Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 29, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






The Sixth Extinction


Truthdig Bazaar
Reality Hunger: A Manifesto

Reality Hunger: A Manifesto

By David Shields
$8.34

more items

 
Report

‘Electronic Brownshirts’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 18, 2011
Davide Restivo (CC-BY-SA)

By Amy Goodman

Judy Ancel, a Kansas City, Mo., professor, and her St. Louis colleague were teaching a labor history class together this spring semester. Little did they know, video recordings of the class were making their way into the thriving sub rosa world of right-wing attack video editing, twisting their words in a way that resulted in the loss of one of the professors’ jobs amidst a wave of intimidation and death threats. Fortunately, reason and solid facts prevailed, and the videos ultimately were exposed for what they were: fraudulent, deceptive, sloppily edited hit pieces.

Right-wing media personality Andrew Breitbart is the forceful advocate of the slew of deceptively edited videos that target and smear progressive individuals and institutions. He promoted the videos that purported to catch employees of the community organization ACORN assisting a couple in setting up a prostitution ring. He showcased the edited video of Shirley Sherrod, an African-American employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which completely convoluted her speech, making her appear to admit to discriminating against a white farmer. She was fired as a result of the cooked-up controversy. Similar video attacks have been waged against Planned Parenthood.

Ancel has been the director of the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s Institute for Labor Studies since 1988. Using a live video link, she co-teaches a course on the history of the labor movement with professor Don Giljum, who teaches at University of Missouri-St. Louis. The course comprises seven daylong, interactive sessions throughout the semester. They are video-recorded and made available through a password-protected system to students registered in the class. One of those students, Philip Christofanelli, copied the videos, and he admits on one of Breitbart’s sites that he did “give them out in their entirety to a number of my friends.” At some point, a series of highly and very deceptively edited renditions of the classes appeared on Breitbart’s website. It was then that Ancel’s and Giljum’s lives were disrupted, and the death threats started.

A post on Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com summarized the video: “The professors not only advocate the occasional need for violence and industrial sabotage, they outline specific tactics that can be used.” Ancel told me, “I was just appalled, because I knew it was me speaking, but it wasn’t saying what I had said in class.” She related the attack against her and Giljum to the broader attack on progressive institutions currently:

“These kinds of attacks are the equivalent of electronic brownshirts. They create so much fear, and they are so directed against anything that is progressive—the right to an education, the rights of unions, the rights of working people—I see, are all part of an overall attack to silence the majority of people and create the kind of climate of fear that allows for us to move very, very sharply to the right. And it’s very frightening.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Ancel’s contact information was included in the attack video, as was Giljum’s. She received a flurry of threatening emails. Giljum received at least two death threats over the phone. The University of Missouri conducted an investigation into the charges prompted by the videos, during which time they posted uniformed and plainclothes police in the classrooms. Giljum is an adjunct professor, with a full-time job working as the business manager for Operating Engineers Local 148, a union in St. Louis. Meanwhile, the union acceded to pressure from the Missouri AFL-CIO, and asked Giljum to resign, just days before his May 1 retirement after working there for 27 years.

Gail Hackett, provost of the University of Missouri-Kansas City, released a statement after the investigation, clearing the two professors of any wrongdoing:

“It is clear that edited videos posted on the Internet depict statements from the instructors in an inaccurate and distorted manner by taking their statements out of context and reordering the sequence in which those statements were actually made so as to change their meaning.”

The University of Missouri-St. Louis also weighed in with similar findings and stated that Giljum was still eligible to teach there.

On April 18, Andrew Breitbart appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program, declaring, “We are going to take on education next, go after the teachers and the union organizers.” It looks as if Ancel and Giljum were the first targets of that attack.

In this case, the attack failed. While ACORN was ultimately vindicated by a congressional investigation, the attack took its toll, and the organization lost its funding and collapsed. President Barack Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack apologized to Shirley Sherrod, and Vilsack begged her to return to work. Sherrod has a book coming out and a lawsuit pending against Breitbart.

Let’s hope this is a sign that deception, intimidation and the influence of the right-wing echo chamber are on the decline.
 
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of “Breaking the Sound Barrier,” recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

© 2011 Amy Goodman

Distributed by King Features Syndicate


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 14, 2011 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

Dear Toast Master another Tequila here! I cried in my Tequila and others too! For days after being dragged through the muck by Martha A’s Dialectic constant floggings. I still cry when I read the postings below and this may have been some Martha’s more compassionit moments;


“From your June 1 at 8:15 am post—What dream
world do you live in, Leefeller? —YOU
are the one that stood in defense of Adolph
Hitler with OzarkMichael and
NightGaunt, and I was in opposition.”

“I have always thought of you as being a
harmless dummy that is a “Pete and repeat” of
whoever your mind of the moment is, so please
inform whoever your mind of the moment is, that
you are following at present, that although “you
people” use “Mein Kampf” written by Adolph
Hitler as a play book for day to day operations,
my interest is strictly academic.”

SOB!....Me crying!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 14, 2011 at 11:22 am Link to this comment

drbhelthi, June 14 at 7:30 am,

Here is the Google Translator:
http://translate.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wT#submit

This is what the translator translated from German to English:

http://translate.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wT#auto|en|Guten Morgen! Vor allem, weil es für die Zwecke der Humor. Aber
mehr als das, für meinen Teil, ist es eine esoterische Perversion zu
tief bohren sich in das Gehirn des anti-intellektuell. Lachen lachen.
Klingt wie ultra-konservativen Murren. Warum bist du so eine Kurbel?
Wen kümmert es, wenn Sie sowieso Punkte geben? Wie kommst du
bewerten Sie besondere Ehre?

Wir sollten uns mehr bewusst Götter auf Kriegspfad!

Es ist der Gang Gottes in der Welt, dass der Staat ist! Vorwärts! Aufgehoben!

