History teaches us many things if we're prepared to listen.
A few decades ago, Mad Magazine published the non-smear political smear, which included such slurs as "My opponent's daughter is a thespian," "His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homosapien," and "His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine."
It was a very funny way to highlight the way words can be used to convey images their exact definitions do not intend. You know, like the fellow in Washington, DC who got fired from his job a few years back for using the word "niggardly" (which means "stingy") in a budget meeting, but whose remarks were interpreted as a racial slur by someone with a public school education who didn't have a firm grasp on the English language. Or like my friend who got in a lot of trouble for teaching his 5-year-old child the proper name of antique aircraft. His wife found her son running through the house one day chasing his older brother who was holding a WWII fighter, shouting "Get the Fokker!"
This is the kind of wordplay that brings a smile to my face — even the example of political correctness gone mad that resulted in the firing of a Washington, DC bureaucrat for putting his education to use, and endeavoring to use more than a two-syllable word to describe a fiscal situation. Except for the terminally ignorant or perpetually offended, we can all see these examples for what they are.
But that was then, and this is now. I'm afraid we've entered into a brand new era of political demagoguery that no longer uses similar sounding words, but rather employs deliberately misleading imagery to make a misleading point. Where before we could all take comfort in a shared value system that had an agreed-upon set of core beliefs, I am convinced that no such shared value system exists today. We're in an era where words aren't used to convey ideas that contrast us with our political and philosophical opponents, but are rather instruments of power in their own right designed to deliberately mislead and confuse a debate.
I've written about some of this in "The Hopelessness of Debate" (Part I and Part II), where I make the point that we're no longer having a real conversation in this country with the Left, but rather a series of parallel discussions. The Left will take a general statement about "science", and immediately turn it into a specific proposition about Darwinism, Man Made Global Warming, or any one of a number of specific policy options. Question Darwinian theories of evolution, and you are a Biblical literalist, period, end of debate. Dispute the fact that man is responsible for global warming — or question exactly how this world-wide "warming" is accurately measured — and you automatically advocate constructing more high-sulphur, coal-burning power plants. Protest the Obama Administration's non-stimulus stimulus bill, and you simply want to "do nothing."
We'll always have this kind of ignorance and stupidity to contend with, so again there's nothing new so far in any of my observations about the thought process of the Left. But after listening to Obama's minions for the past few weeks defend the porkulous package that Congress recently passed, as well as the O-man's own pronouncements in his speech Tuesday night, I've come to a somewhat different conclusion about the modern-day language of the Left.
History teaches us many things if we're prepared to listen, so rather than spell it out in my own words, let me refer back to a nearly 100-year-old document that spoke at length about the root causes of society's problems. Other than a few archaic phrases that would be said today with fewer words, the sentiment is pretty much unchanged; at least insofar as how the Left has been framing the current debate in this country.
See if you can pick up any of these catchy phrases in President Obama's next speech, or in the mainstream media's review of his (or his Administration's) words. All the Left needs to do is insert a few key word substitutions to make this old document respond to issues in 2009 instead of, say, 1929 — give or take a couple of years.
* * *
"If, with the help of his [Conservative/capitalist] creed, the [Wall Street Banker] is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity."
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the [Wall Street bankers], I am fighting for the work of the Lord. [After all, Jesus was a community organizer too.]"
"In his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the [Wall Street Banker]."
"The ignorance of the broad masses about the [workings of Wall Street and American capitalism] . . . make the people an easy victim for this [attempt by Wall Street Bankers to foreclose on unpaid mortgages]."
"All [Wall Street Bankers] want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks."
"With satanic joy in his face, the [Wall Street Banker] lurks in wait for the unsuspecting [sub-prime loan mortgage holder] whom he defiles with his [corporate greed], thus stealing [their homes when they won't pay their mortgage]. With every means he tries to destroy the [financial security] of the people he has set out to subjugate . . . It was and it is [Wall Street Bankers] who bring the [sub-prime loans], always with the same secret thought and clear aim of [foreclosing on their homes] . . . and himself rising to be its master."
"In politics he begins to replace the idea of democracy by the dictatorship of [the Wall Street Bankers]. In [market-driven capitalism] he has found the weapon which lets him dispense with democracy and in its stead allows him to subjugate and govern the peoples with a dictatorial and brutal fist . . . He weaves a net of enemies, thanks to his international influence, and incites them to [an unjust] war [in Iraq so Halliburton can profit]."
"The most frightful example of this kind is offered [in 5 states: California, Michigan, Arizona, Florida and Nevada], where he killed or starved about thirty million people with [greedy capitalist] savagery . . . in order to give a gang of stock exchange bandits domination over a great people."
