Meanwhile, back here in the good old U.S. of A (the A is for assholes) the ruling party is reliving Joe McCarthy’s glory years, while the leaders of the so-called opposition party try to hide their worthless carcasses behind an ex-Marine congressman who finally saw one too many broken bodies warehoused at Walter Reed and suffered a temporary fit of sanity, causing him to blurt out the ugly truth that the war is hopelessly lost.
Back to Main
November 20, 2005
WB: The Salvadoran Option II
Comments
To all you pinko leftist dogooder brain-dead effeminate faggot progressive bastards that tend to congregate at sites like this one there is only one thing I can say: From the bottom of my heart, GO FUCK YOURSELVES!!!!!!!!!
LOL Now THIS is comedy gold. Thanks Mark, I needed a giggle.
Posted by: Havenite | Nov 22 2005 17:02 utc | 101
mark!! fun. the freepers are breaking out of their cages. what w/ann, michelle and the rightie talking point of how (gulp) ‘full of hate’ all the ‘moonbats’ are we’ve truley come to know the rovian MO of accusing your enemies (us!) of the very evil within the heart of the VRWC!! you are what you eat baby so chug on down…..the delay/scanlon/rove/cheney/etc karma must hurt like hell
Posted by: annie | Nov 22 2005 17:17 utc | 102
@Pat
Oh bravo. Collect select portions of numerous posts entirely out of context and construct an artificial theme and false ‘insight’.
Did I mention that even Fear Up Harsh has been taken off the list of permissible approaches? Yes, indeed.
Oh, that’s funny. When conducted within the GC its not nor ever been a problem …
Uniformed or not the issue is one of the Rule of Law, the Laws of War, the Geneva Conventions, and the consequences of abrogating them.
The issue with unlawful combatants, in case you’ve missed the news for the last four years, is that Bush & Co chose to annul all protections under the GC for that category. And the affected detainees do not have their status determined by an independent body, in fact it’s not determined at all, in effect. No rights. That has consequences for the future …
a little more clarification …
So, each entity and its elements operate in total isolation from one another ? Bullshit. Navy Seals working with agency interrogators in the death during interrogation of a detainee at Abu Ghraib ? Are you for real ? Or do you read high level policy and white-papers and believe that’s how it actually works in real life on the ground ?
Preznit findings and covert operations oversight by Congress committee chairmen and co-chairs ? Why is it that Rumsfeld has aggressively sought to duplicate other agency (CIA, State, etc )functions, especially covert collection, sanction, and directorate of operations equivalents within the bowels of the DOD ? Negligible or nil oversight.
My overall point, Pat, is that elements of the uniformed branches have involved themselves in conduct that is illegal, immoral and unconscionable, especially selected commands. That these constitute grave crimes, that policy was created to allow or encourage this, that such crimes go unpunished and that the consequences for the country go way beyond the acts of individuals or the egregious suffering of individual victims.
That, by and large, apologists for an idealized military can’t or won’t see it.
‘Ghost Detainees’ in a Military prison ???
Posted by: Outraged | Nov 22 2005 17:20 utc | 103
“GO FUCK YOURSELVES!!!!!!!!!”
Mr. Cheney, you’re on the wrong thread.
Posted by: beq | Nov 22 2005 17:35 utc | 104
Un-uniformed is not synonymous with covert. The vast majority of un-uniformed servicemembers, to include SF, are not acting in a covert capacity or taking part in covert operations. Rules are broken by those in uniform. They are broken by those out of uniform. A uniform is not of itself a sufficient indicator of individual lawfulness, just as covert is not of itself a sufficient indicator of individual unlawfulness.
the murderer of Manadel al-Jamadi, mark swanner wasn’t uniformed nor covert . and what he did may not have been considered unlawful, according to this article A Deadly Interrogation from the newyorker ‘ Administration officials “would be opposed to any accountability in this case. ‘
Posted by: annie | Nov 22 2005 17:48 utc | 105
exceptions of torture for the cia for just those few incidents (the bomb is going off and you can save thousands of helpless children, lets make them orphans) against only that very rare enemy who is a combatant like no other because he fights w/terror and deserves no trial, rhyme, reason for any protections(did you read the description of the palestinian hanging!) hmm, have we covered all the bases?…..is this the legacy we leave for our children.
pat, what is your underlying point? spell it out for the simple minded such as myself, please
Posted by: annie | Nov 22 2005 18:06 utc | 106
Re: Mark
A Brownshirt – how quaint.
As any good tailor knows, one always looks like shit in brown.
Posted by: Tantalus | Nov 22 2005 18:53 utc | 107
“You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.”
“Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood.”
– Mahatma Gandhi (Indian Philosopher, internationally esteemed for his doctrine of nonviolent protest, 1869-1948)
“Congress’s definition of torture in those laws – the infliction of severe mental or physical pain – leaves room for interrogation methods that go beyond polite conversation.”
