Booman Tribune

What is it called when everyone votes for a dictatorship?

by poemless
Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 10:09:49 PM EST

Cross posted from EuroTribune.  I don't think I've ever posted a diary here on Booman before.  But I thought this might be of interest to people here.  Mostly, you know, I'm aware of Booman Tribune's desire to claim a space a bit to the left of DailyKos.  And, well, this is pretty far left.  So I thought you might like some envelope-pushing around here.  Curious to see the response, anyway.

Frequently asked questions:

Is Chavez a Dictator, or does he respect Democracy?  

Is Putin an Autocrat or Strong Leader?  

Is the US a Representative Democracy or a Plutocracy?  

Is Nationalism always Fascism?  

Can Co-ops be Capitalist?  

Can Socialism and a Free Market co-exist?

I'm an expert in neither political science nor economics, and don't want to survey in one blog entry what academics will spend their entire lives trying to wrap their brains around. Not unless someone's offering me tenure.

But I have the unsettling feeling that we've entered a chapter in history when the dictionary is failing us.  Words have lost their meaning.  And we are confused - not just by the insanity we read in the news, but by our own inability to express just what's insane about it.  First I though it was just me, in the throes of shock, having witnessed my own dear country's tail spin into despotism.  Then I read that diary about our brains and was reminded once again that when you have a square and life hands you a circle, it might just be that what you've been calling a square is, in fact, not one at all.

So I'd like to take a step back and shine a light on some things we've been taking for granted, which have been the foundations for our positions on all issues, and suggest that they are just ill formed ideas (the nerve, I know...) and that any solutions will require radically altering our way of describing the world.  I'm not advocating "re-framing" but putting these words into the museums where they belong.  

Catalogue of works slated for the Natural History Exhibit:

Democracy:  literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). The methods by which this rule is exercised, and indeed the composition of "the people" are central to various definitions of democracy, but useful contrasts can be made with oligarchies and autocracies, where political authority is highly concentrated and not subject to meaningful control by the people.

Used in a sentence:

"Iraq's young democracy still faces determined enemies," Bush said. "Defeating these enemies will require sacrifice and continued patience -- the kind of patience the good people of Hungary displayed after 1956."

Capitalism: economic system based on the production of commodities for sale, exchange, and profit; and private ownership of the means of production.  Contemporary capitalism is often described as the free market economy or free enterprise economy, with reference to the distribution of income largely through the operation of markets.

Used in a sentence:

"The Kremlin hopes the increasingly aggressive consolidation of the industry at home will make the export trade a cornerstone of its system of state capitalism before the post-Soviet decline that has plagued production becomes irreversible."

Free Market: a market where price is determined by the unregulated interchange of supply and demand. ... According to a more philosophical definition, a free market is a market where trades are morally voluntary and therefore free from the interference of force and fraud. ... Hence, with government force limited to a defensive role, government itself does not initiate force in the marketplace and the free market is preserved.

Used in a sentence:

"Free-market drives cheat's 'coursework-to-order' cost as low as £2.70"

Socialism: a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control, according to socialists, may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

Used in a sentence:

"Former congressman and star quarterback Jack Kemp once said that "...a distinction should be made that football is democratic, capitalist, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport,"

Communism: a political ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.

Early forms of human social organization have been described as "primitive communism." However, communism as a political goal generally is a conjectured form of future social organization which has never been implemented.

Used in a sentence:

"And, of course, as Hannah Arendt taught us long ago, if something is the same as fascism (as many things are these days) then it's also the same as Communism."

Authoritarian: a form of government characterized by strict obedience to the authority of the state, which often maintains and enforces social control through the use of oppressive measures.

In an authoritarian state, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many that other political philosophies would see as matters of personal choice. There are various degrees of authoritarianism; even very democratic and liberal states will show authoritarianism to some extent, for example in areas of national security.

Used in a sentence:

"It breaks my heart to say it because they are the party I was brought up on, but Labour have become the most totalitarian, authoritarian government in history,"

Dictatorship: absolute rule by a leadership (usually one dictator) unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

Used in a sentence:

"US former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega declared Thursday in Santo Domingo that Venezuela is heading for dictatorship... According to Noriega, President Hugo Chávez has ... turned state bodies, including the army, into political agencies, Efe reported."