Phil, how many people will recognize the German (Austrian?) author of your circ 1929 example?
Every press conference is replete with references to the rich, corporate jets, and other class distinction slurs. Missing, of course, is analysis of root causes because that very analysis would destroy the Democrat (not democratic) Party when it showed the political vote buying that caused the financial crisis.
So, language is used to produce images without regard to facts or truth. Is that a surprise with a less than half educated electorate that has finally realized they can vote money for themselves?
On a lighter tone. Do you remember the famous Mad Magazine cartoon that indicated that Mary Jo Kopechne would still be alive if only Ted Kennedy had driven a Volkswagen?
Our national slippery slope has become a bobsled run downhill and you know how fast bobsleds go!
Mickey: The real question is, how many people will think I lifted the comments from an Obama press conference and lied about them being from the 1920s?
It's going to take a major national man-made catastrophe (terrorist attack or economic collapse) to turn the tide in this country. A large segment of the population is either too ignorant, or morally relative, to see where things are headed. They’ll support Obama regardless of what he does, and regardless of the scapegoats he chooses to sell his programs.
Phil, you could have lifted the comments from an Omessiah press conference since his broken record theme plays again and again.
Look at the latest developments in federal financial aid. Lots more money for the least likely to succeed almost none for those that actually achieve. Are financial aid students expected to achieve beyond the level of athletes? Hint the answer is no.
The Evolution
Phillip,
In my years of debating social/progressives I've certainly noticed the 'evolution' of progressive rhetoric; especially in the last generation. I do believe it started with Reagan. The Left had been deeply wounded by the Carter administration; but still carried a heartfelt belief that even a terrible socialist was better than ANY conservative. It was, I believe, the beginning of the establishment of the social/progressive religious philosophy.
Reagan, more than anyone else, made the word 'Liberal' a denigration; and many on the Left began to call themselves 'progressives'. The word 'Progressive' did not carry the stigma of the wild eyed, lock step, narrow minded, revolutionary that was conveyed by the word 'Liberal'.
After Reagan's 1984 landslide, progressives began to develop the art of word disassociation in earnest. They had gone head to head with conservatism believing that no one in their right mind could possibly see any choice other than liberalism and Reagan handed them their heads. The final Electoral College count was 525 to 13. Ever since; such a mandate has been the 'wet dream' of the social progressive.
After much introspection, even the progressives had to admit they had gotten the word out. They had drawn as clear a set of differences between the values of liberalism vs. conservatism as possible and the American people had undeniably chosen conservatism.
Here I must note that I've always been of the opinion that social/progressives have always had a 'personnel' advantage over conservatives. Not only that, but the progressives know it! The social/progressive believes in the absolute infallibility of government; and from birth their children are groomed for life as a bureaucrat. Liberals rise through government in the same manner as conservatives rise through business. The best and brightest of the liberal persuasion will always gravitate to government service; while the best and brightest conservatives will always gravitate to the boardrooms of our Fortune 500 companies. After all; business success may shower wealth on an achiever but the high offices of government grant power over individuals.
Since the 1984 election, social/progressives have developed several clear incentives. First, the American public must be 'forced' to discover the superiority of liberalism. Second, the campaign never ends. You push the party line exclusively; "Government always good; individualism always bad!" is the battle cry of the social/progressive.
Third, political discourse is war. Nothing is more important than the triumph of progressivism. The complete obliteration of conservative philosophy and the absolute annihilation of any conservative being are defined as one in the same. This is of primary importance, as conservative thought has no place in the new lexicon:
Fourth; all policy must be couched within euphemism. Strict adherence to this precept is required in order to placate the average American. The idea is to make unpalatable policy seem innocuous; to get the average person to accept the change as so minor as to not constitute anything to be concerned over. After all; what's in a word, how can one word possibly alter debate over core principles?
Abortion becomes 'choice'; tax increases become 'investments', and under achievers become the blameless 'losers of life's lottery'. The definition of 'bipartisanship' is conservatives moving to accept progressive tenets, never the opposite.
Over the years, social/progressives have become superb at mangling the definition of words in order to achieve the victories they've sought. But the visceral, burning, hatred and intolerance of all things outside the state has recently bubbled to the surface.
It came to a head in 2000. Here was a person groomed and primed for true liberal leadership. One well versed in the religion of social/progressivism; a new champion of one of the more successful liberal administrations. He was poised to ascend to his rightful place as the new political leader of the greatest country on earth. The presidency was Al Gore's birthright! There was no longer any reason to hide behind deceptive language. The Clinton administration had guaranteed the ascendance of the social/progressive agenda. President Gore would cement the process.