Good morning! Mainly because it serves the purposes of humor. But
more than that, for my part, it is a perversion of esoteric
deep bore into the brain of the anti-intellectual. Laugh laugh.
Sounds like ultra-conservative grumbling. Why are you such a crank?
Who cares if you give points anyway? How do you get
rate special honor?

We should be more aware of gods on war path!

It is the path of God in the world that the country is! Forward! Repealed!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 14, 2011 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

ATTENTION:  Truthdig Web Master

Page 1 of 2

I have been the victim of personal attacks by a group of posters
for quite some time now on the “This Is What Resistance Looks
Like” and “Electronic Brownshirts” threads and many other
Truthdig threads in the past, and I suspect that the people on
these threads who have been personally attacking me on this
Truthdig forum for a prolonged period of time are now complaining
about me as if they are innocent victims, because of my dialogue
concerning the structure and application of dialectic.

Please check out the previously indicated threads, so that you will
be aware of the present situation and advise me of what action
will be taken to control personal attacks initiated by the group of
posters personally attacking me relative to my dialogue on
Truthdig forum, and then complaining about me as if they are
innocent victims.

I am concerned that I may be being made example of by censure
because of my dialogue regarding the structure and application of
dialectic, rather than for reasons given; and that those doing so
will be allowed to do so, as innocent victims, rather than self
serving collaborators who have initiated and continue ongoing
personal attacks of personal gang abuse against me to silence my
dialogue regarding dialectic.

My last post to Inherit The Wind and Jorge X Rodriguez on Mon,
June 13, 2011, at 7:56 am prior to your censure on Mon, Jun 13,
2011 at 9:32 am is as follows:

[“My dialogue on Dialectic is about what constitutes facts and how
they are determined; this is what dialectic is all about.

If you can’t understand it, memorize it like a savant in the hopes
that in time an epiphany will occur and you will achieve
understanding; at least try to get a clue.

Understanding what constitutes Dialectic is really important to the
Left not being over run by the Right.”
]

The above post expresses my concern to Inherit The Wind and
Jorge X Rodriguez
, and is included with my response to your
censure as an indicator of the context of whatever complaint has
been made against me.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 14, 2011 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

ATTENTION:  Truthdig Web Master

Page 2 of 2

I ask that complaints concerning my behavior be taken in the
context that the complaint is being made, rather than as a
legitimate complaint from an innocent victim or victims.

In the context of the give and take nature of abuse directed at me
as a means of intimidation and control of my dialogue, and my
response to that abuse, I do not feel that I have anything to be
ashamed of or to apologize for and, as with
Shenonymous, if I feel that a person’s behavior is
deserving and worthy of respect, I will be concerned about offense
that may or may not be given and received, whether actual or
amorphous.

However, with regard to your censure Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:32
am, I am unaware of any innocent victims that an offense has
been committed against by my behavior, and ask that any claims
of abuse made, be made in specific, rather than amorphous terms,
and that such claims be dealt with in a context of balance with
regard to all parties involved on both sides of the complaint.

If the Truthdig forum is about digging for the truth, I am
digging for the truth of dialectic, sophism, and propaganda
,
and I ask that Truthdig as a forum, support me in this effort, rather
than censure me.

If otherwise, I suspect that your censure will inevitably lead to the
same result that I experienced on the Liberal Forum, a
Right-Wing Propaganda Blog posing as a Liberal Forum
, that
of defenestration, because I will respond in kind when attacked
personally, and I will not go along to get along with what I know
to be wrong, like the Democratic Party and the Light-Right
Middle Class that pretends to represent the Left, but in fact
represents their own Middle Class’ class and cultural agenda to
the exclusion of representation of the Left, the American Populace,
the 70% Majority Common Population of the United States in the
making and enforcing of legislated law and order.</b>

With regard to Inherit The Wind and those who support
Inherit The Wind’s claims that there is humor in the
structure and application of positively and negatively balanced
dialectic, sophism and propaganda, this is a ludicrous claim and
one that I cannot pretend has merit——if this is a position you
support as Web Master, I suspect that we will have difficulty
finding common ground with regard to an understanding that
allows for common cause with regard to our differing perceptions
and perspectives.

Sincerely,

Martha A. Miller and Thomas G. Miller

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 14, 2011 at 10:37 am Link to this comment

Doctor Be Healthy

U cn figger it owt!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 14, 2011 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

We the word was used almost exclusively by Chris Hedges, (I believe had ambitions to copyright the word we?)  until we rode his butt on using we! Since then, We have notices less use of the word,.... I must say we find this almost slightly amusing.

ITW, ...what Quack?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 14, 2011 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

Dr. Quack makes me laugh.  He couldn’t find his butt with both hands!

Two people throw out German phrases.

He gets pissy.

One says “We do it to annoy you”

Dr.Quack somehow can’t figure out who the “we” consists of!

You can’t make this stuff up!

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, June 14, 2011 at 7:30 am Link to this comment

Kameraedin Anarcissie,
I find it refreshing, not annoying.

You used the plural, we, which suggests you either speak for several
persons or perhaps think you speak for several persons.

However, I represent only myself, and do not presume to represent
other Truthdig bloggers on the subject.  Anyway, this topic appears
to be quasi-defunkt, with few still interested.

Thanks for attempting to annoy me!  Very considerate !

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 14, 2011 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

I thought I caught a whiff of snake oil.
Dr. Quack emerges, angry, arrogant and ignorant.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 14, 2011 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

Guten Morgen! Vor allem, weil es für die Zwecke der Humor. Aber
mehr als das, für meinen Teil, ist es eine esoterische Perversion zu
tief bohren sich in das Gehirn des anti-intellektuell. Lachen lachen.
Klingt wie ultra-konservativen Murren. Warum bist du so eine Kurbel?
Wen kümmert es, wenn Sie sowieso Punkte geben? Wie kommst du
bewerten Sie besondere Ehre?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 14, 2011 at 5:01 am Link to this comment

We do it to annoy you.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, June 13, 2011 at 11:57 pm Link to this comment

Writing blogs in the German language,
on an American-language blog-page,
wins NO points.