Nationalism: a form of identity that holds that (ethnically or culturally defined) nations are the "fundamental units" for human social life, and makes certain cultural and political claims based upon that belief; in particular, the claim that the nation is "the only legitimate basis for the state", and that "each nation is entitled to its own state." Nationalism also refers to the specific ideologies of various nationalist movements, which make cultural and political claims on behalf of specific nations.

Used in a sentence:

"Andy Byrne of John S. Herold Inc. describes Anadarko's move as "acknowledging that international rents on oil production are rising." That's a sober way of saying that producers have got to be terrified of the rampant nationalism that is threatening property rights around the world."

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Used in a sentence:

"While Communism and Nazism posed threats through control of powerful states, the blogofascist menace is, like its Islamofascist counterpart, more of a loose network of highly motivated individuals."

:::

As you can clearly see, these models are quite wide open to interpretation.  So much so that they've lost their meaning.  Less subjectively, not one appears to be a comprehensive ideology and thus they must learn to co-exist to varying degrees, depending on the preferences of the leaders or their constituents and practicality.  Meaning?  No holy grails in here.  No laws governing the Universe, no sacred cows, no perfect ideal.

I do not have new words to replace those which have failed us.  We can talk about "Social Democrats" and "Democratic Libertarians" and "Free-Market Liberals."  Hell, you can also call yourselves "National Socialists" and "Neo-Communists" (I just made that up, sure there's some angsty teen out there who'll embrace it.)  These remind me of the infinite sects of Christianity.  You'll be hard-pressed to find a human who doesn't believe it's wrong to let people starve to death.  You'll also be hard pressed to find 2 people who are in complete agreement about how to create a world without starvation.  

Like religions, political ideologies are systems of belief (if you share everything, everyone will be fed; if you have elections, the people will have their voices heard; if you do the right thing you, will go to heaven) and no one has yet accounted for every variable.  No physicist, no yogi, no political scientist nor economist.  The only people who have come close are the atheist and anarchist who at least acknowledge the lies we tell ourselves, but who have, alas, yet to propose a viable system of anything of their own.  

I'll let someone else come up with the new ideal paradigm.

But I do think that we need to question the usage of the terms in the artillery of the media and politicians and ideologues.  As every time we hear "WMD's" we need to demand proof, every time we hear "Democracy" we need to do the same.  WMD's?  Where?  Democracy?  For/By whom?  

We also need to publicly acknowledge the inefficiency of all these terms and of the systems they refer to.  Acknowledge, honestly, that our frustration comes from our own unwillingness or inability to step outside the box in which we were shipped to this world and not from the stubbornness of the circle which refuses to be a square.

And we must stop endorsing or dismissing any nation, leader or system on the basis of our visceral response to the name given to their style of governance, and begin assessing their merit based on the prosperity, safety and dignity of their people and their respect for that of peoples not under their rule.  Is Bush a Dictator?  Is Europe Socialist?  Is Putin running a Democracy?  Is Chavez a Commie?  Yes and No.  So what?  What does it prove or accomplish?   Nada, folks.  ничего.

Are the people of America or Europe or Russia or Venezuela allowed to live in prosperity, safety and dignity?  Do the actions of their leaders respect the prosperity, safety and dignity of the people of France, Nigeria, Iran?  Now we can begin to talk about problems and solutions.  

Terms like Democracy and Dictatorship, Capitalism and Communism are absolutes which work well when trying to win hearts and minds, when creating mythology and covering your ass for committing atrocities.  I myself have warm fuzzy responses to the ideas of Democracy and Communism (and one day I will create a utopia in which we will have both, and I will rule it with an iron fist, forcing everyone to vote in every election, shop at co-ops and save the whales.)   But in the daily work of protecting human rights, feeding & educating people, creating opportunity and maintaining civil society, there seems to be a direct, inverse, relationship between the faith placed in these ideas and their odds of success.  

Mind you, I am not advocating some kind of moral relativism (ok, a little, but much less than we currently see in our governments.)  I'm not advocating for dictatorships.  I'm just saying that "dictator" rather loses its rabid bite when the people keep electing one.  And democracy, that shining city on the hill, fades in attraction when you find out its inhabitants are dying for lack of healthcare...



