CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F h

[WIP]

It's absurd that you have to spell this out, or answer the remark at all. Not your fault, however.

So now we've got right-wingers lecturing us about the political misuse of fear?

Not that I don't consider Muslim community centres, gentle old lefty professors, single mothers, and gays getting married to be terrible threats, mind you! Of course I do!

I used to be pretty far to the right, especially about world affairs; but, I got sick of being lied to. I know these sources and their basic arguments....they haven't added anything new in recent years; the only difference is that the right was feeling comfortable and confident when Dubya became president in 2000. By the time he ran for re-election, conservatives and libertarians were starting to realize that things weren't working out the way they were supposed to; but rather than step back and re-evaluate their positions, they went even more gonzo and hostile to all criticism. Most of the conservative talk-radio hosts (except for Michael Savage) could have civil conversations with their liberal adversaries until about five years ago, when they all headed for their bunkers.

[bloodyminded]

I used to be pretty far to the right, especially about world affairs; but, I got sick of being lied to. I know these sources and their basic arguments....they haven't added anything new in recent years; the only difference is that the right was feeling comfortable and confident when Dubya became president in 2000. By the time he ran for re-election, conservatives and libertarians were starting to realize that things weren't working out the way they were supposed to; but rather than step back and re-evaluate their positions, they went even more gonzo and hostile to all criticism. Most of the conservative talk-radio hosts (except for Michael Savage) could have civil conversations with their liberal adversaries until about five years ago, when they all headed for their bunkers.

I used to be more conservative than I am now; sort of mainstream liberal on social matters, and quite hawkish on foreign ones...but I was hawkish because I believed in the inherent and self-evident benevolence of Western behaviour, particularly military, in all instances.

So when I read recently that Camille Paglia--a career liberal "contrarian" if ever there was one, not that anyone pays attention to her these days--inform us vapidly that, while she opposed the Iraq War before it started, we all have a responsibility to support the war once it has been engaged...even behind the sound of my jaw-dropping, I recognized a similar bone-deep doctrinal obedience within my old, unreflective self.

Before, I would have termed myself a "centrist";for an apt description of what that often actually means, read Glenn Greenwald's expert smack-down:

Like many other self-proclaimed "scholars" of the Brookings Institution, Benjamin Wittes never tires of branding himself a "centrist." But like Brookings itself, this so-called centrism is devoid of any coherent worldview and instead has one overarching purpose: to defend Beltway elite prerogatives and specifically the bipartisan orthodoxies of the National Security State. That's why Brookings is so lavishly funded and why it exists, and that -- in almost every instance -- is what D.C. denizens mean when they talk about "centrism": subservient defenders of the status quo.

Dutifully fulfilling his function, Wittes has spent the last several years joining with former Bush OLC lawyer Jack Goldsmith to defend indefinite detention without charges as well as the creation of "national security courts" to allow "preventive detention." He scorned those who objected to Bush's illegal, warrantless eavesdropping programs as simplistic, ignorant partisans. When Congress drastically expanded Bush's eavesdropping powers with the 6-month enactment of the Protect America Act, Wittes went to The New Republic to (of course) defend the new powers, prompting Matt Yglesias to say that Wittes was merely fulfilling "his appointed role as 'liberal who agrees with conservatives about all the topics he writes about'." Wittes was recently held up as the face of "American exceptionalism" by international law professor Kevin Jon Heller for explicitly justifying America's right to impose double standards in light of its objective superiority. Behold Reasonable Sober Serious Centrism!

Yesterday, Wittes wrote a new post which more clearly than anything I've read in some time conveys exactly what role he and his self-proclaimed "centrist" comrades (including the Brookings Institution) play in our political culture. Wittes wrote to criticize a "report card" issued by Human Rights First on Obama's civil liberties record; in particular, he takes issue with HRF's awarding of an "F" to Obama in the area of "Accountability for Torture." The human rights group says that this failing grade is deserved because Obama "has failed to hold accountable those who authorized and perpetrated torture against prisoners in U.S. custody"; independently, the failure "to provide redress to victims (see 'State Secrets' below) is a violation of international law and diminishes the credibility of the United States as standard-bearer for human rights worldwide."

