dutch being tall.
It may have been a generalisation, but that would be a generalisation about a group which didn't necessarily incorporate all members of the group, and in fact may only need to incorporate a high profile minority to make sense.
Why am I so misunderstood!
*spreads arms as if crucified, and weeps*
Mikey I found Hitchens hard to stomach and his hyperbole
I quite like hyperbole!
Bruce: As for your "most aren't moderate" accusation, lets have a bit of evidence shall we? First most muslims are anti-semites, now most are radicals.
And so begins a distortion, a twisting of words in preparation for another mischevious jab.
"Most aren't moderate" does not equal "most are radical".
Maybe you ought to re-phrase your own earlier question: "when is SB going to show us some intellectual honesty?"
Why am I so misunderstood!
Because you don't choose your words carefully.
Hence, when you uttered the phrase "leftist-Islamofascist alliance," your interlocutors quite reasonably took this to be a blanket statement about leftists, and called you on it, and demanded evidence. So you were obliged to qualify this to mean "some leftists are allied with Islamofascists" or even "a small minority of leftists are allied with Islamofascists" (I'm paraphrasing, btw).
It's simply poor communication on your part, SB, and it's no good to complain to us about being misinterpreted. You crucified yourself, in this case.
(The evidence, incidentally, that even a bare minority of leftists are allied with Islamofascists has never been forthcoming.)
It may have been a generalisation, but that would be a generalisation about a group which didn't necessarily incorporate all members of the group, and in fact may only need to incorporate a high profile minority to make sense. [Emphasis added]
Hasty generalisation fallacy.
Hasty generalisation fallacy.
Which is the fallacy SB's been defending on this blog over and over. At least he's backpeddling a bit now. Vacuous apologeria being one degree better than outright fibbing.
The original premise was a careless and fallacious generalisation (as alluded to by its author and demonstrated by yours truly).
I really don't see why it's so hard for SB to admit that he was wrong. To attempt to falsify my argument, he's only used fallacies (like the one you just cited AV, which is of the same deal as the Dutchman BS) and it's not like there was anything at all in the original article that supported SB's case.
My pity for intellectually dishonest sophists grows thin these days. Now he's trying to play the martyr and accuses me of dishonesty ffs.
"...and who for her troubles is universally hated and derided by muslims."
- Universal? Read ALL Muslims...
"...by and large, muslims are anti-semites."
- By and large? Read most.
"The trouble with islam is that the moderates are a tiny minority..."
- I'll appease SB's pedantry by rephrasing some of my quesions (see, it's not hard to be corrigable SB).
Evidence that most muslims are anti-semites?
Would you say that non-radicals of any type are capable of the hate and derision you have attributed to ALL muslims?
What proportion of Islam is made up of moderates? Zero (considering that according to you they ALL hate and deride)?
What proportion of Islam is made up of these non-radical, non-moderates that you have alluded to?
Why have you been dodging questions, even the really, really innocuous ones?
All I'm asking is for "SB the rational" to justify his conclusions (or recant). It's not a hard ask for a man of reason.
AV: Because you don't choose your words carefully.
I do the best I can. I don't consider myself worse than Mikey who sprays his words about like raging convulsive diarrhea.
I am still convinced I am correct. When I say that the Dutch are tall. Do I mean all of them? Obviously not.
To claim that I mean all leftists is merely point-scoring opportunism. It is nothing to do with poor communication.
I hence confine my accusations of careless generalisation (in this instance) to generalisms about Muslims. Not that I think I exactly strayed too far from that to begin with.
I do the best I can. I don't consider myself worse than Mikey who sprays his words about like raging convulsive diarrhea.
OK--on this occasion you needed to choose your words more carefully.
I am still convinced I am correct. When I say that the Dutch are tall. Do I mean all of them? Obviously not.
It's not obvious, no. "The Dutch are tall" could reasonably be taken to mean either "All Dutch are tall" or "Most Dutch are tall."
It would be most unreasonable to expect anyone to take you to mean "Some Dutch are tall" or "A certain handful of Dutch are tall." Yet this appears to be what you expect of us regarding your claim of a "Leftist-Islamofascist alliance."
To claim that I mean all leftists is merely point-scoring opportunism. It is nothing to do with poor communication.
I never thought you meant all leftists, but I did (quite reasonably) think you meant most leftists--insofar as a generalisation made about a group is an attribution of a certain property to most members of that group.
In sum, if by "The Dutch are tall" you mean "A certain minority of the Dutch are tall," but we take you to mean either "All Dutch are tall" or "Most Dutch are tall," then the blame for the misunderstanding lies solely with you.
AV: It's not obvious, no. "The Dutch are tall" could reasonably be taken to mean either "All Dutch are tall" or "Most Dutch are tall."
If it could reasonably be taken to mean either then why assume that which suits your polemical purpose rather than seeking clarification?
Both are just as wrong (both hasty induction). I'll settle for either.
Incidentally, you are being pretty disingenuous. By asking us to ask you to clarify, you are implying that you will answer which is clearly not the case.
(See above not-so-artful dodging.)
If it could reasonably be taken to mean either then why assume that which suits your polemical purpose rather than seeking clarification?
Why assume I'm assuming that which suits my polemical purpose?
(And you seem to have missed my point.)
Thank you for the discussion, all. It is a bad way to start a Monday morning by resuming sparring at fine distinctions. So unless anyone wishes to press any point, I'll see you on a another thread.
Commenting by HaloScan