– John Yoo
“Iraq cannot be won militarily and the United States must withdraw to send a signal to Iraqis that they are free from the United States occupation”.
– Rep. John Murtha D-Pa.
“Torture has been privatized now, so you have obviously the whole scandal in America about the abuse of prisoners and the fact that, army people might be made to pay a price, but who are the privatized torturers accountable too ? ”
– Arundhati Roy
Posted by: Outraged | Nov 22 2005 19:12 utc | 108
who are the privatized torturers accountable too ? “
Their employers.
I once heard an interview with a man who was involved with interrogation in Viet Nam. He said the most effective way to extract information was by gaining the person’s confidence. Punishment, deprivation, and the inducement of fear must be an age old ritual done for other reasons. I think reward, in general, is the best method of obtaining desired results. My friend who was a military dog trainer said that punishment and fear would get some of the desired behavior, but reward made by far, the best trained dogs.
If so, do these people know this and continue to play these games?
Posted by: jm | Nov 22 2005 23:14 utc | 109
@jm
“If so, do these people know this and continue to play these games?”
As we have discussed here many times before, institutionalised torture is not an efficient or desirable method to obtain intelligence. Intelligence obtained through extralegal means is both suspect and legally inactionable. Those who engage in it are perfectly aware of this. The debate has nothing to do with intelligence gathering. Rather, institutionalising torture sends a clear message to potential dissidents, both domestically and abroad, that they could very well be next if they put a toe out of line.
Continuing to discuss this topic within the framework of intelligence acquisition is both naïve and counterproductive.
Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 23 2005 0:07 utc | 110
Yes, Monolycus, but it still comes back to the same principle that fear and punishment are not effective.
Posted by: jm | Nov 23 2005 0:39 utc | 111
So my question still stands. Do they know and why would they choose the less effective means?
Posted by: jm | Nov 23 2005 0:48 utc | 112
The reason I’m interested in this is because it reveals exactly the reasons we shouldn’t be afraid. I would appear to me that the best way for an authority to control its subject would be by placating and keeping the subject as content as possible. By arousing the subject to action he is setting up the scenario for his eventual demise. This blatant violent expression of power is just the thing that will destroy it.
Posted by: jm | Nov 23 2005 0:57 utc | 113
@jm
I thought the question was settled. The ostensible reason for torture (intelligence acquisition) is not more efficient than a system of rewards would be (although it takes less time and money). As for the de facto reason for torture (intimidating the masses who might otherwise rise up and speak their peace in an open, honest and fair forum)… why do you assume that it is less than optimally effective? What makes you presume that a system of “rewarding” dissidents would be more effective at keeping them from asking awkward questions or pointing up uncomfortable realities?
And how would CheneyCo implement this system of “rewards” to the marginalised masses of the world? Tax breaks? Bread and Circuses? Free internet access for two months and all the reality TV what’s left of their brains could handle? Seems to me, they already have implemented this system of “rewards” while simultaneously maintaining the threat of “punishments” via horripilating news leaks about torture.
So what is it, precisely, that you are asking here? I think they already do reward ideological turncoats by paying them to write fawning news stories about them. They intimidate the most downtrodden with threats of gulags and power drills. And they keep the rest of us baffled with disinformation. I think they’ve covered their bases fairly well.
Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 23 2005 4:27 utc | 114
It’s more theoretical than practical. Monolycus. The idea that to maintain control, the best way would be to remove the reason for dissidence. To control while maintaining an illusion that all is well. So a modicum of comfort would keep subjects from giving in to nervousness and rage. Throw them scraps at intervals to keep them barely satisfied, waiting for more, and dependent. The aura of kindness that keeps the people willingly acquiescent. I think Bill Clinton used some of this behavior and still people are fooled. They want him back in ’08.
I am given to understand that the threat of pain does work, but not as well. Isn’t that the difference between our “enlightened despots” and the tyrants?
The threat of torture to prevent dissidence ultimately fails, I think. It eventually erupts, often in violent overthrow.
I don’t see CheneyCo as highly successful. I see them as fairly lousy organizers and administrators, too transparent, with bad timing. They appeared to have control for a short time but it certainly looks like they are losing it now. Some, of course, don’t see it that way.
The threat of punishment doesn’t seem to effect crime rates. And the threat of torture to control the masses probably doesn’t stop the real dissidents. The ones it frightens into submission would probably be there anyway.
I Think the use of fear and violence to maintain power are seeds of self destruction, even if they seem to work temporarily. A backlash is created which will find an outlet. The question of ruling techniques is a fascinating one to me. I wonder about Castro, who seems to be successful at control. I wonder what his MO is.
Posted by: jm | Nov 23 2005 7:04 utc | 115
“Why is it that Rumsfeld has aggressively sought to duplicate other agency (CIA, State, etc )functions, especially covert collection, sanction, and directorate of operations equivalents within the bowels of the DOD? Negligible or nil oversight”
Could you be more specific re “duplicate functions”? What’s covert collection? I’m only aware of clandestine collection. What’s “sanction”? What DO “equivalents”? “Bowels”? Hmmmm.