What is the underlying motive ?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 13, 2011 at 2:40 pm Link to this comment

Thanks, Anarcissie.

No, She, it wasn’t me bustin’ chops about hi-jacking.  I’m too busy munchin’ on the popcorn and slurping the super-sized soda. Occasionally, like kids at a midnight Rocky Horror screening I toss a few ice cubes at the stage! (went to one of those midnight shows 30 years ago.  A wise friend advised: SIT IN THE LAST ROW! I followed her advice!)

However you are wasting time offering even such wise advise to Miss M.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 13, 2011 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

My mistake, I was probably being overly egocentric and took ITW’s
comment about hi-jacking as nudged by something I said.  Sorry. 
I know…I know I am the center of the Universe but even so I can
eclipse myself at times!  It is all ego…all ego.

It looks like fine distinctions do not exist when assessing Truthdiggers
(aka truthdippers).  All are thrown into the mass grave of sublation.

Wir sollten uns mehr bewusst Götter auf Kriegspfad!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 13, 2011 at 10:47 am Link to this comment

I think it was Señor Rodríguez who thought the discussion was being hijacked, or trolled.  Or, as he said, tyrannized.  But I believe you all enjoy futzing around with MarthaA and Hegel and sublating yourselves, so I’m not complaining.  However, as I do not understand MarthaA in spite of my extensive interrogations in the past, I’m leaving it all alone.  Es ist der Gang Gottes in der Welt, dass der Staat ist! Vorwärts! Aufgehoben!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 13, 2011 at 10:32 am Link to this comment

So then, ITW, my advice to MarthaA was in the ball park.  But what is
this about hi-jacking?  Did I say something or imply something about
hi-jacking this forum?  Mannn, I’ve no memory of that!  Would you
please cite where I was discussing hi-jacking?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 13, 2011 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

Using excessive social psychological arcane euphemisms like binary emotional rhetoric is self-defeating.
*****

But, She! MarthaA LOVES spouting those phrases! Makes her think she’s smarter than the rest of us!

BTW, historians, economists and political scientists don’t use such terms, even though many are as pompous as MarthaA. Not using them doesn’t make them “stupid” (tho it’s clear Miss M. thinks they are). It’s just not in their historiography.  They have their own bullshit.

As for a hi-jack? Nah. I’ve SEEN threads at TD hi-jacked.  This ain’t one of them. The participants merely took it a direction they wanted. Even I won’t blame MarthaA for that. There used to be a poster that would post 5, ten, 15 or even 20 posts in a row without any responses from anyone else. And there have been some others like him.  Now THAT was a hi-jack!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 13, 2011 at 9:08 am Link to this comment

Reponse to MarthaA, June 12 10:20pm. First part

Back in March, Ruth Marcus in her criticism of Barack Obama
talked about the false choice of political rhetoric.  And gave
some examples.  She didn’t dwell only on Obama but gave Nixon,
Bush W, (interestingly enough not Bush the elder), and Clinton as
committing similar infractions.  Shapeshifting seems to be a malady
of presidents.  And presidents are the only ones Marcus takes to
task also giving sinful examples of those on the list. 

It would appear MarthaA, that you want to install a political rhetorical
propaganda-detecting machine (mental machine that is) in everybody
in order to counteract the propaganda that is being continuously
perpetrated by the Republicans (in all of their incarnations:  Tea Party,
Conservatives, Religious Right, etc., Social or not!)  It further appears
you are soliciting help to do this.  But it is obvious you are not going
about it in any inviting way, just from the last few remarks by some
regulars and one newer face.  I read the comments on the Marcus
article.  Of course setting up false choices as the subjects of debate
is a perfect way to ignore reality.  Take a look at the Paul Ryan budget
reform bill.  Look at the arguments the Republicans use to avoid
specifics on a plan to create jobs.  Look at how the Republicans want
to cut more taxes for the rich insisting it will create jobs, which in the
last ten years shows no evidence that would happen.  Ten years of tax
cuts ought to have produced some jobs!  I defy anyone to show one job
created by tax cuts to the rich.  Theirs is a bogus argument.  The list is
almost endless. 

Using excessive social psychological arcane euphemisms like binary
emotional rhetoric is self-defeating.  It is easier and more potent to use
the word propaganda, if a wide audience is the goal.  Tesla was wrong,
we have not tried all the variants of capitalism and not proved they do
not work.  Socialized capitalism is a sturdy idea that takes the best of
both economic systems and invests the personal energy into making it
work since it is more locally controlled.  It has not been tried properly
in this country, but has great potential.  There is already socialization
going on and we can see the utter resistance of Republicans who are
the indentured slaves to the corporate world, i.e., the Koch brothers
enormous millions upon millions of their dollars going into the election
coffers of Republican candidates.  You argued appropriately MarthaA on
that forum but not enough and your own usual stylized litany, almost
liturgical rhetoric is a handicap.  It is so predictable, I think many just
gloss over your comments and roll their eyes to Truthdig heaven.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 13, 2011 at 9:04 am Link to this comment

Reponse to MarthaA, June 12 10:20pm. Second part

I personally believe Bernie Sanders is the best politician in
Washington.  Weiner was a good voice for liberal concerns, but
he committed hairycarrymeoutoftheHouse.  Good politicians are
an almost extinct species.  I don’t even want to name anyone
beyond Sanders.  Yes, I think also that the Republicans are
attempting to rape the middle income Americans, attempting to
swipe American politics to benefit their own miserable small few. 
Every speech any Republican politician makes carries the exact
same message regardless of a slight shift in vocabulary.  That is to
decimate the liberals who care about middle America where most of
the citizens reside.  Layfayette often rings a rational bell.  His
observation that politics becomes the art of the possible is astute
and is not in the least advocating silencing criticism.  He is
championing a lucid approach, one without so much emotion. 
Which is really what you have asked for in your arguments about
dialectics.

