WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Debacle knows all about the turtle theory of the universe. Dlowan thinks it's elephants! When pressed for the logic, she sings an off tune version of "Jake the Peg."

rog

I wasn't sure who might catch that allusion (a wonderful anecdote at the outset of one of Hawking's books). Deb is wise not to attribute this foundational aspect of the universe to rabbitry, as they'd be so busy humping that collapse would be immediate.

Blatham,

I see lots of rhetorical flourishes, but little in the way of meaningful argument.

Dwight Eisenhower wrote a book he entitled "Crusade in Europe" - he was, of course, writing about WWII in Europe. Did that involve a breakdown in the tradition of separation of church and state? I think not. The use of the word was obviously metaphorical. Has it since been outlawed?

Because Bush seeks the votes and political support of Christians, and because some Christians may seek to "remove Darwin from schools", does not mean that he "thinks the same way" or that he advocates some fundamentalist creationism doctrine. Further, whether or not he does, is not a disqualifying factor for the office he holds. Statistically it is a safe bet that among the many people who have contributed to the Democrat candidates campaigns in response to mailed or internet solicitations are a few rapists and murderers. Does this mean that they are "pandering" to rapists and murderers? Hardly.

Some elements of the Democrat party are exceedingly dependent on the support of labor unions. Several of these unions have been found to be heavily involved in criminal activities, ranging from extortion, to violations of the brights of independent workers, and systematic violations of campaign finance laws. Does this imply a 'shift towards criminality' in the Democrat party?

The 'logic' of these associations is not far from the logic in the first of your cites suggesting that any dark impulse that can be traced to Plato, Strauss, or any of their advocates is necessarily the policy of the current Administration - this because several of its officials were at the University of Chicago while Strauss was an eminent member of the faculty there.

I will be interested to read your comments.

george,

I can see how you are less likely to see what is obvious to some of us. You've clearly had a very positive experience with religion in your life. Your religion is apparently a moderate, helping institution with which you associate comfortable feelings. But these folks are not the kind of religious that you are familiar with. I know you don't want to believe it. But GW is a fanatical christian with fanatical, extremist ideas and goals. He doesn't for a minute believe there is any other true way to believe than the one he has chosen. We know he's replaced cocaine with alcohol and alcohol for religion. Try to keep an open mind about this and let the information sink in. Approach it as if it might have some merit. I would not be so upset with an ordinary Republican president. But we are being led and controlled by fanatics. And the world is in danger.

Relgious Fanatics
The Relgious Fanatics are waging war against each other and everyone one else shall pay with money, suffering and dying.

God bless Amerika.

Well done, Lola.

george

My goodness...you will do anything but notice differences, and because there are consequences if you do so. Eisenhower was referring to an international project which did not cast the US as the prime defender of good. Eisenhower was not speaking to a home audience or constituency to whom this term connotes what it does to Bush's constuency. Eisenhower was NOT speaking of a religious conflict between faith groups, and he was not speaking about Muslims, to whom the term 'crusade' means much of what it now means to fundamentalist Christians. The differences here are critical, and to pass them off as equal metaphors is undiscerning.

Bush has said that he believes the Genesis story, and not a Darwinian understanding of history. Whether this is legally a disqualifying criterion for office is an irrelevance. One could believe that organic robotoids from Tau Ceti have infiltrated the Congress and one would be legally qualified to be President.

Your rapist and murdered analogy again avoids all the critical aspects in question here. Rapists are not organized, nor are there numbers significant. The fundamentalist quarter is both very well organized and comprises a huge voting block. So, come on. If you are going to address these issues, be honest about it.

Lola,

Well, you've found me out. religion has indeed been a positive experience in my life. So far I have evaded the thought police and haven't yet been dragged off to the Gulag to be reeducated by Tartarin types. I was raised in an Irish Catholic milieu, educated by the Jesuits, and played Irish football for the Gaelic League - until I escaped to attend the Naval Academy, where I switched to lacrosse and gradually drifted in other directions. My memories of it are all very good: - a rational, self-consistent body of ethics that called on me to treat others as I would be treated, not count on perfect justice in this world, focus on the nature of God and His creation, and beware of excessive pride; - beautiful, poetic ritual that meshed remarkably with one's inner needs; - a recognition of the fallibility of all humans and a sense of joyful participation in life.

We didn't think either much or often about Protestants, much less about evangelicals - they were different, and some were reputed to be vaguely 'anti Catholic', whatever that meant. We were sure ours was the right way and vaguely sympathized with those who didn't get it.

Is a "fanatical Christian" any different from a fanatical atheist or a fanatical Darwinist? I do note that each appears to be more or less equally inclined to see their particular interpretation of events reflected as much as possible in both education and public discourse. How much 'fanaticism' in pursuit of any of these or other beliefs is too much? I submit the line occurs somewhere near the point of attempted coercion of others to ensure that they too believe, accept, or listen to the favored doctrine - whatever it may be.