Negligible or nil oversight? Did Congress relinquish its oversight responsibility? Did Rumsfeld swipe their constitutional duty? Has anyone informed the intelligence and armed services committees of this?
Much bloviating.
Posted by: Pat | Nov 23 2005 7:06 utc | 116
People who order up torture on demand are motivated by greed and the reason they prefer punishment to reward is simple it is the same reason they do most things. It is more profitable.
If you want to encourage people by reward yes it will work but only if you reward everyone you want to encourage. To fail to do that will cause resentment and leave the people with a lower level of co-operation than they had before.
The beauty of publicised negative reinforcement, otherwise known as torture is that it only has to be done on a few people and publicised the others get the message and rather than being resentful of not getting their ‘share’ they are extremely grateful.
Why are we still debating this. It can be argued around and round in circles but that will not change the fact that people have been tortured to death by US forces both military and OGA. It will also not alter the fact that there was little or no useful intelligence to be got from these people and that the information that was extracted was often flawed or plain wrong.
In addition in many of these cases no secret was made of the torture, in fact the friends of the victims often knew it was happening while it was happening. If US citizens didn’t know what was going on that was because they chose not to look too hard AND they were assisted by a compliant media.
I can remember in early 2002 posting (not here of course I hadn’t stumbled across either Billmon or MoA at that time) lots of messages asking Amerikans if they were concerned that around 1500 young men of arabic or middle eastern descent had been detained without charge over the previous month or so in California alone.
The only responses were abusive from wingers. Occasionally someone would tell me to show some respect for the dead of 9/11.
Amerikans were played and they need to acknowledge that to themselves so they can move on.
None of these techniques are new. Guy Fawkes was publically hung drawn and quartered don’t click that link if you don’t want to know what being hung drawn and quatered really means.
The thing is though that as ordinary people started to demand real rights one of the first demands was to put an end to these cruel punishments so in most ‘civilised’ countries torture, public execution and later execution itself were abolished.
As we have discussed in here previously that didn’t put an end to torture completely. Ian Fleming still indulged his sadistic fantasies on Dutchmen he considered may be German agents, right through the western world until at least the end of the 70’s police rountinely tortured subjects during interrogation.
For all I know they may still do it because the police motive for this was often to let the person know they owned them, that resistance is futile and that the accused having rights is only something on TV. This approach is generally only tried on the naive so unless you meet a lot of naifs you wouldn’t know. Even with videoed interogations and holding cells it doesn’t take long for the thugs amongst the police to work out the black spots where the cameras don’t reach.
I wonder what information the LAPD wanted from Rodney King? But I digress.
There has always been some torture and despite all sorts of rules sanctions and devices such as closed circuit TV it has continued.
The difference here is that the head of state of a western democracy wants his subjects to know he has the power to torture them.
Generally in Western democracies political leaders run a mile from this stuff because it doesn’t usually win votes since those that support torture (sorry law and order) are gonna vote for the right wingers anyway. It can cost votes though because not all wingers believe the state should have the power to physically harm it’s citizens.
The fact that BushCo have decided to make their nasty little secrets public tells us that they really want to cow the population and that they aren’t concerned about turning off voters.
That last one doesn’t make any sense because polling doesn’t show a landslide in support of the rethugs…hang on tho what if they didn’t need people to vote for them ‘to get the votes’; they could publically advocate torture then couldn’t they….? Hmmm..may be time for Joe Citizen to wake up and smell the freshly brewed fear and terror.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 23 2005 9:02 utc | 117
@Pat
*sigh*
Negligible or nil oversight? Did Congress relinquish its oversight responsibility? Did Rumsfeld swipe their constitutional duty? Has anyone informed the intelligence and armed services committees of this?
Apparently you live in a bubble, perhaps this may be of some small help:
The Bush Administration has resisted disclosing the contents of two Justice Department memos that established a detailed interrogation policy for the Pentagon and the C.I.A. A March, 2003, classified memo was “breathtaking,” the same source said. The document dismissed virtually all national and international laws regulating the treatment of prisoners, including war-crimes and assault statutes, and it was radical in its view that in wartime the President can fight enemies by whatever means he sees fit. According to the memo, Congress has no constitutional right to interfere with the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief, including making laws that limit the ways in which prisoners may be interrogated. Another classified Justice Department memo, issued in August, 2002, is said to authorize numerous “enhanced” interrogation techniques for the C.I.A. These two memos sanction such extreme measures that, even if the agency wanted to discipline or prosecute agents who stray beyond its own comfort level, the legal tools to do so may no longer exist. Like the torture memo, these documents are believed to have been signed by Jay Bybee, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, but written by a Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo, who is now a professor of law at Berkeley.