Wittes does not contest any of HRF's factual claims. Instead, he believes Obama's active obstruction of investigations is one of the President's most commendable acts. It's really worth examining what he writes because it so vividly exposes the mindset of our Centrist, Serious think tank "scholars" who devote themselves to serving those in power:

"One of the more courageous things the Obama administration has done is to generally decline to engage in retroactive investigation of the last administration on matters of interrogation policy."

http://www.salon.com/news/torture/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/01/14/lawlessness

Edited January 18, 2011 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

I used to be more conservative than I am now; sort of mainstream liberal on social matters, and quite hawkish on foreign ones...but I was hawkish because I believed in the inherent and self-evident benevolence of Western behaviour, particularly military, in all instances.

So when I read recently that Camille Paglia--a career liberal "contrarian" if ever there was one, not that anyone pays attention to her these days--inform us vapidly that, while she opposed the Iraq War before it started, we all have a responsibility to support the war once it has been engaged...even behind the sound of my jaw-dropping, I recognized a similar bone-deep doctrinal obedience within my old, unreflective self.

I've heard Camille Paglia, and I don't get how her arguments make sense, even to her. I don't know who she is trying to impress, but there are some people who think they are so original and above the crowd, that they need to shock their associates by going against them. Her arguments about Iraq and U.S. foreign policy are as empty as Christopher Hitchens, who similarly seems to like to just piss everybody off, and see if he can argue the most odious and indefensible positions.

Before, I would have termed myself a "centrist";for an apt description of what that often actually means, read Glenn Greenwald's expert smack-down:

http://www.salon.com/news/torture/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/01/14/lawlessness

Glenn Greenwald has become one of my favourites of late. Largely because his hard line for civil liberties pretty much got him bounced off of the mainstream press. Similar to Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Robert Scheer, I give more weight to personalities that have taken a bullet financially in order to be true to their beliefs and principles. I don't see a whole lot of people on the right who are similarly willing to risk being ostracized and lose airtime at Foxnews etc.

[bloodyminded]

I've heard Camille Paglia, and I don't get how her arguments make sense, even to her. I don't know who she is trying to impress, but there are some people who think they are so original and above the crowd, that they need to shock their associates by going against them.

There is a well-trod tradition of liberals who know they must display their "realist" (ie nationalist, hawkish, elitist) chops in order to enter the hallowed halls of Establishment liberalism. Paglia, after all, was vocally pissed off that she didn't get picked as one of Gore's campaign advisors in the 2000 election; such a thing wouldn't even occur to a Chomsky or a Hedges, and they'd have zero chance of it anyway.

Hitchens, since his violent conversion, has been hobnobbing with Paul Wolfowitz, Tony Blair, and others...an impossible position for the old Hitchens, for obvious reasons.

I imagine such elevated positions are seductive as hell. But I'm not defending them; I'm scorning them.

One of the differences between the Left and the Right is that the most important conservative voices do get a pass into the halls of power, where they can rub shoulders with the power-aristocrats; the leftists cannot, unless they embrace a more hawkish, "centrist" position (and denounce Chomsky, practically part of the hazing ritual, I think...though it does say something about Chomsky's remarkable influence over the years.)

Her arguments about Iraq and U.S. foreign policy are as empty as Christopher Hitchens, who similarly seems to like to just piss everybody off, and see if he can argue the most odious and indefensible positions.

Yes, and what's frustrating about Hitchens is that he really isn't on the same level as many of the hawks; he actually is brutally intelligent and knowledgeable. So many of his remarks just seem too incredible. I suspect he's little more than an opportunist at this point.

[Shady]

Yes, and what's frustrating about Hitchens is that he really isn't on the same level as many of the hawks; he actually is brutally intelligent and knowledgeable. So many of his remarks just seem too incredible. I suspect he's little more than an opportunist at this point.

Or maybe you're just completely wrong about the issue. Maybe he's not so concerned about political sides, amd more concerned about what's right and what's wrong. I'm sorry that he doesn't conform to what you think he should say or do, based on other completely unrelated issues.

[bloodyminded]

Or maybe you're just completely wrong about the issue. Maybe he's not so concerned about political sides, amd more concerned about what's right and what's wrong. I'm sorry that he doesn't conform to what you think he should say or do, based on other completely unrelated issues.

Well, unlike yourself, I've read a lot of Hitchens, both the old dissident and the new neocon.

And by my wishing him to "conform to what think he should say or do..." That's an odd thing to say. Do you disagree with prominent lefties about a thing or two?