Do you suggest the current Administration is heavily populated with 'fanatical' evangelicals ? Who/where are they? Several years ago, when he was with Haliburton, I spent some extended time with Dick Cheney - he is no evangelical. Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice come from mainstream Protestant backgrounds. Paul Wolfowitz is a Jew. Could it be Carl Rove? Or is it just the President himself? In what way has he demonstrated any coercive intent with respect to the differing beliefs of others?

How do you know that George Bush harbors "fanatical, extremist ideas and goals"? Should he be rebuked for replacing cocaine/alcohol with religion? Happily I have never had to make such a choice, but, given that a choice may have been in order, this one doesn't seem bad to me.

Part of my problem with the articles Blatham cited was that some pretty far out ideas and conclusions 'seemed obvious' to the authors, when, in fact they were dealing with the thinnest inference and flatly illogical conclusions. I noted the major ones in my long post early in this thread. Their conclusions were not obvious at all. Indeed they were not even conclusions in the logical sense, merely vaporous inferences masquerading as conclusions under the hype of advocates with an axe to grind.

It occurred to me as I clicked the "submit" button, wondering as I do constantly at George's and others benign acceptance of what I would (jokingly, smiley face, exclamation points, defensive LOL) call the 666 of our current administration, that the Christian fundamentalist thing has the same flavor and texture as entertainment, and that many of Bush's supporters are, like Reagan, unable to distinguish between myth and reality, what happened in the movies and what happens in real life. So George (for example, but not exclusively) sees the progress of this administration as though he were sitting in a theater or in front of a video thinking, How could those silly liberals be so worried! After all, this is a story!

How awful it must be for these folks to have the secular doubters leap off page and screen and yelp at them about reality. They are so sure they know what reality is. After all, they paid to get in and their popcorn smells of real butter.

?
george...again, you do not discern difference.

You might have asked, "Is there a difference between a fanatical Muslim and a fanatical atheist?". Yes. One exists in real numbers and in organization and presents a real danger. You are apparently unwilling to acknowledge that your faith can be extreme and dangerous, regardless of much such history. You are apparently unwilling to acknowledge that there is a significant difference between a faith group and the set of individuals who do not accept the tenets or notions of that faith group. Where you are unwilling to perceive or acknowledge such differences, nuanced debate becomes fruitless.

george

"advocates with an axe to grind"...god man. Dworkin is as balanced and careful a legal thinker as there is. Didion is a US treasure, both intellectually and as a writer. The Strauss scholar is not a person I have bumped into before, but she is clearly (evident in the content and in her grasp of her subject) an extraordinary voice.

To describe these three voices as you have defines you, not them.

george



Yes and no. Yes, in that most atheists and Darwinists are not manipulating, with a hidden agenda, in a highly organized way to take over the government. This group (in the WH) of fanatics are dangerous and they mean business. And yes, I do mean GW and Rove. The neocons (that's Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the others you named) are using this dangerous group (GW, Rove, Tom Hicks and his type -- I can name many others -- Falwell, Robertson, Ralph Reed, and many more) to further their agenda of coercion in the world. It's unconscionable.

No, in that all fanatics have the potential of doing harm. It depends greatly on how fanatical they are, how well organized and how destructive is their agenda. Fanatical terrorists (who use the Muslim faith as an ideology -- distorted as it is -- to destroy others, destroy lives, freedom and order) are as bad, in my opinion, as some evangelical Christians who are mean spirited and out to destroy our civil rights (and they're just about to accomplish it.) They will destroy our rights as citizens because they believe they know what is right and how others should live. And they will impose this opinion on all of us, not just the liberals, but the well meaning, blinded conservatives who now support them as soon as they get the chance.

I come from the inside of this group. I know I can offer no proof, other than to tell you that I do. But, from my perspective, it's very frightening. And it's all the more frightening and frustrating when good people, like you, who have not been brought up to see a Communist behind every university, an evil intent in all sexuality, a hell fire and brimstone ethic based on fear and unreasonable guilt, and a punitive, life condemning philosophy of living, cannot see the danger. It's mind blowing to me.

True, Lola, except for one tiny quibble. The two sides are using each other and acknowledge it (I bet). Thus Washington. The potential was always there; the Republicans have allowed it to happen (though god knows I don't exonerate the other party).

God I would LOVE to have a bug in Rove's office. I suspect that the fellows at the top of each camp (say, Wolfowitz and Reed for shorthand) are well aware of the power which each hold. Both are extremely intelligent men, and clearly their ambitions run towards meglomania. But at the same time, they are playing different games with different ends, something they will both be quite aware of.

Rove is another kettle of fish - kingmaker. It really is an incredibly interesting intersection of personalities, dynamics and ideologies. But it is, if things get too out of hand, precisely the sort of conglomoration of extremists which could really screw us all.