Display:
A rose by any other name?

Interesting thoughts, my friend.

Is terminology forming the curtain in front of the wizard(s)? Yeah, I believe it is.

If you want things to get better, be prepared to deal with change.

by Kahli on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 10:34:13 PM EST
aka Great Britain, where they elect an all powerful PM for up to five years.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama
by Luam (LuamDK at gmail.com) on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 12:19:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you for putting this together. How can people communicate when words lose their meaning?

What is it called when everyone votes for a dictatorship?

Rigged elections?

Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. (George Carlin)

by tampopo on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 11:46:37 PM EST
I have a couple more words that have fallen down the rabbit hole:

Conservative - used to describe people who will invade a country for no other known reason than to "spread democracy" and are willing to put the costs of such an adventure on the credit card of our children. Also used to describe people who are willing to give up our democracy in order to "win" a contrived war against fabricated enemies (see front-page post by Chris).

Liberal - used to describe people who want to protect the constitution and the bill of rights in the US.

Doesn't information itself have a liberal bias? Steven Colbert

by NLinStPaul on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 08:58:31 AM EST
The list is infinite, I'm sure...
by poemless on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 12:01:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Regarding word roots:

Our problem today is conservatives who don't conserve, and liberals who don't liberate.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 05:29:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Remember that quote from Through The Looking Glass?

This is one of the ways the Luntzes of the world trap us. They use words that we think we know the meaning of, but they've assigned these words new meanings and we haven't caught up yet.

I for one welcome our new Twitter overlords. @Omir55

by Omir the Storyteller (omir.the.storyteller -CAT- gmail -DOG- com) on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 09:34:19 AM EST
One step past that, Omir....  they've stripped the words of their historical and universal meanings and deliberately reassigned them as unlabelled variables, so that when confronted even with their own past comments, they can shift positions without missing a beat and claim that nothing's changed.  If words don't mean anything, there's no actual communication -- but they can still play emotional and connotational indices for all they're worth, and that's all that was ever intended.

Every third American devotes himself to improving and uplifting his fellow citizen, usually by force. -- Mencken
by stormkite on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 10:06:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because of their historical and emotional associations, these words have become rather like lingustical trump cards -- used to sweep up the entire hand and END THE DISCUSSION without further examination of the issues or questions asked.

The problem is, there are too many such trumps in the deck, and those who play them expect that as soon as they do so, the game is effectively over. But they've played them so often, the cards are wearing out... and they no longer carry the meaning they once did, despite the florid attempts of those who hold them to convince us of their magical, sacred values.

We need to change the rules to no-trump and learn to question their validity each time they are used. What "Freedom" are we bringing to Iraq if women are forced to give up jobs outside their homes, or fear to go out at all? If the only way to bring "security" to a city is to destroy it, is that security? (Or whose security  is that really assuring -- the people of that city or the financial futures of those making profits from military contracts?)  Why should the proclamation of religious faith make anyone's actions or other beliefs beyond question, despite the harm those actions do to others?  Why should we believe that ANY program or tax relief saves or creates jobs just because someone says they do... when every other similiar program has had the opposite effect? Why do we blindly accept the idea that "free markets" will automatically result in any good or service being superior to one produced by a government-run or non-profit agency? (especially when the first thing any commercial entity has ever done throughout history when achieving some measure of success in a given market arena is do whatever it can to neutralize any limitations a real free market might have on its future profits?)  

What is it called when everyone votes for a dictatorship?  Well, lots of questions there. DID everyone vote? Who voted and who didn't? Did those who voted actually vote FOR it? What alternatives were there to choose from? And is it really a dictatorship?  How? Or how not? Each question opens up a very different branch of further questions.... questions that need to be asked, until the answers start making sense outside the emotionally charged jingos and slogans, and more in the realm of real human lives.