So why do you insist that they "conform to what you think they should say"?

But yes, there are issues in which I think Hitchens is wrong, and that it would be better if he felt differently: for example, his outright assertion that the Bush administraiton was "forced" to lie its population into war.

Such open derision for democratic principles is probably quite common, secretly, but is rarely expressed outright.

I oppose a government lying its people into war.

Do you?

Part of the charm of the regime-change argument (from the point of view of its supporters) is that it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed. Since Paul Wolfowitz is from the intellectual school of Leo Straussand appears in fictional guise as such in Saul Bellow's novel Ravelsteinone may even suppose that he enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate. For those lacking a similar gift for hidden meanings, the best way to appreciate the unstated case for war may be to examine the criticisms leveled by its opponents.

See, Hitchens is so hot under the collar about all the crazy fascist supporters who opposed the war--you know, the global majority of human beings--that he rather forgets himself here.

So the intellectuals, like Paul Wolfowitz, who, one supposes, "enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate" evince a "gift for hidden meanings" and radiate "charm" to those who admire them.

So the supporters of the war--according to Hitchens--are those who are "charmed" by the fact that the real reasons for the war "cannot...be publicly avowed."

That's a slightly esoteric way of saying that he thinks its fucking awesome that they had to deceive the public, that this displays part of the "charm" of the argument for war itself...that most people are unaware of the real reasons. The "unstated case for war" is not suitable for ordinary dummies who support the war...war supporters aren't too smart, evidently...but suitable only for intellectuals like Hitchens and Wolfowitz, who really get the "charm" of the argument, thanks to their native "gift for hidden meanings."

Further, just as a point of order, an "occluded aspect of the debate" throws the very notion of a meaningful "debate" into serious question.

Edited January 18, 2011 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

Or maybe you're just completely wrong about the issue. Maybe he's not so concerned about political sides, amd more concerned about what's right and what's wrong.

So, you also agree with him when he's talking about religion?

[WIP]

There is a well-trod tradition of liberals who know they must display their "realist" (ie nationalist, hawkish, elitist) chops in order to enter the hallowed halls of Establishment liberalism.

I've heard Chris Hedges say that MSM will tolerate liberals who work within the system...like Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, John Stewart etc.; but if a liberal or someone further left criticizes the existing power structure itself, then they are blacklisted to the blogosphere, whether they are renowned intellectuals, or experienced journalists. And I should mention that I'm talking specifically about American media; you'll still see Hedges and Chomsky show up on a TVO lecture or get an interview on one of the CBC shows, but in America, they don't even get a call from so-called public television and radio, largely because "public" in the U.S. means primarily funded by large corporate trust funds.

I thought of this statement after watching Michael Moore's documentary on the banks and international capitalism when it was played on cable TV. Moore doesn't get many opportunities to promote his movies these days; and recalled that when he did a promotional spot on Bill Maher's show, and was asked 'what do you suggest we do to fix the situation -- he blanked -- he didn't offer any solutions. This is a guy who has no shortage of opinions otherwise, and of course he's not someone who's going to come up with a better economic system; but I had to wonder if he held back because he knew that he wouldn't get on TV anywhere if he called for nationalizing the banks and dismantling global capitalism.

Hitchens, since his violent conversion, has been hobnobbing with Paul Wolfowitz, Tony Blair, and others...an impossible position for the old Hitchens, for obvious reasons.

I think Hitchens's embrace of Neoconservatism grew out of the same source as his rational atheist ideology. In his books and columns he drops quotes from just about everything written in the English language in the last 400 years....but it's all Eurocentric culture, which is steeped in the notion of separation of materialism and supernaturalism. The enlightened religious minds like Descartes and Kant, made a sharp distinction between reason and emotion, and between body and mind. The only difference between the Christian materialists and the atheist materialists, is that the latter doesn't accept the concept of God or any supernatural forces; but both sides agree that reason is separate from emotion (these guys should be reading some modern books on neuroscience!) and on Western methods of secular government, which they believe should be adopted or even imposed on the rest of the world. As for different cultures with different views of governing society....well, sad day for them! If they have lots of oil, they can expect regime change for their own benefit.

The only difference I can see in the religious Neocons and the atheist Neocons is one group harbours fantasies about imposing Christianity on them, and the other thinks they are going to free them from religion.