For nearly a year, Democratic senators critical of alleged abuses have been demanding to see these memos. “We need to know what was authorized,” Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, told me. “Was it waterboarding? The use of dogs? Stripping detainees? . . . The refusal to give us these documents is totally inexcusable.” Levin is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is supposed to have an oversight role in relation to the C.I.A. “The Administration is getting away with just saying no,” he went on. “There’s no claim of executive privilege. There’s no claim of national security—we’ve offered to keep it classified. It’s just bullshit. They just don’t want us to know what they’re doing, or have done.” link
These two links sum it all up quite succinctly here and here
This seems pointless … dance is over. You’re on yer own re this dialogue.
Since you studiously avoid my questions maybe you’ll deign to answer annie’s:
pat, what is your underlying point? spell it out for the simple minded such as myself, please
@Bernhard, this old dog(me) just won’t learn, please accept my apologies for wasting your bandwidth.
PS
‘Ghost Detainees’ in a Military prison ?
Posted by: Outraged | Nov 23 2005 13:09 utc | 118
CIA Veterans Condemn Torture
“…Although outrage has focused on the existence and symbolism of the black sites, comparatively little attention has been paid to the concerns — if not outright objections — of many distinguished CIA veterans about these sites and the use of torture in general. It’s not just that such behavior is largely impractical, they say; it’s that even by the morally ambiguous standards of espionage and covert action, the abuse is simply wrong…
Posted by: Outraged | Nov 23 2005 13:40 utc | 119
Hi assholes, I’m back. You really do ramble on don’t you? You remind me of a bunch of monks discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Don’t you people have a job (or a life)? I especially enjoy the fancy word repartee employed by PinkosCo such as yourselves against anyone who does not agree with you. You know such word games as I just used; example BushCo, CheneyCo, Amerikans, wingers, etc…. You must be really proud of yourselves, such lofty intellectuals to be able to use the Queen’s English in such new and original ways. Debs is dead (alias notXtian@mailinator.com) seems to be the originator of the that brilliant construction “Amerikans”. Hey moron, did it ever occur to you that you may be describing yourself? Or are you a foreigner?
Posted by: Mark Santini | Nov 23 2005 18:36 utc | 120
@Mark
Since the site and webmaster (Bernhard) originate from Germany, most of us here are non-German “foreigners”. As for the calibre of the conversation, it has been of high enough quality to attract multiple visits/comments from yourself, but not interesting enough to encourage you to contribute anything worthwhile to it. I am finished feeding this particular troll now.
@Debs
“Why are we still debating this.(?)”
That would be a more concise version of the question I was asking above. Thanks as always.
Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 23 2005 22:02 utc | 121
The simple reason we are debating this is because people remain interested and engaged. The arbitrary end to a debate is not exactly a democratic move. Of course, it goes without saying that anyone is free to enter and exit any debate in cyberspace at will. That’s one thing I totally love about this invention.
Posted by: jm | Nov 23 2005 23:13 utc | 122
You gentlemen really are frightfully silly sometimes. But I am fond of your egos.
Posted by: jm | Nov 23 2005 23:16 utc | 123
@mark, (beware moa ) here is the perfect thread for you. the posters are all so brilliant. no foriegners! how thrilling
It’s time to fight back… and best and quickest way to do so would be for President Bush to direct Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to immediately begin Justice Department investigations of this rash of recent leaks from the CIA, including the decision to allow Joe Wilson to go public with his lying claims in the New York Times about “what [he] didn’t find” in Niger; the leak about the previously secret prison facilities for terrorists; and so forth.
Reporters should be subpoenaed; if they refuse to testify, put them in jail for contempt until they do. Use the full powers of the Patriot Act to seize records and find out who is doing the leaking. And then drop the hammer on them: prosecute them for misuse of classified information or even worse criminal violations. At the very least, get enough evidence to strip them of their security clearances… make it plain that leaking to the press to damage the administration is a career-terminating offense and might even lead to prison time.
Posted by: annie | Nov 24 2005 0:00 utc | 126
I am so impressed with the level of intelligence here at moa and the love of language. I have been enriched by my participation and I hope other interesting people will be joining.
Being surrounded by people who approve of you and even love you is wonderful. Cozy, comfortable, warm and safe. But the input of people who don’t like you can be also valuable, sometimes offering alternative perceptions that teach you about yourself.
I’ve seen the government of my country ruined by both sides…the cruelty and hypocrisy of the Right, and the intellectual and moral superiority and hypocrisy of the Left. When someone disagrees or dislikes you, or says things just to prick you, to dismiss this person brutally as a worthless entity shortchanges yourself. There is truth in and around what almost everyone says. While it’s not a crime to feel intellectually and morally superior, it can be dangerous when expressed and held over another human. Caution is good if you want your ideas to take hold in society.
We are all flawed and frightened. But we are stuck here together and there is a possibility that we can cooperate, or at least learn.
To end discourse with dictatorial force can be damaging. I will continue to argue against punishment as a means of control.
And in your eagerness to condemn, you are missing a vital point. They are listening intently to what you have to say.
