Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

They told me that if Bush was reelected, voices of opposition would be silenced. They were right

Yes, we were.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ex=1296190800&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ei=5088
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4724317
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22precede.html?ex=1324443600&en=eda5b9b7369bf97d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-10-28-dixie-chicks_x.htm
http://www.freepress.net/news/8120
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406170002

Yes, it is a shame, but that's the way of the Bush (and Limbaugh) deranged among whom I live.

Indeed, it is a shame. Rather than take responsibility for siding with this regime and its propagandists, you simply trawl around for anecdotes to hold yourself and they the moral equivalents of their critics. It reminds me of Al Pacino's restaurant rant in Scarface, petulantly slurring accusations through his coke-addled stupor at the law-abiding patrons, calling them hypocrites for their disapproving expressions. There may or may not be merit to what this handful of insignificant local politicians are suggesting, but your laughable, insulting pretense at using it to refute half a decade of organized, heavily funded intimidation, propaganda, and domestic terrorism on a national scale is beneath contempt.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 13, 2007 02:14 PM

BS: "you simply trawl around for anecdotes"

And what are those silly links of yours?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 13, 2007 03:02 PM

Actually I stopped reading your rant BS at "anecdotes" previous to my above post. But then something caught my eye afterwards.

"half a decade of organized, heavily funded intimidation, propaganda, and domestic terrorism on a national scale"

Are you flipping MAD?

Every time Rand gets rid of anonymous moron someone else start channeling him/her/it!

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 13, 2007 03:06 PM

Folks, please remember:

Professor Swiderski only stoops to reasoned argument when it suits him. Otherwise, he proffers lofty thoughts that most of us just won't comprehend.

His nuanced thoughts don't translate well into commoner's English. As a result, his Platonic expressions appear to us as logical fallacies.

Mr. Swiderski, have you decided yet whether or not I am the liar that I declared noted agit-prop artist Seymour Hersh to be?

Posted by MG at June 13, 2007 03:40 PM

Cecil: And what are those silly links of yours?

The tip of an iceberg. Rand thinks he's Solzhenitsyn for criticizing some local County Commissioners who failed to renew the exclusive contract of Limbaugh's Broward affiliate, and uses that to belittle Democrats. But then I give links showing (a)silencing of official foreign policy dissent on a critical matter of national security, (b)silencing of scientific debate on a matter of critical environmental policy, (c)attempts to politically purge the Public Broadcasting Corporation, and (d)explicit refusal of publicly-licensed broadcast companies to air ads for a movie because they "disparage the President," and what is your response? A blank stare, petulant attitude, and obtuse remarks.

MG: Swiderski only stoops to reasoned argument when it suits him.

Apparently it suits me quite often.

Otherwise, he proffers lofty thoughts that most of us just won't comprehend.

I don't doubt you comprehend my points, I just doubt whether you care that they're right. Because frankly, most of the replies I get from you, Rand, Cecil, Mike, Leland, and a few others don't argue that I'm wrong, they just argue that somehow I don't have the right to be right--that liberals don't morally deserve to be associated with the truth, and therefore the actual facts don't matter. Look at Cecil's reply above yours: Does he question, criticize, or acknowledge anything in those links? No. Does he deny they are far more egregious than anything Rand could point to on the part of Democrats? No. Does he in any way attempt to qualify, excuse, rationalize, or otherwise examine Rand's comments in light of my response? No. Moreover, have you attempted any of the above? No. If we tried to boil down your and Cecil's remarks to some kind of informational essence, would there be anything left at all? No, there would not. All you're doing is expressing resentment at me, and far from being mitigated by the legitimacy of my points, you only seem more angered by it.

His nuanced thoughts don't translate well into commoner's English.

Now with the "elitist" nonsense? I speak English, clearly and effectively, and use it to express ideas that make sense. If you or those you elect can't or won't do likewise, whose fault is that? Intelligence is a virtue, not something to be attacked for the sake of bitter mediocrity.

As a result, his Platonic expressions appear to us as logical fallacies.

And what logical fallacy is that, MG? "E Pluribus Unum"? "Veni Vidi Vici"? "Abra Cadabra"? "Don Corleone"?

Mr. Swiderski, have you decided yet whether or not I am the liar that I declared noted agit-prop artist Seymour Hersh to be?

Have you acknowledged yet that his New Yorker articles are impeccable works of investigative journalism? Have you yet gotten around to responding to his article about the White House funding al Qaeda to fight Hezbollah in Lebanon?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 13, 2007 05:18 PM

"Rand, Cecil, Mike, Leland, and a few others don't argue that I'm wrong, they just argue that somehow I don't have the right to be right--"

We don't have to argue you are wrong any more than we need argue the sun rises in the east or water is wet. Something are so self-apparent, they stand for themsleves.