The election was his to lose, and lose it he did. His over-confident, condescending, 'Holier than Thou' treatment of his second-string adversary from the State of Texas provided endless hours of gleeful entertainment to social progressives across the country. To them the outcome was inevitable. George Bush Jr. was a sacrificial lamb being led to political slaughter.
The outcome of both that; and the subsequent election of 2004 have brought the force of the hatred harbored by the progressives into sharp focus. Liberals everywhere literally went out of their minds! Both Hollywood progressives and all other progressive defenders of the faith became vocally outraged against the administration. Some threatened to move from the country, others could not open their mouths without spewing hatred for all things Bush. Literally every thing George did was wrong, bad, deplorable, stupid and immoral. This was my first encounter with people who actually believed Gorge Bush to be simultaneously so 'retarded' as to be sub-human, yet at the same time so gifted as to blind everyone to his crafty, cunning manipulative nature. How could any person possibly believe someone to be concurrently stupid and intelligent?
After the 2004 election, physiatrists began reporting large upswings in the number of patients complaining of depression, despondency, and unresolved anger; which these doctors ultimately tied to the results of that election. This illness was eventually identified by psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer as BDS, or 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'. Krauthammer defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "The acute onset of paranoia, in otherwise normal people, in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush."
We've now come to apogee of this deranged thought process; the rapture that was the election of 2008. In Barack Obama we have a person so skilled in the art of euphemism and generality that crowds of people literally hear exactly what they want to hear; ignoring and discarding the rest. A child of the bureaucracy that has purposely spent so little time in any one political office as to leave no record worth analysis. A person of such ephemeral background that one cannot even ascertain, with any certainty, his constitutional qualifications for the office he currently holds. The MSM sings praise to each of his declarations with the fervor of monks reciting psalms. Disagreement with any Presidential proclamation or policy is met with a passion that, one could readily imagine, fueled the Inquisition. If Al Gore is a prophet; then Barack Obama is truly the Messiah of the religion of secular progressivism!
As of this writing, Barack Obama has been the President of the United States for 38 days. In that short span, he has broken his promises of bipartisanship and transparency. He has rescinded his policy regarding the exclusion of lobbyists and has populated his administration with 'hold-overs' of a bygone era, as opposed to elevating new talent.
He has overseen the personal redistribution of over $1.4 trillion since the inauguration; and has introduced a $3.2 trillion budget for next year. That is over $37 billion of spending for each day in office; and I fear he's just warming up. While I'm convinced his redistributionist policies are poison; I remain uncertain that even the abject failure of his administration to heal the recession will result in his ouster. The acolytes appear indefatigable.
milbrat: Great post. You should submit it as an actual article. It deserves to be heard in its own right.
P
Generally I don’t like reductio ad Naziam arguments, too many Dems calling Bush a Nazi. When they aren’t calling him a drunken AWOL moron, that is. But here you have made a most apt comparison.
But let me play Dr. Phil. No, not you, but the charlatan on TV, & point to the psychology of root causes which excuse delusions such as Nazism, Communism, & Socialism as well as why it’s OK for a young male in the ghetto to rob & assault the elderly in that ghetto to feed his drug habit &, here, why the rich are only rich at the expense of the poor.
Wait, some amateur shrink other than I will say. These views would only be delusional if one takes a skewed view. One must, rather, look at these views in light of these peoples’ reality: poverty, poverty, poverty, not to mention rejection, embarrassment, being screwed, & being stabbed in the back. Then I’d see these views more clearly & with some intelligent understanding; with some sensitivity, some compassion, even if I myself wouldn’t go so far as to condemn Jews/Wall St bankers or put the blame solely on them. These victims, you see, came up with such severe views about Jews/Wall St bankers, whatever, simply to try to make some sense out of a scary, confusing weltanschauung. And these views can be changed, like those of the Germans & Japanese after WW II, by education, which means more taxes which their sure I probably don’t want, just like religious faith which I probably don’t see as delusional, so there.
We will educate these people to channel their anger & vote Democrat! Even some Conservatives saw the coolness of The One as uplifting.
P
You're right. The IC should reprint Milbrat's comment as an article.
He sure has articulated the delusions of life's losers, a/k/a Dem voters, & the illusions & allusions of Liberal politicians.