Teaching the public dialectic is like teaching them to eat worms.  Worms
might be full of protein and could be shown to be a good addition to
one’s diet but in this culture it is stigmatically arcane.  Teaching them
about propaganda with a constant stream of simplified information
about how they are being duped is a better and more propitious course. 
KISS theory works!  You are not wrong about positive and negative
balanced dialectic.  But their inclusion in the articulation of the political
scene would fly over ordinary Americans’ head.  Just look at the more
conscious few who people this forum and how it goes over their heads! 
Yes, we have to fight the demonization of the socialistic, read liberal
people-oriented political perspective.  Call it tit-for-tat, reciprocity, or
lex talionis, retaliation politics if you want, it is the dynamic that is
sought not abstruse articulation.  Neutralizing the demonization is the
goal, and elevating the status of the liberal side is also a goal. 
Arguments must become more sophisticated but in tune with what the
average citizen can fathom, take to heart, and feel emotion about them. 
You do know that it is through emotion that the human organism is
motivated to act, don’t you?  The Republicans certainly understand that!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 13, 2011 at 8:04 am Link to this comment

Aye, JXR, I believe anyone involved in a conversation is complicit in
the way it goes whether or not they are tyrannized or not.  One’s
own behavior goes a long way to the quality of the discussion. 
Sometimes it is not a discussion but is one of the following:  a
harangue, a pitch for some idea, a soapbox, a castigation, a
moralization, a censure, a chiding, a preaching, a rebuke, a
reprimand, a sermon, ahem…a lecture, a pontification, or an out
and out food fight where the floor gets messy and only slipping
around is what happens.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 13, 2011 at 7:56 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, June 13 at 6:08 am and Jorge X Rodriguez, June 13
at 6:45 am,

My dialogue on Dialectic is about what constitutes facts and how
they are determined; this is what dialectic is all about.

If you can’t understand it, memorize it like a savant in the hopes that
in time an epiphany will occur and you will achieve understanding; at
least try to get a clue.

Understanding what constitutes Dialectic is really important to the
Left not being over run by the Right.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 13, 2011 at 7:50 am Link to this comment

Ah now!.... I am learning new things, for I have never heard of Toiletist before. Does this mean their is a belief or faith which is called Toletistism?  Awhile back, a poster here on TD named Lucyfir said he did not believe in “isms”, which I found rather interesting, because if he did not believe in them and they existed, how does one decided reality from unreality, especially ones own or that of others?... So I asked him to elaborate but his reply was large field of crickets.

It seems I have learned many varied things from these here posts even learned a few of what I may call bits of wisdom. Most times theses bits of wisdom seem to fall into place like bowling balls falling on me big tow! Probably something like when a skunk (a real skunk not those Washington DC ones)  all of sudden sees a head light, except,... so far,... for me it has turned out much better than the skunks headlight experience. 

Martha A may be a genus in disguise, quite a good disguise I must say. For I am fooled beyond my capability to see the well camouflaged wisdom, hidden between those overbearingly cut and pasted words.

I also happen to still believe in the existence of “isms” unless Lucyfir ever decides to convince me otherwise.

Report this

By Jorge X Rodriguez, June 13, 2011 at 6:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think it’s remarkable that one person, most of whose writing is obscure if not impenetrable, and often insulting and ill-tempered as well, has tyrannized this discussion and many others.  But she/he/it couldn’t have done it without the help of most of the other participants.  If there were a Pulitzer Prize for trolling, surely this instance would be a leading candidate.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 13, 2011 at 6:08 am Link to this comment

Let me make MY apology:
LeeFeller, I’m sorry you are apologizing, mainly for being both funny and rational.

As Jack Benny used to say: “Now cut that out!”

What I’m not sorry for is my intransigence in the face of illogic, sophistry, name-calling topped off with calls for me to be “ashamed”, as if refusal to cave in to irrational rants and ravings is shameful.

When presented with unimpeachable fact and with sound reasoning, I’ve been known to alter my position instantly in the face of a superior argument.  Because unimpeachable facts supported by sound close reasoning is the ONLY argument I recognize as superior.

Tossing out undefined or mis-defined jargon combined into nonsensical combinations (Like saying Fox Noise engages in a “negative dialectic”) is just the kind of bullshit that has no effect on my reasoning or judgement.  It contains neither unimpeachable facts nor sound close reasoning.  It’s more like primal verbal vomitus, and about as pleasant and engaging as the literal stuff.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 13, 2011 at 4:20 am Link to this comment

You put it so eloquently Leefeller!  And more or less (you choose) put
yourself in the proper perspective and show how one ought to react to
political mysticism.  Much obliged.  You know that I for one always
appreciate your atypical and inimitably fresh comments.  Well nearly
always. LOL

drbhelthi is correct MarthaA, you do not owe me an apology, but that is
all he is righr about!  I was not insulted.  You and I, MarthaA, have over
the years have found common ground more often than surprising. 
Some shades of disagreement are to be expected, we are different in
the fine print.  It is how disagreement is handled that determines the
quality of interaction.  I for one do not think anything is advanced with
name calling, unless it is me calling Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, et al
names (I’m just getting started with that list, as all Republicans are on
it!)  They could not care less, and I at least get my disgust off my chest
and besides it is safe on a blog!  See Leefeller I learn from you.  They
and I are not in dialogue like we on forums are.

I often see elements in your views, MarthaA, that I think have merit and
insight. But I read between the bolded lines.  I also find I agree with ITW
almost always as well.  He and others have taken an intolerant stand
against you, which is their reaction to your usual caustic and single
track approach to the same problems.  I think it is detrimental to the
true meaning of dialogic dialectic that you seem to want.  I think that is
a good thing to want.  Your post of June 12, 10:20pm presented an
unusually cogent explanation of what it is your want to discuss.  I am
interested in pursuing it further.