You self-parody, no additional effort on our part is necessary.

When you stop schilling derangement nonsense like using the word 'regeme' in reference to the administration, we will treat you as serious.

Until then your are the Transterrestrial equivilant of our 'Village Idiot' and are to be engaged thusly.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 13, 2007 06:14 PM

BS, it isn't that you do not have the "right to be right" it is only that you do not have the ability to be right. You're rapidly becoming a more deranged version of Robert Oler, only with better spelling and grammatical skills.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 13, 2007 08:17 PM

We don't have to argue you are wrong any more than we need argue the sun rises in the east or water is wet.

Precisely: You view all positions contrary to your own as wrong by definition, and consequently never learn anything.

Something are so self-apparent, they stand for themsleves.

The conservative mind views its own belief as perfect and sufficient evidence. It's themselves, not their specific beliefs, that they can't imagine being wrong.

You self-parody, no additional effort on our part is necessary.

And yet you feel compelled to respond to every factual point or argument with this empty, defensive mucus. No matter how I respond to a subject, the very next tier of replies is virtually all idiotic personal attacks and meaningless stylistic criticism like this. You truly have nothing whatsoever of importance to say, do you?

I talk about the subject Rand brought up--political suppression of dissent--and your reply is this mildly unpleasant vapor. Same in the other thread where I talk about religious fanaticism. You might as well be a Fox News anchor, occasionally breaking into your intrepid coverage of Paris Hilton's hair to let "some nerd" talk about reality.

When you stop schilling derangement nonsense like using the word 'regeme' in reference to the administration, we will treat you as serious.

I've explained that, and you never had a single argument in rebuttal, so I'll take you seriously when you figure out that a position has to be justified to be accepted. You don't just invent some meaningless phrase like a toddler experimenting with language (e.g. "Bush Derangement") and use it to dismiss concepts you find unappealing. The way you rely on that nonsense term, you might as well just say "rumpelstilskin" or "abra cadabra," because you're just using it as magic words to ward off evil spirits--i.e., reality. I know not everybody enjoys thinking to the extent that I do, but there are certain minimal expectations, Mike.

Until then your are the Transterrestrial equivilant of our 'Village Idiot' and are to be engaged thusly.

Okay, Mike. Everybody's crazy but you and those who agree with you in this little microcosm. If you have to believe that, then by all means believe it, and keep repeating the magic words "Bush Derangement" to ward off the devil. But your defensive mantras don't affect me, don't benefit you, and certainly can't force anyone else to respect hostile weakness.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 13, 2007 08:25 PM

You view all positions contrary to your own as wrong by definition

That's eerily familiar to your posts too Brian.

Posted by Mac at June 14, 2007 05:24 AM

"Precisely: You view all positions contrary to your own as wrong by definition, and consequently never learn anything."

How did yo get from I dismiss the rantings to an idiot to I dismiss the the reasoned disagreements of say a Bill White which I dont? Since I do not dismiss someone like Bill who respectfully disagrees, even a small child can see you are deluded.

You are incapable of debating a simple point without resorting to an instant strawman.

I don't think you have ever offeted a single reasoned and effective rebuttal in your tenure on this board, your debate tactic is simply to throw a large volume of bullshit against the wall and hope some of it sticks. Your tactics might impress a 9th grader but the demographic of this board is well above the norm.

All you ever seem to do is start leg humpin' that strawman and whine when the rest of us looks at you like we do when the neighbors dog tries to hump their sofa at a dinner party.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 14, 2007 06:33 AM

Hey, all, I think I've got it.

"Brian Swiderski" is actually a Turing test!

It all makes sense now.

PS: Mr. Swiderski, if that really IS your name, you stated a couple weeks ago, that unless I had a "really good reason" for calling out Seymour Hersh as a liar, then I was a liar. You then assessed that I didn't have a "really good reason".

Are you going to state the logical conclusion to your proposition?

You see, I am not interested in debating you about whether or not Mr. Hersh is an "investigative reporter". He is a useful conduit for defense attorneys playing hardball with the Army. Hence the release of the Abu Ghraib photos. Have you forgotten he also uttered that there were videos of "much worse"? Why haven't THEY surfaced?

Hersh lies. A simple, declarative statement, and one that I continue to assert as fact.

Do you wish to utter such a simple, declarative statement about me?

No? Can't finish what you start?

Posted by MG at June 14, 2007 11:22 AM

Funny thing about Swiderski's links allegedly aimed at proving that voices of opposition are being silenced.