But they better vet him in case he was under exuberant in reporting income & over exuberant in reporting deductions. Only sensitive, compassionate Liberals, whom we all desperately need in our government, can get away with that stuff. Oh & have someone word search the comment article for Bad words like “monkey”. (And: warning a word such as “monks”, used by Milbrat, might confuse the spelling-impaired in this regard; can’t be too careful, you know.)
Good post Phil.
milbrat makes a good point about BDS. Let's not let ourselves get caught up in ODS (not that you have). I did see some signs of ODS over at resistnet, so I guess it's fair to say that the problem can infect any strata of society. I left resistnet after three days. This place is much better, although I wish you guys would take advantage of the IC Social Network device when comments get high and off topic.
Ivan: My one bad habit (actually, one among many) is that I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy and foolishness of the Left ad nausium. I love watching them dance and twist to justify their morally relative or otherwise foolish reasoning. But, I’ve decide to give this guilty pleasure up for Lent, so I will limit my responses to only the most egregious inanity!
As for ODS, you're exactly right. We can't get caught up in the "Obama isn't really a US citizen fantasies" that threaten to undermine the credibility of legitimite criticisms of his actions.
“Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: that have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.”
“Your cities are desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your own presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown with strangers.”
“Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.”
“Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water.”
No, not Hitler, but Isaiah!
“There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed of their filthiness.”
“And this also is a sore evil, that in all points as he came, so shall he go: and what profit hath he that hath laboured for the wind? All his days also he eateth in darkness, and he hath much sorrow and wrath in his sickness.”
“Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is a gift of God. FOR HE SHALL NOT MUCH REMEMBER THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE; BECAUSE GOD ANSWERETH HIM IN THE JOY OF HIS HEART.”
Never have I seen a better description of the Wall Street money-mongers, and their allies in Congress, and indeed the greedy throughout society, than that verse – “GOD ANSWERETH [THEM] IN THE JOY OF [THEIR] HEARTS” because “[they] shall NOT MUCH REMEMBER THE DAYS OF [THEIR LIVES].”
Then again Christ sought to make all this as plain as He could: “Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” –Sounds a little like the dogs and swine who reside in Wall Street and Congress???
“Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” And the Father in heaven wrote His “will” on “two tables of stone” – although, of course, the created today know better than their Creator!!!!! They think God created humans so that He could serve then, not that they should serve Him!
Liking Obama to Hitler and the Nazis is simply an indication of the desperation of ignorance.
I have not one shadow of doubt that if Christ was the Son of God, and if, as Christians expect, He does return to earth, the first to mock and ridicule Him will be those who proclaim His name the loudest – “Lord; Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
And yet again, there are those who know of a god apart from the God referred to in the Scriptures. They, of course, have some special revelation – all they need do is consult their superior intellects. “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
“The soul of him that laboureth, laboureth for himself; for his mouth boweth unto him.” In short, they serve their instincts rather than the “image of God” that is within them!!
So please! Give up all this Obama/Nazi nonsense. If anything, Obama is closer to the message of Christ and the Scriptures than the ranting of conservatives about ‘small government and low taxes’ (the ‘not-so-good’ Samaritan); and as far from Hitler as is possible to be – even though I see him (Obama, that is) as more in the Liberal Fundamentalist mode of Tony Blair.
But then again, ol’ Tone has himself become some sort of an ‘icon’ for the conservative movement. Add to that the new ‘saviors’ of the ‘right’ like Palin and Jindal (I can’t be bothered checking the spelling of this bozos name), and we have the end of conservatism.
And that’s because conservatives have no idea of what exactly it is that they think important enough to preserve other than their own ignorance. AND I SAY THAT AS A CONSERVATIVE – but not as one of the current bunch determined to preserve slogans and ignorance!
Yet, no doubt, the ‘enlightened’ will tell me that the Scriptures, the only source of any sanity I can find on this vermin-infested piece of rock hurtling through space at high speed, is just another piece of “inane” verbosity that provides a sort of ‘guideline’ to ‘morality’ – a guideline that they can, of course, considerably improve on!!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Ivan
Point of order. BDS vs ODS.
Let’s stipulate that both are bad.
I’m not trying to start an argument with you or Phil, for that matter. But, too many Dems are rushing to paint those who criticize Obama on any level as suffering from ODS. If I were a Liberal & Obama a Conservative, I'd claim that in that case saying "ODS" had a chilling effect upon my free speech. In any event, it is a childish attempt to put us on the defensive or to marginalize us.
And, among other things, I took from Phil’s “Hopelessness of Debate” articles that too many commenters, both Left & Right show a rush to cliché & reliance on handouts from their trusted sources & a killer instinct to use, um, thoughtless cutting remarks (hate speech?) to beat down anyone who doesn’t think like them.