Keith Olbermann speaks for me.

by JanetT in MD on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 12:33:46 PM EST
about Cindy Sheehan "supporting a dictator" by visiting Chavez.  The people of Venezuela voted for him #1.  When I was in Crawford many people with inside the beltway connections were saying that Chavez was going down next in the Dick Cheney playbook.  I had little or nothing to add or say about any of this, my only concern was my life and my husband and our friends who were being affected by the Iraq War.  It was creepy as hell though to come home from Crawford and Ka-Boom....Pat Robertson goes on television and starts freaking out about Chavez and said all kinds of crazy shit.  Then Rummy says that Chavez is dangerous and a bunch of other stupid shit......even Condi said some stupid shit to say about Chavez too.  It was so disturbing to witness these talking points being spread about after listening to people from D.C. who went to Crawford with Sheehan.  #2 Shortly after these talking points began showing up in the media, Sheehan made her visit to Chavez and many photos were taken to stop the next war and for no other reason than that..........and I believe that she may have done exactly what she set out to do because the media talking points focusing on Chavez immediately dried up.  She fired a shot across this administration's bow and they were scared of her Thank God.

PMS Purchase More Shoes
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 02:42:05 PM EST
Oh, wow.  Thanks for all the recommends, folks!
by poemless on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 03:33:29 PM EST
You bet. You frikkin deserve them ! Great Post :D

Yes.. I think the Bush Presidency IS a dictatorship. I'm pretty sure the actual dictator is CHENY and not Bush, however. That guy is subtle and power hungry (the most powerful VP in history, according to Frontline). He's basically the kingpin.

And yes.. dictatorships assume popular fronts as a matter of course. Ask Eva Perone, et al... It's all about images and illusions.

Hermaphrodite with attitude!

by Syniel (s y n i e l *dontspammeeeeeeDx*@gmail.com) on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 04:07:53 PM EST
Slippery labeling and sound bites are the language of half truths.  And as any propagandist knows, half truths are more effective persuasion than full-blown lies.

Which makes the Bush administration's pattern of full-blown lies very puzzling.  Maybe that what's responsible for his sub-40% approval ratings.

Can people vote for dictatorship?  Yes, indeed.  They did in Germany in 1933.  They didn't know that that was what they were voting for, however.

In the US, we've had to depend on the Supreme Court to install dictatorship.

The real question is "Can people vote for dictatorship knowing full well that that is what they are voting for?"

50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

by TarheelDem on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 04:17:14 PM EST
This question was originally intended to have more of a theoretical bent.  I believe the election was rigged.  

But given what I've witnessed over the past few years, I would not be shocked if American honestly voted to elect a regime which openly flaunted its disregard for the law, which intended to strip them of their rights, which had no means of being held accountable short of a military coup.

And being popularly elected should not be a free pass for not having to do the right thing.  

by poemless on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 05:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is it called when everyone votes for a dictatorship?

The 2004 election.

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

by Arthur Gilroy (arthurgilroy<at>earthlink.net) on Wed Jun 28th, 2006 at 06:25:30 PM EST
George Orwell couldn't have put it better himself.  The use (or, rather, deliberate misuse) by this administration of the English language for propaganda purposes has long driven me up a wall.  And as for Bush's speech in Hungary regarding the Hungarian Revolution- did he or any of his speechwriters even realize that he was praising Hungarians for their insurgency against the Soviet occupation of Hungary?  Essentially, he was commending Hungarians for doing what the insurgents in Iraq are doing to us- trying to get an unwelcome occupier out of their country.  (Of course, the Hungarians lost.)
by Zorba the Greek on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 06:40:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You missed one other type of government called a Benign Monarchy.

Norway, Monte Carlo and a number of other smaller States use this form of government. For most of them this system seems to produce a balance which is neither oppressive or repressive but in fact serves the people quite well as long as the ruling class keeps the interest of the majority of it's citizens it's number one obligation and duty.

This type of government incorporates the best of all the "ism's" and rejects the negative effects which come as part and parcel of each "ism". The Achilles heel of the Benign Monarchy occurs when the line of succession produces a ruler who ignores the voice of the people which are it's citizens.

Among all the different types of governments throughout history Benign Monarchies have been the most successful at creating progressive change in society, culture, the arts and sciences and the overall welfare of the people which they ruled over.

