Max B. Sawicky

http://maxspeak.org/mt

max@maxspeak.org

pithy.

Course, it's only if you're against it that you get to call it that.

.

What's Al Gore's take on this?

Or, how 'bout ol' independent Joe? Oh, wait a minute... Uh Uh Uh...

~OGD~

George W. Bush's thought (non-thought?) process -" Well, I can't think of what to do. As a matter of fact, I can't think. So let's blow some stuff up."

That's about as sophicticated as it gets in this White House.

Tom

France ? Nothing from France ?

lol
I'm eating french fries do they count?

The Belgium chocolate that I ate yesterday comes close. It's all old Europe anyway. ;-0

Jack

I didn't realize Ezra was the entire liberal blogosphere.

Now I know where that came from...strawman indeed.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Max

Erza says: "Ken Baer has an overwrought post up attacking me for suggesting that Democrats should publicly state "that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons will not trigger a military response".

I am not an expert on the Middle East but I believe I know enough to conclude that an attack on Iran would idiotic (for numerous reason). However, it is not self-evident to me that Democrats should make a public statement "that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons will not trigger a military response".

In the first place, what purpose would such a statement serve?

"Would it be a "feel good" gesture towards Iran? It might make Iran "feel good", but would that be "a good thing" in itself. A case might be made (a good case) that making Iran feel uncomfortable is a good thing. Iran (its leaders) might be more motivated to "come to the table" Of course, there is the problem with Bush -- he does't seem to have any desire to go to a table where Iran is seated.

Again, I am not an expert in these matters but I think that if the Democrats want to leverage the Bush adminstration to go the table with Iran, they need to (a) attack his faied "gun boat" doctrine (shoot first, ask questions later), (b)seek public support for that attack, (c)enroll concerned Republicans (like Hagel) in that attack. Secondly, they should continue to public proclaim that the Presidency is not imperial (this is not Rome) and that congress must consent before any and every little hairbrain adventure that comes into the Bush mind. Moreover, Democrats in congress (with any Republicans who would join in) should begin engaging back-door behind-the-scenes "discuions" with the White House informing Bush in no uncertain terms that impeachment hearings will move forward swiftly and forcably if he engages in any unilateral military actions the resemble the slightess an act of war. If the aim is to get the U.S and Iran to the table, the Democrats should use the political pressure they have.

I don't how a public statement "that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons will not trigger a military response" will leverage much. Max, where the fulcrum. And what is leveraged.

One other note, I notice a certain tone of "righteousness" in some of the discussion regarding policy in the Middle-East and this concern me. We have a mess (on many levels); things could get worse, and there seem to be no good options. We know what has not work and have a very good idea what will not work, but it is hard to see any good way out because we are in a kind of "sand storm" where any action may lead to unforseen negative consequences. There are some today who are quite righteous in demanding "immidate withdrawl" (which is not a policy).

Back in the Vietnam time period I went to an SDS meeting at the University of Minnesota were the convener acted like an authoritarian brat who had conern on political wisdom. He was quite righteous. When I questioned his behavior -- in a civil manner -- he suggested it would be better if I left the meeting. He was really quite intolerant of dissent; for him everything was self-evident. (I might mention that I was a verteran who was against the war.) Today, I sometimes sense that same kind of highminded, rigtheous moralism within the blogsphere that cuts off dissent. It bothers me. (PS: I enjoy your blog because you are something of a dissenter who is willing to argue your position)
Stephen from Minneapolis

Right, and they'd choose universal health care instead of "defense" spending.

Thomas Paine on empire:

“Was America, then, the giant of the empire, and England only her dwarf in waiting!”

“But America need never be ashamed to tell her birth, nor relate the stages by which she rose to empire.”

"When we contemplate the fall of empires and the extinction of nations of the Ancient World, we see but little to excite our regrets than the mouldering ruins of pompous palaces, magnificent museums, lofty pyramids and walls and towers of the most costly workmanship; but when the empire of America shall fall, the subject for contemplative sorrow will be infinitely greater than crumbling brass and marble can inspire.”

I don't know any Skinner rats, but my canine associates assure me that their ancestors very carefully taught Pavlov to ring a bell whenever they were thinking of salivating. We miss you.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

If it helps, my modesty is one of the few things I boast about. As to self-righteousness, I thought I was wrong once, but it turned out that I was mistaken.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I have nothing to add at the moment, except to say that in the matter of Empire, you're either with it or against it.

Only if you lose yourself because, when the emperors need help, they'll start looking for someone to bail them out.

Um, that's kinda my point isn't it? Fergusson does a fine job of making it clear that this is calling a spade a diamond.

If this were not the modus operandi of the neocons, then it would just be sorta silly. But because they have a consistent pattern of mischaracterizing their positions (because an accurate characterization would be somewhere between extremely unpopular and batshit crazy), they never describe their programs for what they are.

This was never really a problem up til now, because there nutcase proposals would make their way to a principles meeting, and dismissed. (Iran-Contra is the exception that proves the rule.)

DanK:

I frankly don't feel that stifled personally, at least not yet. I measure every word I say because I have resigned to take baby steps in the ordinary course in terms of probing for consensus. That is a consequence of the environment I perceive and I adjust accordingly. I accept that reality. The key is balancing what you perceive will be heard best by the audience you are writing to with the equally important need to stay genuine.

I'm really more concerned about the impact of the blogosphere in a macro sense, and I was really influenced by the heart-felt comments by Artappraiser and the informed resignation he apparently feels.

And it's not the catcalls and the rants that I think create the environment that I'm talking about or that I think Artappraiser was referring to. I'm talking about a consensus that is grounded in a moral certainty that does not bend. I've been down that path of moral certainty before, and I probably still stray back to that path on occasion. But I've learned the fundamental truth in something my Dad has said on more than one apt occasion, and that is that "man plans and God laughs".

On the ranters, etc., I ultimately can't control what they say or do and I try to limit my outrage to occasional bursts of angered prose. Candidly, I do think that the collective could do more to control the ranters for the purpose of facilitating discussion but I'm not going to worry about that too much.

Mmmm, no, not really.

Words are too precious to me to allow them to be stretched to meaninglessness.  I suppose if you want to deprive the word empire of any meaning you might make a statement like this.  Even applying "hegemony" to the relationship between those nations and the United States would be contested by citizens of those sovereign nations, except perhaps in the third meaning of the term.  I might grant "gaggle" if forced to the wall...especially in the sense of a noisy and disorderly group.  The leader of a gaggle isn't much of a leader.  In fact, in the goose world, it is doubtful whether the gaggle has a leader in any real sense. 

(This is where I should insert the obligatory George W. Bush reference, but I don't want to insult geese).

But my argument was more to the point of scale.  A nation doesn't need to be a mega-state to have a meaningful, rich, and satisfying culturally productive independent life.  Small countries, minding their own business do quite well.

aMike

Collective? "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

Different collective.

There are problems like this outside the blogosphere. I just got screamed at by my housemate and host, because, when he said he had "heard something on the news", I wanted an exact quote. When I did a brief Google search on the subject, there were, indeed, words that could sound like that in a 30-second sound bite. On looking further, even in the same news article, there was a disconnect between the exact quote and the interpretation given by the reporter. In particular, the reporter was conflating words in a translation with a specific, unambiguous statement in English. The original quote, even aside from translation, had ambiguities, but not that would be obvious until one had studied the usage of the source.

He yelled I was "arguing and nit-picking about semantics", but that is one of the things the best intelligence analysts do. Of course, a really good analyst knows the relevant language and doesn't have to rely on translation.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*