So:
Calling Bush “uncompassionate” is not BDS, though it’s unthought; calling him a Nazi is BDS.
Calling Obama “The One” Or “Obamessiah” is not ODS. Nor is, I suggest, saying “Taxes are now just an Obama campaign contribution!”. That’s hyperbole.
Calling Obama a Manchurian Candidate who will spread radical Islam to the United States is ODS.
And going after Obama for not being “natural born” under the Constitution is not exactly ODS, but is a waste of time, his ma having been born here, for goodness sakes, & marginalizes the person who makes the argument as far as thoughtful analysis is concerned.
And going after Obama for not being “native born” under the Constitution shows that the person has not actually, you know, read the Constitution, but is relying on a chain letter from someone else who has not read the Constitution. I mean it’s tough enough to argue what the words in the Constitution mean nevermind having to argue against a restatement or paraphrase!
Finally, may I note that
"There are no conservative counterpart(sic)to the gyrations of Code Pink and ANSWER for eight years. The reason is that conservatives are out taking care of business, not hiding from the world in their own fantasies and delusions."
And
"When Obama is featured 14 times on the cover of Time in a single year, when Chris Matthews of NBC News experiences a 'thrill up my leg' from an Obama speech, when bookstores are converted into Obama shrines — and, yes, when a New Republican essayist hails a rather ordinary inaugural speech as “poetry … that truly showed the writerly hand” — it is indeed possible to speak of an 'Obama Derangement Syndrome.'
"But it is not conservatives who are deranged."
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/has-obama-derangement-syndrome-arrived/2
Please do not discount the Obama is not a natural born citizen until you review the citizenship law that was in effect when the Omessiah was born. It is clear that Obama needed to be born on U.S. soil to even be a citizen due to his mother's age. I cut some comments about the statute below and if anyone is interested have full text available. You might ask the question why spend millions attempting to block release of the vault copy from Hawaii? At no expense it could end the citizenship part of the controversy and prove natural born status.:
On December 24, 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the "1952 Statute") became effective. As under the previous statute, where both parents were U.S. citizens, one parent would have to have resided in the United States prior to the child's birth in order to transmit U.S. citizenship. The meaning of residence previously applied under the 1940 Statute was essentially the same as under the 1952 Statute.
In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child's birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14. "Physical presence" was different from the concept of "residence" which had applied under the previous statute. The physical presence requirement could be satisfied by mere presence in the United States even if the person had not established a legal residence there.
The physical presence requirement was intended to preclude extended absences from the United States during the required period. However, it was found to be too restrictive. In 1966, Congress passed an amendment which, for children born on or after December 24, 1952, permitted the transmitting U.S. citizen parent to count presence abroad in the following capacities towards the physical presence requirement:
honorable service in the United States Armed Forces;
employment by the United States Government;
employment by an international organization with which the United States is associated; or
physical presence abroad as a dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person employed in one of the above categories.
Phil, great piece that reminds us how closely we have to pay attention to words these days.
My personal fav from the big O didn't require much of an ear, however: "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future."
In other words, people who overpaid their taxes (more money paid to the government than was required to fund the budget ) get their money back.
Obama spun this as an "excuse" by Bush to "transfer" "wealth" to the "wealthy." He punctuates what is nothing more than common sense balancing between the budget and those who fund the budget , as something that robs us of the "opportunity" to "invest" in our future.
I wonder, how many people bought the "transferring wealth to the wealthy" line? How many were suckered by this bit of class warfare propaganda?
Selling the notion that the wealthy get wealthier by receiving back into their bank accounts a small portion of what they just had to withdraw to pay the government makes Goebbles look like an amateur.
To milbrat, great commentary. I would argue that the greatest advantage liberal/progressives have over conservatives is that they do not embarrass, seemingly at all.
Mickey G
Let me respond to your sidebar about Obama & “natural born”.
There’s a fine line here. I don’t think that you have ODS in this regard, but you do seem to have what is called an “overvalued idea”. Quite simply, the GOP did not see that there was any merit in going after either of these points, Obama’s failure to produce the original of his Birth Certificate or the Mother’s presence in the US at the time of Obama’s birth. My guess is that this was either because they felt that they wouldn’t be successful or from a mixture of cowardice & a feeling that they’d look desperate.
Doesn’t matter. It’s over. I don’t want to be on a blog thread or a chain letter where conservatives or Republicans or even just anti-Obama folks argue these things. The economy is in the tank, the military can’t buy more tanks….