This international free forum is one of our most precious treasures. I will always stand up for relaxed policing when possible, and the absence of the authoritarian grip.
Posted by: jm | Nov 24 2005 6:04 utc | 127
@jm I don’t think anyone called a halt to this discussion. If you take a look at what was written:
DiD wrote “Why are we still debating this?”
The question wasn’t an injunction to stop discussing torture it was a question about why the discussion kept covering the same ground. That is that some were asserting the torture was solely being used to extract information, when in many of the instances discussed in this thread it wasn’t. The subjects had no useful current intelligence and the interrogators knew it.
Hence DiD saying “I wonder what information the LAPD wanted from Rodney King” as in; if Rodney King was beaten and tortured for no discernable intelligence/interrogation outcome, then it’s likely that torture is used elsewhere for reasons of punishment/revenge.
No one wants to close the debate down. Once the same ground has been covered several times, surely it’s time to raise new points of view or discuss something else. Even then it’s not an order, command, control or stricture it’s a suggestion of “why don’t we move on until we find out or think of something different to say about this”.
Without re-interpreting other posters words for them, when I look through this thread that is the meaning I draw from a statement such as “I thought the question was settled.”
If you took what was written another way then I’m sorry for not communicating more clearly.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 24 2005 6:54 utc | 128
BTW, I was also referring to the so-called trolls who are listening and wondering, butting in rudely at times, but searching sometimes in ways that aren’t obvious. Keeping an ear cocked toward everyone can be illuminating.
Posted by: jm | Nov 24 2005 7:20 utc | 131
it’s likely that torture is used elsewhere for reasons of punishment/revenge.
hmm. i wonder if it isn’t something more sinister. could i say, torture cheney? sure i could watch a video of it. i might wish it to be, but could i do it. no. a person who tortures fulfills a need within oneself. it is rarely about the other person. that is why the conditions of war condition someone to be able to commit these grave acts. it is a way of feeling. the same way a child who wants love but only experiences pain will seek out pain because it is better than no contact. once one crosses the line into the negative , increase of the negative feels like progression, possibly even reward.
Posted by: annie | Nov 24 2005 9:31 utc | 132
that is why we have laws against it. to protect ourselves from becoming the ultimate aggressor. once we give ourselves permission to become all powerful, what are the limits? a person, the victim, only has one death. the pertetrator, unchecked knows no bounds.
Posted by: annie | Nov 24 2005 9:41 utc | 133
You remind me of a bunch of monks discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Well well, if you were The Great Santini , you would know to ask, whether or not the angels were “dancing cheek to cheek” or “doing the jitterbug”! But I guess, an alcoholic gung ho Marine pilot whose critical thinking is done for him by Jim Beam . Has only critical things to say because, the rot has gone to his brain. Words of advice, “Cobbler, stick to thy last.”
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 24 2005 9:48 utc | 134
Hey!!
Jim Beam is a good old gentleman. Have some respect.
Posted by: jm | Nov 24 2005 9:54 utc | 135
I think it was (H)uh? (W)hat now? (B)lowback that started the ” american way of life is not negotiable” thing, which has been reiterated ad-nausium by the whole (B)lowback regiem now in power — which gave me a bad dream last night. And when I woke up, it dawned on me that they keep on saying this, because it has this mythical appeal to what many americans would consider the thing most sacred and definitive, the characteristic that makes america stand out as being somehow special, both as a nation, and on the individual level, what it is is to be — a real individual. So, it dawned on me that the jist of this appeal is directed to the cultural character of what many would regard, devoid of ethnocentricism as it is, as a cultural-centric equivilant, generally referred to as american exceptionalism. And while some (me) have argued that this exceptionalism is the wellspring of all that is evil in america, I am forced to admit on some level, because of the lack of ethnic continuity, there is some value to the concept in maintaining an equilivant cultural indice for the sake of personal identity, and social cohesiveness. And so (historically) it has always been a necessary irony, in america, that this is so used as the primary tool for exploitation, as an expediant for domination and exploitation. Typically, with exception to the native american genocide, this has been carried out in foreign policy initiatives — but, this time around — and this is what the dream was about, this same exceptionalism has been turned upon itself. The only good thing about exceptionalism, its shared social value, is now being turned into blood in the water to facilitate a feeding frenzy within — that they, the cynical masters of (B)lowback are baiting the american people with themselves — to be like them……. exceptional.
Posted by: anna missed | Nov 24 2005 11:35 utc | 136
After reading the above, I’ll try that again —
The Bush administration (both) have taken what vestage of good there is in american exceptionalism, its social identity — and used it to justify an exploitive, militant, and deceptive foreign policy initiave — in the supposed good name of democratizing the middle east. And while this might appear as nothing new with regards to foreign and domestic policy, there is I think, a qualitative difference (with this administration) in going beyond (the ethical, moral, or even political) and take this presumptive national identity and forge it into a tool not only for exploits abroad — but for creating malignant division here at home. And I suppose it is this, this irony and profound cynicism that would allow them to take the albeit flawed, but nontheless one of the few existing vestages of collectivity in american culture — and use it to not only destroy other cultures but to at the same time, destroy american culture from within as well. Its no wonder why what has gone down these last few years is so outrageous — and personal at the same time.