Well, in yet another turn of irony, it'll make a great movie if we all survive... And two bits the screen play is already being fought over.

Well Blatham I am not familiar with any of the authors.of your cited pieces. Dworkin and Didion may well be national treasures, but I'll bet they have their critics somewhere. I did give you a summary of my reactions to a careful read of the first two pieces, and, as you can see I was not impressed. Scholarship and logic were deficient in both. You suggest this defines me and not them. Even the late Medieval Thomas Aquinas was not so devoted to the supremacy of authority in such matters as are you in this.

I do indeed "acknowledge that there is a significant difference between a faith group and the set of individuals who do not accept the tenets or notions of that faith group". One group believes one thing ('faith'), the other, another ('not faith'). Both groups are equally composed of individuals. So perhaps then I am ready for nuanced debate.

One is said to be fanatic in a particular belief when his enthusiasm extends beyond some norm. For me, as I explained, that norm is crossed when one becomes willing to coerce unbelievers or seriously penalize them for their unbelief. My distaste extends to fanatics of all stripes - fundamentalist Christian, Moslem, secular, atheist, Cubs fans, anything. You say I do not discern some difference you find here: I say you are making a distinction in the absence of a difference.

Tartarin,

I guess your point is that I and other "Bush supporters" are not able to detect some significant reality that you evidently see clearly. Instead we are captivated by some illusion with aspects of entertainment to it. Is it that we fail to grasp some dark, evil conspiracy? What is that conspiracy? Is Jimmy Swaggart going to reemerge as the new ruler of the world? Frankly, I am inclined to be skeptical of conspiracy based theories for explaining events. Stupidity, carelessness and randomness are generally far more frequently the cause.

There are so many straightforward explanations for the issues one frequently finds debated in these political threads, that I am disinclined to reach far afield for more exotic and elaborate explanations. This may merely confirm Tartarin's judgement about me , but I would truly like to hear or read a description of just what this conspiracy, this unseen reality, is. Please give me more than epithets and summary demands that I see and accept some half-baked, thinly supported inference as fact. If it is real, it can be described and supported. I have put my popcorn aside and am willing to be told.

Sometime this week end, george.........I'll work on your request.

OK, In preparation for the anticipated education, I am going to bite my lip and read Blatham's goddam third article. It addresses a subject I have never taken seriously, but which even Lola has begun beating me up about. Blatham has been throwing rocks at me over this for months, and of course Tartarin, who has never offered a pleasant word to anyone but her claques, finds my attitude somewhere well beneath contempt. I am doing this, even though my mind and judgement recoil at the prospect, only because I like Blatham and am sweet on Lola.

sweetness is always accepted

:wink:

I've clicked in this morning earlier than usual because I've been rereading bits of Dworkin's excellent piece -- going back to the footnotes. George and I must be on the same wave length in one sense. Dworkin's use of the word "contempt" brought me back to this thread. Dworkin writes:

"The government must choose, once again, not because it is required to do so by treaties but because its failure to do so treats the lives of the detainees with impermissible contempt...."

I think it goes without saying that the administration treats everyone -- sometimes even its own -- with contempt. Powell was treated contemptuously at one point, force fed some of the misinformation from the "stovepipe" made its spokesman. Laws are treated with contempt. Foreign cultures are treated with contempt. Treaties are dismissed with contempt. And of course dissenters in this country are treated with contempt.

I wasn't even thinking about George as I rushed into the computer, but he certainly fills the bill as a member of the contemptuous.

Contempt isn't a word I've noticed much here, but it is Le Mot Juste when one examines the clash of cultures which goes on here. We probably ought to look at whether it's equal on both sides of the argument or whether there's another more Juste word to describe the "liberals'" attitude. I suggest "outrage."

I try to imagine how a Guantanamo detainee feels, day after day, at the contempt with which (as Dworkin points out) they are being treated. Maybe outrage -- and 24/7 fear -- is what they feel -- much like us.

Is it that the administration FEELS contempt or that it maliciously harnesses contempt? Probably a little of both, but most importantly the latter.

So maybe contempt has been passed back and forth, has become part of the engine of our political lives. A difference between (say) George and me is that he represents a point of view which says It's Okay for someone like Rush Limbaugh to mouth off disgustingly and divisively, daily, to a huge audience. (But it's not okay for the other side to mouth off in return!) It's Okay to treat certain people -- European leaders, Democratic congressional reps -- harshly and dishonorably. (But it's not okay for them to respond, loudly and effectively.) It's Okay for an administration of the kind we're faced with to do what it wants, take what it wants. (But it's not okay for congressional and other investigators to ask for documentation.)

Do we dissenters, outraged prisoners of this contemptuous, unlAwful administration, find ourselves in this position because we contributed to it? Or is our only (significant) sin one of omission? that we didn't do something to prevent it? That's what I'd like to examine.