Anecdote: after Election 1960, & Nixon’s concession, I took solace in my belief that the Dems had stolen the Election in Chi & TX, which I espoused to anyone who I saw. Someone asked me who I thought was gonna be the guy raising his right hand on Jan 20 next when Ike’s term expired. I stopped.
Obama is the President now & until his term expires. Even if you feel that you are right about Obama’s Ma’s insufficient “presence” before his creation, save it for a retort when some BDS loony says that “Bush shredded my Constitution”. And then add into your retort Hillary’s evasion of the Emoluments Clause. With my blessings & I assume Phil’s & Ivan’s also.
But stop before you get to the story about how Andrew Jackson was really born on the ship taking his parents to the US, and the one about how Herbert Hoover had not been back from his stay away for 14 years when elected. Or the one about Dick Cheney & GWB being Texans until Chaney said he was from WY. And definitely stop before you argue that all the things Obama signed before he recited the “Mulligan” oath are null & void.
And those chain letters about certain Constitutional amendments not being real because they weren’t adopted by 2/3 of the states… And how did WV become a state when it was stolen from VA?
Please, I’m not mocking you, just trying to keep focused on the possible.
Regards
Inwood
Mickey:
I gotta go with Inwood on this. It's a losing propoition to argue that Obama isn't legally POTUS. All it does is distract from legitimate criticisms of his actions.
Dr. Jackson,
Re: "I'm afraid we've entered into a brand new era of political demagoguery that no longer uses similar sounding words, but rather employs deliberately misleading imagery to make a misleading point."
I am reminded of the John Milton quote: "When language in common use in any country becomes irregular and depraved, it is followed by their ruin and degradation."
Alas, we seem to be on that trajectory. Hopefully, it is not an uncontrolled "spin" (puns and connotations intended).
Thank you, Phil, your silence was precisely the response I sought to elicit from you – you won’t respond to ‘inane’ comments.
I didn’t expect you to recognize the subtilty of the directness of my comment, but at least you have provided me with the opportunity to identify exactly where the inanity lies here.
But first, let’s ask what inanity actually means. It means “lack of substance or solidity; lack of ideas; senselessness, silliness,” and so on – in theme with your article, perhaps?
So let me consider your article, and my response, in light of that definition.
The title of your article is – Wall Street Bankers: the new “Jews”.
What that title suggests is a persecution of Wall Street Bankers in the manner that Jews have been persecuted throughout history. And the persecution of Jews, verbally and physically, found its ultimate expression, or consummation, in the extermination of the Jews by Hitler and the Nazis.
So what you have done is equate the death and misery of millions of Jews, not just by the Nazis, but throughout history, with Obama’s identification of Wall Street Bankers as the source of America’s and the world’s current economic disaster, all in the name of ‘word-play’, of course.
Clearly, you do not see the equating of a child being stuck into a gas chamber, with the greed of Wall Street Bankers, as being in any way untoward. On the one hand you have the incomprehensible evil of exterminating human beings for no other reason than their race, and on the other hand we have a bunch of incompetent, greedy, and unconscionable ‘business men’ who by any standards have caused untold misery to millions of people, yet you see some moral equivalence between these two events?
In short, what you have done is equate the deep-rooted hatred of Jews (or what is called anti-Semitism) that has stained the history of the human species, with Obama’s speech to Congress in which he rightly identified the source of our current economic woes.
Your article is therefore a moral statement, or what I see as an immoral statement.
The ‘morality’ statement in this article equates an economic crisis caused by greedy Wall Street Bankers (something those of all political persuasions have said, and recognize) with the extermination of millions of Jews throughout history. And you make that statement for no other reason than to make a political point, and attend to the demands of your own vanity. It makes you feel smart! It demonstrates that those who do not share your view of the world are ‘hopeless in debate’!
Now, I don’t pretend to be an authority on anti-Jewish statements made throughout history, but what I do know is that even any half-educated child (assuming such a thing exists under the modern educational system) would know that a reference to Jews in the context of ‘persecution’, as you have done, is intended to conjure up an image of coincidence between the events referred to. No amount of clever maneuvering about ‘debate’ and the use of words can escape the intent of this article.
So let me now turn to my ‘inane’ reply to the article.
I open with quotes from the Prophet Isaiah, quotes that decry the pursuit of wealth as an object in life.
Those quotes are echoed in Obama’s speech to Congress, the one your article seeks to ridicule. And the reason Isaiah decry’s the pursuit of wealth as the driving force in life is because it is directly contradictory to God’s Law – the Ten Commandments.