Posted by: anna missed | Nov 25 2005 1:37 utc | 137
Anna m,
I think you raise some interesting points. Especially the replacement of ethnic identity with another form of exceptionalism… cultural and creative, I suppose, since that is what has caught on in the world. Because of the huge level of imitation, the idea has been fueled beyond a healthy point, I think. So it has been both our doing and the world’s. When the Hollywood movie industry started, the whole world was almost stopped in its tracks as it was mesmerized by the medium in the hands of the Americans. If you look back at this, it is quite amazing and might have set the tone for what has followed.
Americans have been reluctant to go to war and I think the picture of the USA as a military superpower is entirely an illusion built up after the heroic elevation of the US as a result of WWII. The exceptionalism has been based on a lot of nonsense…Mickey Mouse cartoons, hip hop, whatever. A lot of fantasy, and the promise of its fulfillment from others’ point of view. Even when people have their own democracies, they want our identity. So I think we are largely about an invitation to fulfill dreams, not brutal military conquest. Not to underplay the brutal economic manipulation and resulting violence that have been such a large part of our greed.
I think you might be right in how these people have taken the identity and distorted it in a malignant way. I agree wholeheartedly that the endeavor is not in synchronization with the natural identity and was thus headed for failure.
One major flaw in their distortion is the idea, itself, of staying the course. This country is changeable by nature, adaptable, flexible, and willing to change direction and not look back with much regret. Both good and bad, and why we seem to forget our mistakes. It’s not altogether the doing of the nation that has enforced its style on the world. It’s also the desire of the world for what they see that we seem to have.
I think now you are about to witness a change (attempted) in behavior of these people as they try to adjust to circumstance. But since this is not their are of expertise, I expect even greater failure.
Your analysis is a good place to start in a serious re-evaluation of our identity. The malignancy has just recently taken on a leap in personal identification as the immorality is starting to hurt Americans viscerally.
Posted by: jm | Nov 25 2005 2:29 utc | 138
jm,
I suppose (hope) it is beginning to dawn on the general population (those falling elevator polls) that “the american way of life” has indeed been negotiated. Negotiated away that is, in the service of their corporatist fantasies , which of course, have no place for such notions as egalitarianism, liberty, or individualism. The american people have been served their first eviction notice, and I dont think they like it. Who knows, maybe the mysteriously missing socialist movement in america may find its way home, after that exceptionalist guy is swept off to an un-disclosed location, never to be seen again.
Posted by: anna missed | Nov 25 2005 6:10 utc | 139
Oh, Anna, definitely. I do think we will return to some of our natural tendencies. Mighty military empire builders we are not. I read that we were so unprepared for WWII that they had to train with cardboard weapons. Now there’s an enemy I’d even take on! We just showed our weak hand and we’ve been clobbered. Time to come home and take a look at ourselves.
Posted by: jm | Nov 25 2005 6:31 utc | 140
hey DM: nice link to explain what flooding the channel means.
am: I will reread your posts just above tomorrow, the good and bad of exceptionalism is pretty interesting to me too; I’m a Canadian (traditional cultural critic) who moved to the US and was successful (typical foreigner who bites the hand).
So far no theory I have read or heard comes close to describing the truth of America the idea.
Posted by: jonku | Nov 25 2005 7:43 utc | 141
“I am so impressed with the level of intelligence here at moa and the love of language. I have been enriched by my participation and I hope other interesting people will be joining.
Being surrounded by people who approve of you and even love you is wonderful. Cozy, comfortable, warm and safe. But the input of people who don’t like you can be also valuable, sometimes offering alternative perceptions that teach you about yourself.
I’ve seen the government of my country ruined by both sides…the cruelty and hypocrisy of the Right, and the intellectual and moral superiority and hypocrisy of the Left. When someone disagrees or dislikes you, or says things just to prick you, to dismiss this person brutally as a worthless entity shortchanges yourself. There is truth in and around what almost everyone says. While it’s not a crime to feel intellectually and morally superior, it can be dangerous when expressed and held over another human. Caution is good if you want your ideas to take hold in society.
We are all flawed and frightened. But we are stuck here together and there is a possibility that we can cooperate, or at least learn.
To end discourse with dictatorial force can be damaging. I will continue to argue against punishment as a means of control.
And in your eagerness to condemn, you are missing a vital point. They are listening intently to what you have to say.
This international free forum is one of our most precious treasures. I will always stand up for relaxed policing when possible, and the absence of the authoritarian grip.”