I apologize that I cannot respond to any thorough degree right now! 
Yesterday was a physically hardworking day and used up most of my
energy.  And I’m not ready to say good morning yet and get on with on
such “serious” thinking.  After a cup of coffee and thinking about what
you said…and so forth.

By the way, I am more concerned about the truly dangerous ersatz-
Social Republicans than anything else in politics. 

One more thing.  I think I omitted a couple of positions on the political
spectrum.  From extreme right to left:  Toiletists, Anarchists,
Libertarian, Conservatives, Centrists, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists,
Communists, Toiletists.  Oh my gosh, Toiletists are on both ends!!!  If
I’ve missed any, I’m confident someone will let me know.  Now what is
a Toiletist?  Big guess. It starts with shit and ends with head.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 13, 2011 at 2:50 am Link to this comment

Let me make my public apology here,  for I have not done so for a long time now.  I find apologies roll off my noggin with a limited degree of frequency. Now, I want you to know I don’t give my apologies lightly, the seriousness is in the pudding.

My last apology was in regards to a poster who was rattling on about people who have shot and killed political figures and that most people who shot at Democrats killed them and most who shot at Republicans only wounded them, which may be true,... but now when I think on it,... there is the Gabby Giffords and Abraham Lincoln shootings, which kind of counters my comment proving me wrong.  Any way after his lengthy post and dissertation ... I made one of my Leefeller flippant comments and said; ...“sounds to me like Conservatives are better shots then Liberals”? ...Which apparently insulted the poster and he told me just that. ... So I apologized.

I suppose my flip comment was like when my ex wife used to cook Spam and beans for dinner,...and when I said this taste like Spam and beans again, she seemed so happy and seemed to enjoy the fact that I knew what I was eating for a change,  unlike the time and what I said when she cooked what she called chicken colormeblue.

Well, I think it is high time I apologized to Martha A…. but not just for calling her Martha’s Ass or even saying she was (ITW’s copyright) ...“Bat=shit crazy”!... No, my apologies go much deeper than that.

Please Martha A, accept my apologies, for not posting my most inept heartless denigrating insults and thoughts which I will not post, nor will I ever post them for the concept of insult for insult is not in the bible far as I know, but more importantly is it written on the always smaller print on my Tequila Bottles.

My next post may be on experiences with shame!

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, June 13, 2011 at 1:52 am Link to this comment

Martha Flaminghaus, apologizing for something you did not do seems a bit
extravagant to me. Providing contrary information and comments is not
insulting.

A person´s response demonstrates ones value system and emotional
framework. If one feels insulted, ones internal bias is responsible.

Inducing others to apologize for something they did not do is a form of
manipulation, related with the israeli custom of scapegoating all
persons with contrary opinions.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2011 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 12 at 9:43 pm,

We have been through Propaganda Analysis on this forum and we
know that all propaganda can be reduced down to three words for
Propaganda Analysis, binary emotional rhetoric.

What I am interested in is that what we need to know about
dialectic is that all dialectic can be reduced down to three types: 
Positive, Negative, and Balanced, and that all three types are
constructed by causal process and can be analyzed by way of
dialectic analysis.

If we, the Left, point out negatively balanced and positively
balanced dialectic as inappropriate when it is used, and insist that
only equally positively and negatively balanced dialectic that
avoids bias be used in the media, perhaps we can make a
difference. 

Otherwise, we, the Left, will have to use positive and negative
balanced dialectic to the same degree as the Right to achieve a
balance of power and avoid demonization of the Left by negative
dialectic and glorification of the Right by self serving positive
dialectic.

If I offended you, it was not my intention, but rather the blunt
approach I have grown accustomed to using with people who are
constantly playing ignorant and stupid as a device to present a
false sense of advantage to those who do not know the difference.

Please accept my apology if I have offended you, it was not my
intention.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 12, 2011 at 9:43 pm Link to this comment

Maybe I misspoke and agreed with you too soon.  Sorry MarthaA. 
I am tired.  Too tired to joust with you.  Maybe tomorrow. Tomorrow
is another day. But, my dear, your perception of me is the same as
my perception of you!  I have not shown any emotion about the
problem of Hegelian dialectic. I have no emotional attachments to the
dialectic problem that has infected you. You might relax yourself and
not get so tied up in knots about things that cannot be changed by
anything we say here.  Try not to get into namecalling, it is too
adolescent. Your backwards written cause/effect blurb is uninteresting. 
If mysteriously it cannot be posted in the correct linguistic format, I can’t
get too excited about it.  Write to the webmaster.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2011 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment

Dialectic is the nature of the linguistic structure that enables
negative balance of logic to demonize, positive balance of logic to
glorify, and equal positive and negative balance to avoid bias.

FOX News Network uses the first two types of engineered
linguistic structure that enables negative balance of logic to
demonize the Left, and positive balance of logic to glorify the Right.

FOX News Network cannot be accused, however, of using equal
positive and negative balance to avoid bias.

The dialog is about linguistic structure of dialectic that enables
positive and negative framing, rather than getting up on camera
and singing a song called dialectic, or parroting something that
you may have memorized as a process like a parrot.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2011 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 12 at 7:09 pm,

I keep stating my position over and over again, and you keep
fixating away from my position and centering in on an emotionally
personal position that I have no interest in.

Are you a NEW version of Shenonymous that is unaware
of the past Shenonymous or what???

It would be helpful if you would leave it to me to state my position,
that you do the same, and that we proceed on that basis.

I have no interest in your demonizing hypothesis of what you
state “as to who on this forum is demonizing whom,” I don’t care
one way or the other.