Then I refer to the so-called ‘second coming’ of Christ. I do so for good reason. Conservatives today advance half-baked opinions as ‘fundamental values’, then invoke God to give authority to their opinions. As Albert Schweitzer would have said, they put their opinions under the protectorate of God, while simply ignoring the entire message of the Scriptures – which centers on the Ten Commandments.
So while Obama finds it offensive that many families are reduced to bankruptcy as a result of the greedy on Wall Street, and thus unable to meet even the basic needs of their children, conservatives like you are equating those sentiments to the persecution of Jews which everyone today will identify with the extermination of millions of Jews at the hands of the Nazis.
So, I ask, if Christ were to return, and express sentiments similar to those of Obama (as He did on His first visit to earth), what would today’s conservatives do? I have no doubt! He too would be ridiculed in the same manner as you have ridiculed Obama (and no, I’m not equating Obama to Christ, only exposing the hypocrisy of today’s conservatives).
Then I come to you. You, of course, have ‘discovered’ your very own ‘God-given universal moral code’ (UMC). Now, since your article is a moral statement, I saw fit to make reference to the source of the morality you must have drawn on in order to equate a speech to Congress by Obama to the persecution and extermination of the Jews.
Of course, there is very little in your UMC to elucidate the ‘morality’ of your liking Obama’s speech to the millions of anti-Semitic statements throughout history. Your UMC is simply an expression of your opinion that abortion should be prohibited under all circumstances. Your UMC is a device for tyranny in which I and my family would be compelled by the likes of you and Palin to endure the humiliation of my wife having to give birth to the child of a vicious rapist irrespective of the effect on our children, and our family.
Yet, ironically, I hear nothing from the likes of you and Palin regarding the hundreds, or more likely thousands, of innocent children (born and unborn) who are even today dying in the War on Terror that you both seem to enthusiastically embrace. Is that because there are only ‘innocent’ unborn American children?
The contradiction between your UMC and your general views is not one most rational people are encumbered with. I would have no hesitation killing any number of innocent people (born or unborn) when it comes to defending my family. Neither would I hesitate to kill innocent people if I had to do so to preserve my life in order to meet the obligations I have towards my family. And that, quite rightly, is what US and Coalition troops do almost every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Israeli forces are compelled to do in the defense of Israel.
And, just as I wouldn’t expect them to sacrifice their lives because someone else puts an innocent life in risk, neither would I tolerate anyone claiming that my wife were committing murder by aborting the child of a rapist. And anyone who sought to impose such a tyranny on me and my family would find themselves on the receiving end of a rage that they would be powerless to resist.
So there we see why a UMC that has no relation to reality, and is utterly disconnected from the Law, could come up with something as INANE as a coincidence in morality between a speech given by Obama regarding the greed on Wall Street, and the persecution of Jews, by Hitler and the Nazis, and all the other anti-Semites throughout history.
Hopefully you will now understand the rage I felt at reading this piece of drivel that is, quite frankly, not worthy of you – and insulting to all those victims of the darkest days of human depravity. Disguising this moral equivalency as some kind of 'word play' is no defense!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
The trendy thing among hapless Republicans these days is to brand President Obama a socialist. Yet you, Dr. Jackson, putting someone else's words into his mouth, call him a fascist and worse.
Obviously he can't be both, so which is it?
Milbrat, you some interesting, wingnut things to say, but you lack truthiness:
>In that short span, he has broken his promises of bipartisanship and transparency.
Courting Republican votes for the stimulus that he didn't need, and adding Republican tax cuts to it that he didn't want in order to appease them, is not bipartisan exactly how?
And in what way are usaspending.gov and recovery.gov not transparency?
>and has populated his administration with 'hold-overs' of a bygone era, as opposed to elevating new talent.
In the old days, keeping folks on from a previous administration of the other party was lauded as, oddly enough, "bi-partisanship." Congratulations on simultaneously contradicting yourself and introducing a double-standard.
Another drive by comment from DrK.
Remember, he has a history of spouting off about things he doesn't understand, and when challenged, runs away.
He makes a stupid statement about the Vietnam War. Bob Stapler spanks him, and he runs away.
He makes a stupid statement about Bush outing Plame. I spank him, and he runs away.
He makes a stupid statement about counting ballots. Patrick spanks him, and he runs away.
Now he wants to talk about another subject.
People like DrK aren't interested in, or capable of, legitimate debate and discussion. The best they can do is offer a platitude or two, draw some line of moral equivalency, then run away when confronted because they can't actually sustain an intelligent conversation.