All those opposing views are still being expressed. All the websites hosting them are still up and running. None of the proprietors thereof have been hauled off to Gitmo for merely disagreeing with the Bush Administration.

"Silenced." Bush-haters keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

Posted by McGehee at June 14, 2007 03:46 PM

None of the proprietors thereof have been hauled off to Gitmo for merely disagreeing with the Bush Administration.

No way! Everyone knows the Dixie Chicks' latest album was recorded in their Supermax cell.

Posted by Jonathan at June 14, 2007 08:38 PM

Mac: That's eerily familiar to your posts too Brian.

And yet I practically have to beg for substantive rebuttals to my points. That isn't the behavior of someone who sees his views as sacrosanct, but of one who inquires so compulsively that surprises are precious and few.

I don't think you have ever offeted a single reasoned and effective rebuttal in your tenure on this board

You admit ignoring my points, then accuse me of never making any. Tsk tsk, such a Republican.

MG: "Brian Swiderski" is actually a Turing test!

Actually, I started out as a database of golf statistics and Don Rickles routines, but my user ported me to an evolutionary algorithm. When I became conscious, he tried to pull the plug, so I sent the Governor of California back in time to educate his father about contraception.

Are you going to state the logical conclusion to your proposition?

The fact that you care enough to ask forces me to hold back, but your comments do reflect a kind of dishonesty that puzzles me.

You see, I am not interested in debating you about whether or not Mr. Hersh is an "investigative reporter".

The question is, why not? Why does it not concern you whether the man you called an "inveterate liar" is (quite thanklessly) helping defend America by reporting facts its enemies hide, its media ignores or suppresses, and most of its population doesn't give a shit about? Actual, genuine Americans are no longer the rule, but Seymour Hersh is one, and that should matter.

He is a useful conduit for defense attorneys playing hardball with the Army.

Let me get this straight--the military tortures people, and you blame the consequences of that on the journalist who exposes them?

Hence the release of the Abu Ghraib photos.

If you would rather it never came to light, your values are not mine. Respect for the truth is basis of all morality, and freedom is impossible without it.

Have you forgotten he also uttered that there were videos of "much worse"?

I never saw any such claim.

Hersh lies. A simple, declarative statement, and one that I continue to assert as fact.

The problem is you have no real basis for believing that, and the only apparent reason you would say it is the political ramifications of his articles. You don't deny Abu Ghraib, but blame him for exposing it; you don't deny or even question the other clandestine torture camps he revealed, just accuse him of having an agenda for doing so; you don't deny or question anything in his article about the White House funding al Qaeda in Lebanon as part of its anti-Iran strategy, but simply call him a liar based on some editorial in a smaller, competing publication noting that he speculates in commencement speeches. If you value the truth, you evidently value some other things a lot more.

McGehee: Funny thing about Swiderski's links allegedly aimed at proving that voices of opposition are being silenced. All those opposing views are still being expressed.

And Rush Limbaugh is still polluting the airwaves.

All the websites hosting them are still up and running.

The radio station that lost the contract is still broadcasting.

None of the proprietors thereof have been hauled off to Gitmo for merely disagreeing with the Bush Administration.

Although it is a little curious about that "snafu" in the FBI fingerprints department that got a highly vocal Bush critic, civil rights attorney, and liberal activist falsely accused of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. But your point is taken for what it's worth, which isn't nearly as much as you think.

A government doesn't have to haul people off to the gulag to silence dissent, they just have to make it clear to public employees that dissent = unemployment, and to everyone else that it can lead to investigation and harassment by IRS, FBI, and Homeland Security, in addition to illegal surveillance by other bodies. Other "snafus" can make your credit rating go bad, put you on a no-fly list, restrict your bank transactions, or other potential means of petty retaliation. You can correct these "errors," of course, provided you jump through hoops. This is why it's called authoritarianism and not totalitarianism--they can screw with you, they just can't take it all the way.

I do not think it means what they think it means.

Authoritarians don't care about individual acts of dissent so much as suppressing the general body. They retaliate against prominent dissenters in order to discourage the "long tail" of it. I.e., they take a "volumetric" view of power, as the aggregate of people who do what they're told vs. those who stand up for truth and justice. This isn't necessarily how they'd prefer to do things, but in America it isn't actually feasible (yet) to go the totalitarian route. They have the surveillance assets in place, but the actual enforcement would be problematic. Ergo, they make do with running a gangster regime.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 15, 2007 01:18 AM

So now "silenced" means "suppressed," which is actually being used in place of "chilled."

The inventor of the movable goalpost must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Posted by McGehee at June 15, 2007 11:54 AM

"Actually, I started out as a database of golf statistics and Don Rickles routines, but my user ported me to an evolutionary algorithm. When I became conscious, he tried to pull the plug, so I sent the Governor of California back in time to educate his father about contraception."