The Quest for Empire has always proven to be the turning point at which a Benign Monarchy then becomes a Dictatorship that fails the State and the people it rules. Were it not for this fact the Benign Monarchy would be the worlds most preferred form of government.

Metal Faces, Metal Times, Metal Places, Metal Lives, You can laugh or you can cry, For Metal Men, With Mirrorshade Minds.

by Mirrorshade Mind on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 07:08:27 AM EST
a balance which is neither oppressive or repressive but in fact serves the people quite well as long as the ruling class keeps the interest of the majority of its citizens it's number one obligation and duty.

Seems to me this is getting on toward the definition of a good government without regard to how the individuals who make up that government are chosen.  The problem with monarchy is that the ruler is selected as a matter of heredity, resulting in that sort of Divine Right idea that brings out the worst in people.  (Yes, it's possible to have an elective monarchy; that's called either an oligarchy or a democracy, depending on who gets to vote.)

It seems to me that, all things equal, some form of Parliamentary Monarchy in which the "Head of State" and the "Head of Government" functions are separated might have as much going for it as any other approach... but IMO any form of government which does not allow for the governed to have a say in who their governors shall be is by definition tyrannical and, as such, a Bad Thing.


Every third American devotes himself to improving and uplifting his fellow citizen, usually by force. -- Mencken

by stormkite on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 11:18:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What you have stated is too true. A Monarchy without it's absolute power regulated by the rule of law and dependant solely of the line of succession thoughout history has always proven to be a failure.

A Monarchy is good at one thing which is making things happen very quickly. This can be either good or bad depending on the issue, people and situation.

International laws and internal controls though the rule of law can act to regulate the power of intercession of by a ruler.

The actual governing body of a representative Democracy elected by it's subjects to run the day to day affairs of government would most likely be accepted by a large majority of the population.

This makes me wonder what would happen if a government was comprised of all the things that work best in the real world from each type of "ism".

One of the other things that people don't really think about is how much the Corporate world is rooted in the Monarchy model today. CEO's are the Kings, the board of directors are the Queens, VP's are the Dukes, etc...

People will always relate to the Monarchy system. The faceless government is something everyone dispises with a passion.


Metal Faces, Metal Times, Metal Places, Metal Lives, You can laugh or you can cry, For Metal Men, With Mirrorshade Minds.

by Mirrorshade Mind on Fri Jun 30th, 2006 at 04:24:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One of the most common and effective techniques used by cults to indoctrinate their members and render them compliant and obedient is the very sophisticated technique of "loading the language". This is a several pronged strategy that involves taking certain words and "charging" them with high emotional resonance by deliberately using these words inappropriately by relentlessly associating them with events and issues that they have nothing to do with. Hence, we have, as the biggest and most obvious example of this cult-like propaganda the Bush regime invoking the name bin Laden in order to legitimize the invasion of Iraq in the minds of the public.

One other way language is manipulated in the pursuit of deception and control is to simplify the language to such a point that people actually begin to lose their ability to engage in cognitive thought and analysis because they become conditioned to use a vastly restricted language that no longer contains words that supports concepts essential to deeper cognition. As an example, many religious cults, in order to keep their followers enthralled, recognize that it's important to reduce the level and effectiveness of their innate inquisitiveness. And so, they simplify the language of the cult. Many of these cults adopt the identical language, simply telling their followers that; "The reason you aren't feeling the joy and benefits of our teachings is that you're not yet close enough to God". They don't explain how their cracpot ideology is supposed to work because they can't explain it because it doesn't work, but they now they can keep people attached and subservient to them for a much longer time if they can create a mental environment where the acolytes eventually just stop asking questions, so the "You're not close enough to God" meme works quite well for that, stringing the hapless recruits along until finally this simpleminded approach, after being hammered into their heads relentlessly, removes their will to think for themselves to any depth. When our Imbecile in Chief starts his yapping about "spreading freedom around the world", for instance, he is using this tactic of simplifying the message. He never really defines which freedoms he advocates for and for whom, nor does he say which freedoms he opposes. Instead he renders the word "freedom" itself functionally meanngless except as an emotionalized trigger to stir up peoples feelings and rally support for his warmaking.