When DrK finishs the discussions he ran away from earlier by addressing the issues that were presented, or admitting that he was wrong, I'll take him seriously. Until then, it's just another aimless drive-by comment. My resolution for Lent is to only engage in serious discussions with serious people.
Yet another legitimate question to Dr. Jackson about his statements unanswered as he holds his hands over his ears and shouts, "I am not listening to you! I am not listening to you!"
Mr. McMillan
You wrote that , "The ‘morality’ statement in this article equates an economic crisis caused by greedy Wall Street Bankers (something those of all political persuasions have said, and recognize) with the extermination of millions of Jews throughout history."
I think any reasonable reading of Mr. Jackson's piece reveals, to use your words, that he "equates an economic crisis caused by greedy Wall Street Bankers" with the stereotype that such behavior and practice historically has attributed to Jews .
Obama (fairly and unfairly) paints Wall Street bankers as greedy, abusive and uncaring in their reckless pursuit of profits. I'm sure you are aware this characterization has been applied by many throughout history to Jews, whom many credit with the very existence of the "evil" that is banking and "usury."
Mr. Jackson saw no reason or need to bring up the Holocaust . I'm not clear why you had that need.
The theme here is banking, greed, the very old argument about whether it is ethical to profit from money, stereotypes about Jewish bankers going back to the "money changers" and the use of many of the same adjectives used to describe them throughout history being applied now to Wall Street bankers – literally, or as Dr. Jackson points out, through creative-speak.
It might be interesting to note that when Obama speaks of greedy Wall Street bankers, many people in this world think he is talking about Jews.
I think Dr. Jackson at the very least establishes that Obama's words in no way lead these "many people" to believe otherwise.
That said, I really hate (destructively) greedy Wall Street bankers not based on their race, creed, color, religion, gender, or sexual preference.
Nick: I see you picked up on what I actually wrote about — the demagogic language of the Left — instead of inventing something I never said. My expectation is that most other people did as well who were interested in a serious discussion.
"Other than a few archaic phrases that would be said today with fewer words, the sentiment is pretty much unchanged; at least insofar as how the Left has been framing the current debate in this country. … All the Left needs to do is insert a few key word substitutions to make this old document respond to issues in 2009 instead of, say, 1929 — give or take a couple of years."
It's amazing the lengths some other people will go to assign conclusions to the essay I never produced, so as to knock down a straw man argument about the Holocaust.
As for responding to McMillan’s parodies of Scripture, it’s not a particularly classy thing to do in the first place (particularly during Lent), so ignoring things like this is usually the best course. Besides, it was a little creepy and difficult to follow.
Take care, Phil.
Phil
Yeah, I can read.
I suspect Mr. McMillan was mostly trying to provoke a response, which I can see you might not want to oblige.
Jews have two primary identities in this world: victim and evil doer
Removing all the straw from his post, you guys are not far apart, really. His point is that Wall Street bankers are guilty and do not deserve to be painted as Jews (the victims) by you, while your point is that they don't deserve to be painted as Jews (the evil doers) by Obama.
I assume both of you reject that as a class of people, Jews do not deserve the "evil doer" brand, and that they deserve to be considered victims due to the suffering the "evil doer" brand has caused.
You may want to expand on this at some point, because it is interesting to explore the money as the root of all evil theme, how it came to be personified by Jews in the minds of many, and how that "evil" is now being leveraged by Obama to sell his ideas and as a tool to dehumanize a class (idetifiable by profession, much as it historically has been with Jews) of human beings.
Clearly not all Wall Street bankers are bad because of the greed of a few, just as all Jews are not bad because a few among them got greedy (however you define it).
But just as Jews have been labeled as evil (synonymous with banking), so too is Obama labeling capitalism as evil, synonymous with (Wall Street) banking.
The enemy of socialism is capitalism. Just as Obama is maneuvering to weaken Republicans by announcing that Rush Limbaugh is the heart of the party, he is trying to weaken our free-market system by announcing that Wall Street is the heart of capitalism.
The cure? Don't vote Republican, and get behind socialism as the cure for the evil that is banking/capitalism.
Nick: Again, very perceptive, both in your summary of my essay's main points, and the reason for McMillan's present observations.
McMillan is upset with me because of some comments I made to one of his articles a few months back, where I challenged some of his assumptions. The dispute between us really isn't all that significant (the way it is, say, with some of the people on the far Left who don't like what I say). But it does become rather intense when one side insists on adherence to that person's POV, which makes it no longer a debate, but something ideological.
And I'm just not comfortable arguing religion with people by pitting one scripture saying agaionst another.