Posted by: jm | Nov 24, 2005 1:04:19 AM | #
In the posting I have just copied above, JM said it all with an eloquence that I cannot even begin to match. I do not know if this individual is a man or a woman but I would not hesitate to vote for him/her in any election. The trouble with the Left, as I see it, is not so much the merit or lack thereof of their ideas but the attitude that they have that somehow they have cornered the market on intelligence and education. If you want to sell your ideas my friends, and sell them you must if you want to see them bear fruit, then you will have to come down off your high horses and mix in and appeal to the ordinary Joe. The free flow and acceptance of ideas demands that you do not trivialize the person that you want to appeal to simply because they may not completely agree with you in any particular moment. To appeal to the “other” you have to embrase them and believe in your heart that they may also have something of merit to contribute.
So in summation the only advice I can give you is to be humble in your relations with others and be clear and simple in your language. Language is not a weapon to beat your opponents with but a tool you can use to reach out to them.
A Canadian troll and proud of it.
Posted by: Mark Santini | Nov 25 2005 15:22 utc | 142
To all you pinko leftist dogooder brain-dead effeminate faggot progressive bastards that tend to congregate at sites like this one there is only one thing I can say: From the bottom of my heart, GO FUCK YOURSELVES!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Mark Santini | Nov 22, 2005 11:29:47 AM | #
Posted by: No comment | Nov 25 2005 16:16 utc | 143
Who here really, deep down believes in “the people”? “The people” want f16 flyovers, charlie sheen, poker, porn & jesus.
I’m the first to admit, the communists as much as the bourgeois politicians have exploited the stupidity of “the people.”
‘He shall be the greatest who can be the most solitary, the most concealed, the most divergent, the man beyond good and evil, the master of his virtues, the superabundant of will; this shall be called greatness: the ability to be as manifold as whole, as vast as full.’ And, to ask it again: is greatness possible today?
Read Nietzsche, yanked back and forth between the idiocy of capitalist democracy and communist authoritarianism. Any Grand Politics eschews the fantasy of democracy, because “the people” are “herdmnen.”
Sorry santini.
Posted by: slothrop | Nov 25 2005 16:58 utc | 144
at the end of history, the last man sits and “blinks.”
only by harnessing the dissatisfaction of workers and inspiring confrontion of capital can the “context,” as popperian uncle scam says, be changed. The stultifying rule of proletarian dictatorship can be averted because history makes doing so more possible. A discussion for another time, perhaps.
Nietzsche’s obviously correct appraisal of power does not contradict a socialism devoted to nourishing all our overpeople.
Posted by: slothrop | Nov 25 2005 17:13 utc | 145
also: class consciousness is crucial to overcome “democracy.” Class consciousness is already one step away from the herdman. But no slavish devotion to two-party politics, the constitution, rule of law based on the defense of private property, etc. will keep our fellows from “blinking.” Only class consciousness can do that.
Posted by: slothrop | Nov 25 2005 17:40 utc | 146
I guess Mr. Slothrop you have not understood one iota of one word that I wrote and that is why you are condemned to a future of eternal frothing.
The Canadian Troll
Posted by: Mark Santini | Nov 25 2005 18:01 utc | 147
It’s simple santini: organize workers at your jobsite and fight capital. If you are already doing so, bravo brother.
Posted by: slothrop | Nov 25 2005 18:16 utc | 148
also, santini, don’t wish other “frothers” will mollify your interests by fooling you w/ simple words. the nfl already does that sort of thing. it’s called “class contempt.”
Posted by: slothrop | Nov 25 2005 18:20 utc | 149
Thank you, finally someone who talks to me rather than talking above me.
As far as organizing workers at my job site and fighting capital it would be a little difficult for me. You see I work at a small company (50 employees). I personally know the president and the other principals. They re-invest most of their profits back into the company and they are not living an extravagant life style. If I was to organize against them I would be like shooting myself in the foot.
Revolution might be very romantic but in the end it does not put butter on the table. Now if I had nothing to lose and was in dire straits then it would have a lot more appeal. But I am not in that position and that is true for most people in our western societies.
Pretty hard to aspire to revolution if you are not suffering terribly;
but then I guess you already know that.
The Canadian Troll
Posted by: Mark Santini | Nov 25 2005 18:29 utc | 150
it’s a long revolution. everyday is a conflict for knowledge, solidarity, health, happiness. and who do we fight? we fight capital, and we fight anyone who won’t mind her own business. we will find a place to go to in our own direction, by removing what stands in our way. step by step. together.
Posted by: slothrop | Nov 25 2005 18:36 utc | 151
Labor organization, the socialization of basic production (energy, healthcare, transportation, communication, and in various ways ag.), refusal to fight imperialist war–these are practical ways to fight capital.
consumer directed health care movements in many states better distribute resources; spreadspectrum commons technologies & peer production distribute knowledge and labor by destroying intellectual property; agriculture reforms are practicable and deanander has extensively provided proof here.
there are rhizomic/viral sassociations/temporary autonomous zones, etc. that mobilize locally to fight power.
vote for socialists. the loss of electoral fusion in this country makes third party victories difficult, but still sends “the message.”