I have went to great length to explain that the dialogue I am
interested in is that of how dialectic is composed, how dialectic is
used, and to shed some light on the darkness of its use, as well
as how dialectic can be balanced to avoid bias, and you keep
trying to make the dialogue emotional and personal——What is
YOUR problem?

No discussion is furthered by making it emotionally charged and
personal, as a contention between opposing parties; this is the
nature of propaganda and sophistry.

If you can dialogue without emotionally charged retributive
contention, we can continue, but if you cannot, so be it; that is
your affair, and I am disappointed that you cannot do so——the
past version of Shenonymous that I was expecting was
more academic and less of an emotional basket case.

Why do you suppose that YOU or anyone else is unable to post
the following statement on Truthdig forum in any other format
other than backwards, so that the computer will not recognize it?
——Otherwise, if posted in Left to Right Format, the computer will
not allow the post.  This is NOT a Game.  Try it.  Need info.  It’s
easy to read from bottom to top:

[  “Effect to cause from leads inexorably
that end the and beginning the
between relationship causal a
establish and, end an, EFFECT an,
beginning a, CAUSE a select to is process the,
language upon based dialectic complex more
establish To”, said previously have I As.]

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 12, 2011 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment

Finally, MarthaA, you have produced!  But I don’t see this as a
revelation.  All of it has been in our liberal consciousness for a
very long time.  And I don’t disagree with anything you said in
your last post! It was a trial to get you to say it though. Goldwater
was just a bit before my involvement in elections, but I do vividly
remember Ronnie.  Gingrich is masterful at gobbledigook rhetoric
and is a sophist extraordinaire who can suddenly change his
position on issues when he sees who is his audience.  His flipflop
on Medicare, Paul Ryan’s budget are just the latest two. 

All that aside, there is something else that has really pissed me off
though for sometime now.  For years the Republicans have been
denigrating the liberals and Democrats as being proponents of
socialism, calling them (us) communists.  Put the word social with
liberal and Democrat and you have the worst evil on earth as they put
it.  Now all of a sudden a new buzz word has appeared umbilically
connected to the Republican nomenclature.  They are now being called
“Social” Conservatives, “Social” Republicans, as if they have found a
whole new character.  The news media let the terms just slip as easy as
silk when talking about the Rightists. I say beware of this appropriation
of the word social.  They are trying to soften their rotten image of being
anti-social, anti-people, anti-intellectual, anti-liberal.  I declare that
much caution needs to be taken and not let the language be corrupted
so that the somnambulistic public does not know who the bad guys
really are.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 12, 2011 at 8:09 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA, June 12 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment

Don’t call me your family names, Inherit The Wind.
**********

It’s not a name, it’s an analysis. “Nit-wit” is an evaluation of logical and rational skills.

“negative dialectic” to describe Fox Noise is more of your pure bullshit tossing around terms that sound impressive, are value laden, but mean NOTHING.  Bullshit.

First off, I’m sure the whores and fascists at Fox would call it “Positive”.  In this context, positive and negative are merely value laden personal opinions and we all know opinions are like assholes—everyone has one and they all stink.

Secondly, NOTHING at Fox Noise even vaguely resembles the give and take of a dialectic.  Dialectic requires at its most fundamental, a diaLOGUE. There is no such thing at FOX.  The closest is when someone leaves (like Glenn Beck) the remaining vultures trash him.  No dialectic there, not positive, negative, up, down, charmed or strange….Oops, that’s quarks..My bad.

Was it Firesign Theater that had as a gag: “Everything you know is wrong!” ?  Yup. Fits here.

“It’s not what she don’t know. It’s what she knows that ain’t so!” (apologies to Will Rogers).

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2011 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment

Don’t call me your family names, Inherit The Wind.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2011 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

Item No. 1:  Demonization of the Left by the Right from the time of
Nixon to the present here in the United States.

Additional Reference:  “Liberal Parents, Radical Children” by Midge
Decter.

Both “Wealth and Poverty” by George Gilder and “Liberal Parents,
Radical Children” by Midge Decter are examples of a dirge of
Right-Wing literature that set a negatively balanced
frame of dialectic for the Left and positively balanced
frame of dialectic for the Right.

As you no doubt know, dialectic can be used for negative balance
to demonize, for positive balance to glorify, and for equal balance
of both positive and negative to avoid bias.

The FOX News Network and the Right-Wing
Media
are examples of institutionalized use of negatively
balanced dialectic to demonize the Left and positively balanced
dialectic to glorify the Right.

I do not find that positively and negatively balanced dialectic to
avoid bias is of much concern to Right-Wing Dialectic on
FOX News Network, the books I have cited as Right-Wing
Publications
that are exemplary of most Right-Wing
Publications, literature and representation of the dialectic of
Right-Wing Fascism
in the Evangelical Christian
Movement
.

As a figurehead of proto Right-Wing dialecticians, how about
Barry Goldwater first, then Ronald Reagan,
Newt Gingrich,  and the whole Supply-Side Trickle
Down Economics Gang of Right-Wing propagandists
that
have been instrumental in destroying the U.S. Economy
and spending the United States into a Star Wars and
Financialized Housing Bubble Hole and Credit Default Swap
Insurance Scams
that the United States may never emerge
from short of bankruptcy; the dialectic of the Right, both positive
and negative that enabled this mess is a wonder of propaganda
to behold that we should rightly be studying for the next 100
years and more in order to avoid such a catastrophe from
happening in the future.

Do you have any preference on where to start? ——there seems
to be a surplus amount to be analyzed.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 12, 2011 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA, June 12 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment

Are you really as brain dead as your post pretends, Inherit The Wind, or is it just an act? ———either way, whether pretense or actual, you make yourself irrelevant, other than as a figure and point of scorn.
*********

Nobody has as much scorn as I have for you and your New Age-like sophist crap.  Your pomposity actually exceeds your ignorance. You wouldn’t last one day in a REAL job where you actually had to produce SOMETHING of VALUE to earn the money you need to buy something to eat.