Denial is our most dangerous adversary.

by sbj on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 10:48:04 AM EST
Are there effective counters to this?

Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. (George Carlin)
by tampopo on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 10:54:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are plenty of effective counters to these manipulative schemes, but the counters are not neccessarily simple mechanisms that can just be applied on the spot. A certain amount of encouragment for people to want to think in different ways is usually a neccessary prerequisite. And, for people who have been the victims of serious "thought reform" programs, (and I consider the Bush regimes propaganda juggernaut as a serious "thought reform", "psyops" campaign), undoing the automaticity of response, and overcoming the reluctance to examine things more closely, these are often quite formidable hurdles.

One ofthe first, most fundamental things I would say is important to countering these effects is to firmly embrace the idea that understanding the truth about things will always serve us better than believing in things just because we want to believe them. And that this is true even when the truth brings with it great discomfort. We all choose to believe what we want to believe to some degree or another; we are all sometimes willing to believe in things that are not true just because those beliefs make us feel better. It's a mechanism we've developed to insulate ourselves from being overwhelmed by nasty realities. But simply acknowledging our propensity for this behavior is a giant first step in providing us with more of a reason to question what we're being told rather than being intimidated by the usual guilt inspiring mechanisms like; "It's unpatriotic, (or sacriligious), to not believe what the President, (or the Pope), tells you".

There's much more to all of this, and infact many books have been written that deal precisely with these sorts of matters. One such book, (Not a cult-centric one), is titled "Influence; The Psychology of Persuasion", written by Robert B. Cialdini, PHD (Quill Press,1984). the title speaks for itself and it's a very informative, uncomplicated book that reveals lots and lots of detailabout the mechanisms of coercion.

If you have interest in other books dealing with this subject, let me know here in a reply and I will post a short list titles and authors who address this topic directly.

Denial is our most dangerous adversary.

by sbj on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 11:47:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks - I was not only wondering how to counter his personally, but also how to respond when someone spouts the "party line."

Reasoned, factual, logical points don't seem effective because there is no discussion. (A personal limitation is my difficulty remembering number information so I can't use statements which include, for example, "74%" or 270,000.) I am seeking some sort of "instant" counter, perhaps, just saying, "That's not true." Or something like, "Oh pshaw, you don't really believe that do you?" Maybe wearing a garlic necklace would be better ;)

If you have some books with guidance on how to respond, I would appreciate it. Thanks for sharing your expertise.

Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. (George Carlin)

by tampopo on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 05:34:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Developing instant verbal responses to spin and propaganda is difficult unless one pretty much first familiarizes onesself with the typical bullshit the propagandists spew. Then you can research the facts concerning whatever the issue is the wingnut is spinning about, and at the same time you can look to analyze what it is the wingnut is trying to get you to believe and why he might want you to believe it.

Then when the wingnut gives his pitch you can say something like; "Well, I don't know whether you actually believe all that nonsense you just said but your facts are wrong and it seems the only reason to propound this stuff is if you want to defend someone else's actions even if you don't have the facts."

Asking wingnuts to present any evidence they have to support their claims usually stops them, since they have no real evidence most of the time, but it never leads to enlightening them.

Sometimes just laughing and shaking your head and walking away is the only appropriate response.

Denial is our most dangerous adversary.

by sbj on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 08:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh yes! I'm sure that garlic works on some of them too. I imagine if one could locate the damp dark place where Cheney and Richard Perle and Wiliam Kristol gather together in secret to sharpen their teeth and drink goblets of blood, storming that cave with garlic and perhaps some other implements might slow them down a bit.

Denial is our most dangerous adversary.
by sbj on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 08:25:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks again for the info and the laugh :)

Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. (George Carlin)
by tampopo on Thu Jun 29th, 2006 at 08:54:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]
Menu
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password





Find textbooks at Alibris!

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES

Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos
by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.


Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")



Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)


Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)


"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen


The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review


BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual

$79.95 * Sale: $59.95


Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)


The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!


The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan


Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----


Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review


Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey


1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus



Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"


Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)


The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids

by Madeline Levine


Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com

:





We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Alibris - Books You Thought You'd Never Find
Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:
www.Patagonia.com


Listed on BlogShares

© 2009 Booman Tribune