Posted by: slothrop | Nov 25 2005 18:59 utc | 152
Mark Santini,
I think you said it beautifully.
The trouble with the Left, as I see it, is not so much the merit or lack thereof of their ideas but the attitude that they have that somehow they have cornered the market on intelligence and education. If you want to sell your ideas my friends, and sell them you must if you want to see them bear fruit, then you will have to come down off your high horses and mix in and appeal to the ordinary Joe.
So in summation the only advice I can give you is to be humble in your relations with others and be clear and simple in your language. Language is not a weapon to beat your opponents with but a tool you can use to reach out to them.
I have been speaking about this for a long time with little success. Superiority is perfectly all right at certain times and places but not when trying to bring about real political progress for everyone. You have to find common ground and communication is a good place to develop it. Intellectuals sometimes have no idea about the pain they inflict in judging others simply because they don’t understand their often convoluted conversations and lack their kind of education. People can be judged, but the reasons should be sound. A lack of vocabulary is definitely not a crime. Sometimes the pressure causes others to revert to even more simplistic language just to get through.
The ironic thing is, is that many ordinary Joes are hard working humble people who agree with progressive ideas even if they don’t articulate it. There are so many varieties of Joes. So allies are rejected by the Left at times, unknowingly. Respect is unquestionably valuable as a start.
The hypocrisy I find is when people talk about equality but don’t recognize their stomping down on others for flimsy reasons, and unthinkingly and too quickly calling them stupid. I say caution should be exercised.
Slothrop
Who here really, deep down believes in “the people”? “The people” want f16 flyovers, charlie sheen, poker, porn & jesus.
I think maybe you are underestimating the people. If you don’t believe in the people then why are you fighting for them? If you really take a close look, I think you will find many, many people who are neutral about Jesus. I’ve had conversations with all kinds of people all my life and there is so much in their minds it’s unfathomable. Many people are shy and afraid and are trained from so early on to follow. When you bring them out of these traps, you could be surprised at the intelligence and observations they have. When you group people together and identify them, you have to look closely at what really is the common factor. Intelligence is probably not it. Too much variation. The desire to belong to a group is in all of us. It’s hard to step back and see yourself sometimes, and that’s where outsiders come in handy.
The idea of language as a weapon is fascinating. It certainly has been so on both sides. And the idea of using language as a genuine tool for change has infinite merit.
It will take time to develop the right economic system but to separate and try to impose one on others without a common discourse is an invitaion to failure. It’s not as simple as voting for someone, it’s more important to create the system ourselves carefully and logically, and then the candidates will be more in synch with our desires. And to understand that the power is ours. We too willingly relinquish it. If people even with opposing views got together, the power would be even greater. I think you will find that many of these people are just as dissatisfied with the government as you are. It’s an age old tradition in humankind…to hate the government.
Posted by: jm | Nov 26 2005 0:02 utc | 153
If you don’t believe in the people then why are you fighting for them?
It’s about “class,” not “individuals.”
Posted by: slothrop | Nov 26 2005 0:37 utc | 154
people can only understand themselves as individuals through the consciousness of class, and can only realize individuality through class conflict.
our “democracy” destroys individuality; it destroys “the people” through consumerist atomization, political isolation in the “private sphere,” and the ideology of bourgeois “possessive individualism.”
Posted by: slothrop | Nov 26 2005 0:45 utc | 155
I absolutely agree with you Slothrop.
Our “democracy” destroys individuality. Of course, the roots are deep. I’ve alays been intrigued by group behavior and I’ve been outside of it enough to observe it. The group dangles the carrot of individuality. It invites you in and asks for your unique contribution. At the same time it rejects you for isolating yourself and will make you a pariah if the difference persists too long. Individual identity causes others to question the validity of their own and this disturbs them. So the group tries to rope you in at the same time it rejects you. An impossible predicament. I think too many people give in to the pressure of the group and then find the rewards ultimately disappointing. But they persist. So belonging comes from within. It is not a big step in society’s eyes from individuality to aberration and abnormality. I know when I adhere to my individuality I am accused of the most preposterous and pernicious wrongdoings. I at least admire their imagination.
I had the great fortune to grow up in a family of American working class immigrants on my father’s side and European intellectuals on my mother’s, all politically active and progressive. Even though they agreed completely ideologically, you can bet that the class struggle was there in subtle ways between them. You can’t elect a socialist or thrust the righteous sword of egalitarianism into the system and topple it. The pecking order is deep in the political protoplasm of mankind, from family, to tribe, and outward. You have to find the reasons for the class structure, what purpose it serves, how to undo it in a way that is truly effective. Revolution is a temporary fix.
It is horrible to witness the abuse of power by the upper strata, but the lower contributes to this in simply aspiring to be one of them. So I think in ways, the commoners keep them elevated as something better to achieve. They really do long for the status and the wealth. As we develop equality and it becomes our nature, our systems will reflect this.
Posted by: jm | Nov 26 2005 1:19 utc | 156