You remind me of Newt Gingrich, a man who was a Professor of History but doesn’t know the first thing about it, writing invented fantasies instead of fact-based analysis.

It’s also why Shenonymous has already torn away the curtain of your bullshit “Ignore the man behind the curtain” you thunder!  But he’s there, the little fraud claiming to be Oz, The Great and Terrible.

You put the “nit” in “nit-wit”.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 12, 2011 at 7:09 pm Link to this comment

I am not interested in your game of backwards text (it is easy
enough to do but I find it a paltry exercise that pretends to a
point, but doesn’t really further the discussion.

When attempting to avoid the fallacy of false causes, looking for causal
connections is a dicey proposition when claiming effects.  A classic
example, let’s say that a savage believes that beating his drums is the
cause of the sun’s reappearance after an eclipse, even though he can
offer as evidence the fact that every time the drums have been beaten
during an eclipse, the sun as reappeared!  As I said previously, you beg
the question when you assume your conclusion from the premise that
the denizens of this forum use a combination of Hegelian dialectic and
sophism in discussing “serious matters.”  You have made many
accusations but you gloss explicit examples.

I can see that you are attempting to present an analogical argument but
it is becoming fuzzy as to who on this forum is demonizing whom.  If
you want to say that Republicans practice demonizing liberals, I might
agree but would not unless you provided an instance of it, not that I
deny that they do, it is just that you are arguing with tenuous
declarations and accusations and attempt to use logical calisthenics to
prove some esoteric point.  Brownshirtism, or fascism, could be a
legitimate analogy for current practices.  But we have to be careful to
give real instances of its exercise.  If you are accusing those on this
forum of similar expressions I think you need to be extra careful and
show exactly how it is they are not just that they are.

The cause/effect pairing when attempting to understand something or
to ascertain the truth of an observation is not always straight forwardly
causally connected where an effect is apparently caused by some
condition or phenomenon.  Perception is known to be unreliable.  The
word cause is used at times in the sense of necessary conditions and at
other times in the sense of sufficient condition.  If a problem is to be
eliminated, then necessary condition would mean to find a condition
necessary for its existence, then eliminate that condition.  However,
when interested in producing something desirable, then the word cause
is used in the sense of sufficient condition.  So you have to state
whether you want to eliminate something unwanted or produce
something wanted.  It is not clear what you want from the TDers with
respect to the demonizations you claim.


Gracious!  Left of anarchism?  Conservatives, then liberals and left of
communism, nothing.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 12, 2011 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 12 at 11:47 am:
’...anarcissie is more libertarian and leans to the right, but does not seem to be radically right. ...’

Goodness!  What do you find to the left of anarchism and communism?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2011 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 12 at 3:17 pm,

Item No. 1.  Demonization of the Left by the Right from the time of
Nixon to the present here in the United States.

Reference:  “Wealth and Poverty” by George Gilder—This as the
handbook of the Reagan Administration is a good place to start. 

We are not involved in a school project, so the pretense of being
unaware and hiding behind structuralism as a denial of reality will be
taken as an evasion, much as is those who deny the Holocaust.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2011 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 12 at 3:17 pm,

Item No. 1.  Demonization of the Left by the Right from the time of
Nixon to the present here in the United States.

Reference:  “Wealth and Poverty” by George Gilder—This as the
handbook of the Reagan Administration is a good place to start. 

We are not involved in a school project, so the pretense of being
unaware and hiding behind structuralism as a denial of reality will be
taken as an evasion, mush as is those who deny the Holocaust.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 12, 2011 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, reporting from the Right Wing soapsud broiler room, I am surprised and elated to find out that Martha A is not really Bat shit crazy, instead she shows a warped wisdom and an inane profoundness which exceeds that of the most intelligent person I have never met… which some of us may never live to regret,... all one need do is ask! 

If I walked 29 miles in Martha A’s size 45 combat boots, I would never have to worry about her catching up with me in her bear feet.

ITW,... Martha A is having a moment here,... be nice!

By the way… when it comes to bat shit crazy, this comes to mind;... “There is currently a $10,000 reward for the capture of the New Jersey Devil, (not the fat guy in the governors office) a creature with bat-like wings, a horses head, hooves, and large glowing eyes that stalks the pine barrens of New Jersey. Although many have tried, no one has yet to claim the prize.”... I believe we may have a shot at the prize!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2011 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

Try to post the following bracketed backwards text
paragraph forward on Truthdig forum and let me
know what your results are, no need to highlight:

[  “Effect to cause from leads inexorably
that end the and beginning the
between relationship causal a
establish and, end an, EFFECT an,
beginning a
, CAUSE a select to is process the,
language upon based dialectic complex more
establish To”, said previously have I As.]

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment

Referring to your list:
1. In what way has the left been demonized.  It is a sweeping
speculative statement with no examples.  Start with Nixon and
work your way to now.
2. The German demonization of Jews during the WWII era was
broad and considerable, but examples are needed to make your
point.  Just saying Jews were demonized is a claim and an
unsupported statement.  Hegel would be aghast.  Keep emotion
out of it or you commit the same sin as the sophists.
3. Same for Native Peoples, Pro similis causa ut antea civitas.
4. African Americans, Similis causa
5. American Populace of the US, Quod similis ut pro]
I could interpret what you mean but you are short shrifting on your
thesis.  I would never let this pass in my classes.  You must provide
examples.  Touchy feely is only in your mind and gleaning is not a good
method, be specific.  Check things out instead.  The Hegel quote is still
very abstract and can only be seen when applied precisely to what you
are talking about.  Give an example or I am not interested in pursuing
this line of thought further.  Show me that Hegelian Dialectic has been
used in your five examples and I will agree or disagree.  I am not going
to make your case for you.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 12, 2011 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

This style of reasoning which makes and clings to the false presupposition of the absolute separateness of being and non-being is to be named not dialectic but sophistry.
**********

You gotta be fucking kidding me!  If you are dead you don’t exist and are a NON-BEING.  If you are alive you exist and are a BEING.