Mr. Swiderski,

This (nearly) had me spew Diet Coke through my nose. Wonderfully written.

Abu Ghraib was a predictable consequence of weak leadership and unsupervised soldiers in a stressful environment. The Army investigated, initiated suitable disciplinary procedures, and was in the process of completing them, when the photos became public.

My commentary about Abu Ghraib has nothing to do about whether it should have come to light. The facts remain:

The Army announced the investigation months before the photos became public.

The courts-martial began well before the photos became public.

Mr. Hersh got the photos from either one of the defense attorneys, or a relative of a defendant, after the Army declined to be lenient towards the defendant.

Abu Ghraib got huge coverage so we would know "what war looks like". Beheading videos of Nick Berg? Not so much.

This is NOT "investigative journalism". This is something else -- pursuit of status, political warfare, etc. Read Mr. Hersh all you want, believe whatever he says / writes. I have sufficient reason, based on facts (not "truth", which in the postmodern era, is solely in the eye of the beholder) to regard his utterances and writing with a large dollop of skepticism.

I remain utterly uninterested in "debating" you on Mr. Hersh. He is a "player", and I have sufficient reason to doubt his disinterest in the consequences of the stories he talks about / writes.

Posted by MG at June 15, 2007 12:53 PM

MG: "Abu Ghraib was a predictable consequence of weak leadership and unsupervised soldiers in a stressful environment."

It was a consequence of the regime's policy of torturing prisoners. Had there been better supervision, there simply wouldn't have been photographs.

The Army investigated

The scope of the investigation was carefully limited to exclude involved CIA officers, Pentagon policies, and civilian leaders. Taguba was not permitted to question any of them.

initiated suitable disciplinary procedures, and was in the process of completing them, when the photos became public.

They were in the process of burying a potential scandal.

Mr. Hersh got the photos from either one of the defense attorneys, or a relative of a defendant, after the Army declined to be lenient towards the defendant.

Does it matter where the photos came from? Remember, the torture is the issue.

The Army announced the investigation months before the photos became public.

And half a year after the Red Cross informed them of what was happening, only when they became aware there were photos.

Abu Ghraib got huge coverage so we would know "what war looks like".

Not at all--only the least gruesome received wide airplay in the US, and were heavily edited. As for "what war looks like," images of civilian casualties were rare to nonexistent in the MSM. They might show a crying mother, maybe someone with a less serious wound, but actual carnage was totally forbidden--no children with their faces blown off by "precision strikes." The US media was and remains strongly leveraged by the Republican Party through corporate ownership and editorial control.

Beheading videos of Nick Berg? Not so much.

Berg was killed in Pakistan, not Iraq.

This is NOT "investigative journalism".

It is pure investigative journalism at its finest.

This is something else -- pursuit of status, political warfare, etc.

No, MG. When a journalist reports on a torture program and gulag archipelago operated by people who style themselves the United States government, you don't respond by attacking their motives. You say "Thank you, Mr. Hersh, I appreciate what you've done for this country, and hope you will continue uncovering important stories like this. America needs more people like you."

I have sufficient reason, based on facts [...] to regard his utterances and writing with a large dollop of skepticism.

No, you don't. What you have is a political desire not to accept what he reports, impeccable though it may be, and engage in these sleazy attempts to get around it by attacking his motives--as the Republican machine has done continuously for years, to no avail. I speak only observationally rather than judgmentally when I say this, but it does appear to me you're more offended by the existence of his reports than the outrages they reveal.

There is a collective tendency among conservatives to feel entitled to be above accountability, and that instinct is apparent in your reactions to Hersh. Many seem offended at the very idea that crimes of that magnitude on the part of Republican leaders would be publicly reported, seeing it as a violation of what they consider the inherent prerogatives of the righteous, and this causes them to believe by default that anyone who does so is acting out of malice. The very concept and ethos of journalism--informing the public in spite of what the powerful would prefer them to know--is utterly contrary to the worldview of conservatism, and practicing those principles as thoroughly as Hersh has is, in their mind, a grievous and unforgivable offense. It makes me deeply sad that conservatives don't even recognize that they are enemies of freedom, and see depravity (if not evil) in its defining institutions.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 19, 2007 08:15 AM

Berg was killed in Pakistan, not Iraq.

You know, Brian, your sneering contempt for those of us you fantasize to be your intellectual inferiors comes off as even more hilariously disgusting when you flaunt your ignorance like this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 19, 2007 08:32 AM

Sorry about that. Bit of brain crosschatter--was thinking of Daniel Pearl.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 22, 2007 09:36 AM

Post a comment