Matthews Slams neo-Cons for warmongering.
Chris Matthews talks sense. I'm going to have to go and lie down. Shocks like this are very bad for one's heart I've heard.
Tags:
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe to my feed
Search Osterley Times or the Web
Tortured.
Click on picture to buy.
Obama '08
Awards
third Iraq Moratorium
War Child
Bloggers Against Torture
Out of Iraq Blogroll
Amnesty International
Get Involved
Site Meter
Web Stats
License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a perceived increase in security, deserve neither - and will eventually lose both." Benjamin Franklin.
| Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
by Bravenet.com
4 comments:
Hey man! Sorry I've been out of the loop and incognito of late...I've been waging other polemical battles. Hopefully I'll get a chance to do a real post in the next few days.
Chris Matthews is the kind of guy who just wants to go against what he perceives as the grain du jour. So I think it's just a coincidence that he's on our side this time. Still, I too have to give what he said some kudos.
Anyway, these other battles I've been fighting have to do with Dr. Kevin Barrett of Wisconsin. He's been under a lot of fire lately for expressing his views about 9/11. But the real stick in the spokes of the neocons and their flocks is that Barrett will be introducing his views for one single week during an Islam class he will be teaching next semester. They're using it as the chief rallying point for reducing public funding for U.W. Madison. Of course, a few so-called "conservative"* bloggers have been rattling the saber against Barrett, so I've been taking it upon myself to insult and belittle them. Ain't I just the most mature? Heh heh...it's just that insults and mudslinging are all these people listen to. To them, politics is not about ethics and decisions and world affairs; it's more of a "yo mamma's so fat" free-for-all in which great sarcasm equals moral reasoning. So I've jumped in and stooped to their level. Meh. When in Rome.
* I put quotes around "conservative" because it's my opinion that most people who call themselves conservative (and most people who we call conservative, for that matter) aren't really conservatives. They really are just plain ol', good ol' followers. That is their archetype. They follow the leader wherever he goes, and they call that conservatism. Do you see it that way too? I just don't see too many real conservatives around anymore. As I may have mentioned, I consider myself quite a conservative (without the quotes) but I find myself in agreement with the "liberals" much more often than I do with this "conservative" "government".
There's so many misnomers all over the place. Problem is, people choose to let the labels define them through and through, turning people into somnambulent clichees. It's like branding. "I love Nike. I'll buy anything that says 'Nike' on it."
Politics is a marketable product, like everything else in this so-called "capitalist" state (read: "corporatist state", read: "fascist state".) You know? I know I'm rambling, but I haven't rapped with you much lately. I love capitalism, I just don't see it anywhere. Corporations exist to crush capitalism. There is no competition here.
We are all so deluded. Gotta keep the learning going on.
Ok, I'm done rambling. As for all your other posts, I bet you could write a book on this war. Keep up the great reporting. (Matter of fact, there are online products out there that can turn a blog into a hardbound book!)
Musclemouth,
I noticed on your site today that you mentioned lots of conservatives were visiting your site so I has wondered where you had been travelling to in cyber space.
And of course these people aren't conservatives, a cursory glance at their deficit would tell you that.
They are cheerleaders fow whatever Republicans are currently leading the party, no matter where they are leading the party - and the country - to.
Good for you for fighting with them in their own den.
I find them too stupid to engage with for any length of time. It's Tommy all over again.
No doubt! Poor Tommy, et al. Quite honestly, I don't want to divert any traffic to these guys, so I'm not gonna give out the URLs. But they're easy to find, as you know, and most of them say the same sorts of things. They're interchangeable, because they have no individuality, and they do not actually think. I'm not sure what they do, but it's not thinking. It's not the same part of the brain. It's auto-pilot. So you can go to any of them and find what I'm talking about.
One thing I take MAJOR pride in is that you and me and Bhc and Mash and Nate and Swim and so on and so forth don't necessarily agree on everything. It's wonderful. I mean, just think of it: I'm a self-proclaimed conservative! Wow. Just, wow. Actually, I'm more of a libertarian, which is akin to an anarchist but more cuddly, more politick. Yet, we find ourselves actually making sense to each other. I can see where you're coming from, and vice-versa. That's uber-important, and it pretty blows away all these labels we use. Sure, I use the labels as well, as sort of ideological shorthand. But I try to emphasize the absurdity of the labels, and expose these "conservatives" for the sheep they really are.
And just to be fair, there are a lot of "liberals" out there who aren't really. One case in point is Lieberman and his supporters. There is almost nothing that is liberal about Lieberman, et al.
Musclemouth,
I agree that it's amazing that such a disparate group finds common ground. But that is because we have decided to look at the issues and ask ourselves honestly if we agree or disagree with what is being said. Many Bush supporters support him in the same way that one would support a baseball team. They are simply for him and that is that.
And they do trot out the arguments as if they have been handed notes from the White House.
Basically, we all fall into two camps. On their side is the belief that violence is a means to all ends and the problem with the Muslim world - which they fundamentally misunderstand - is that it doesn't fear us enough and they think we need to go around causing more fear.
I, as I am sure you are aware, think you address terrorism by addressing it's causes, much the same way as the British eventually did with the IRA. Refusing to negotiate with terrorists is a dumb policy. It may play well with the electorate, it may allow you to pretend to yourself that you are occupying some high moral ground, but it remains a dumb policy.
Only by addressing the shitty deal we had given to Northern Ireland's Catholic population were we ever able to make the bombing stop. Likewise, only by creating a viable state of Palestine will the anger of the Arab world ever diffuse
Post a Comment