Any attempt to get around the fundamental truth IS sophist bullshit.  My father is dead. My father-in-law is dead. I will NEVER see either of these two men I loved ever again. I will never laugh with them or listen to their advice.  They don’t exist.

That I remember them, and remember them with love, and remember what they DID say to me doesn’t change the fact that their existence is OVER. DONE. FINISHED.  I may miss them to the end of my days, but all that will follow is the end of MY existence.

They don’t exist, and anyone who says otherwise is either a religious believer or a liar.  Some are both.

Crap. Crap. Crap.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2011 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 12 at 11:47 am,

“In order to judge anyone using Hegelian dialectic, a clear
understanding of what it is needs to be established.  Hence my
explanation.  You claim some truthdiggers resort to a sophistic
use of Hegelian dialectic (logic is assumed), I am not sure what
you mean by Logic of Sophistry.  There is no such thing per se
in the literature of logic, far as I know.  Unless you mean the
intended use of emotional propagandistic argument or more rightly
called lecturing and an intentionally invalid argument displaying
ingenuity in reasoning in the deliberate hope of deceiving someone.
Sophistic argument is deliberately flawed and resorts to fallacies.
I see most of those on Truthdig are on the left side of politics some
harder left than others.  Not including, of course, those who have
admitted to be evangelical Christian conservatives, who are correctly
called Rightists.  ITW has always shown a liberal face, as does Leefeller
in his unique and folksy and sometimes arcane way of criticism.
anarcissie is more libertarian and leans to the right, but does not seem
to be radically right.  She argues clearly and concisely, concisely to a
fault, which is much easier to think about and judge according to one’s
own opinions, informed opinions I would hope.  I am trying to see the
sophistry you are claiming these personalities present.  If you could be
precise and give examples of their sophistry I could see your point
better.  An assessment of sophistry cannot be made without specimens.” Shenonymous, June 12 at 11:47 am

The following is an explanation of why I consider your above post to
be off topic:

My double post of June 11 at 6:59 pm and 6:48 pm gives examples
where dialectic and sophism have been used by existing order both
on a government and political level as follows:

1)  Demonization of the Left by the Right from the time of
    Nixon to the present here in the United States,

2)  German demonization of the Jews during WWII Era in
    Germany,

3)  Demonization of Native Peoples of the Americas from the
    Colonial Era in America to the present,

4)  Demonization of African Americans for purposes of slavery
    and post slavery control, and

5)  Demonization of American Populace of the United States
    for purposes of political control.

I am concerned about the institutionalized use of dialectic and
sophism as it pertains to the existing order of government and
politics.  I have NO INTEREST at all in personal aspects, in the
touchy-feely sense that I gleaned from your post.

The following is a quote from “Science of Logic” by G. W. F. Hegel:

““This style of reasoning which makes and clings to the false
presupposition of the absolute separateness of being and
non-being is to be named not dialectic but sophistry.  For sophistry
is an argument proceeding from a baseless presupposition which
is uncritically and unthinkingly adopted; but we call dialectic the
higher movement of reason in which such seemingly utterly
separate terms pass over into each other spontaneously, through
that which they are, a movement in which the presupposition
sublates itself.  It is the dialectical immanent nature of being and
nothing themselves to manifest their unity, that is, becoming, as
their truth.” —‘Science of Logic’ by G. W. F. Hegel

Again, do you agree or disagree that Hegelian
Dialectic has been used in these examples to
frame linguistics and mold a predetermined
purpose of false proof into the linguistic frame of
the given examples?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 12, 2011 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

(munching on pop-corn)
SLURP!  (big gulp from soda)

Fun to watch the real thing vs the imitation.

She’s presentation was dense, but clear and very understandable.

(back to this movie!)

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 12, 2011 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

In order to judge anyone using Hegelian dialectic, a clear
understanding of what it is needs to be established.  Hence my
explanation.  You claim some truthdiggers resort to a sophistic
use of Hegelian dialectic (logic is assumed), I am not sure what
you mean by Logic of Sophistry.  There is no such thing per se
in the literature of logic, far as I know.  Unless you mean the
intended use of emotional propagandistic argument or more rightly
called lecturing and an intentionally invalid argument displaying
ingenuity in reasoning in the deliberate hope of deceiving someone. 
Sophistic argument is deliberately flawed and resorts to fallacies.
I see most of those on Truthdig are on the left side of politics some
harder left than others.  Not including, of course, those who have
admitted to be evangelical Christian conservatives, who are correctly
called Rightists.  ITW has always shown a liberal face, as does Leefeller
in his unique and folksy and sometimes arcane way of criticism. 
anarcissie is more libertarian and leans to the right, but does not seem
to be radically right.  She argues clearly and concisely, concisely to a
fault, which is much easier to think about and judge according to one’s
own opinions, informed opinions I would hope.  I am trying to see the
sophistry you are claiming these personalities present.  If you could be
precise and give examples of their sophistry I could see your point
better.  An assessment of sophistry cannot be made without specimens.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2011 at 11:22 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 12 at 10:00 am & Shenonymous, June 12 at
9:58 am,

You present a frame for me of guilt or innocence, when guilt or
innocence is not my interest or objective.

My objective at this point is to establish the use or non-use of
Hegelian Dialectic as indicated in my two posts June 11 at 6:59 pm
and June 11 at 6:48 pm.  Do you agree or disagree that Hegelian
Dialectic has been used as indicated in my two posts? — take a
position and we will go from there.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 12, 2011 at 10:30 am Link to this comment

I have been dialoguing with Shenonymous on many
things for many years, Inherit The Wind, and I have found
Shenonymous to be more in agreement from an academic
perspective over the years than disagreement, although the roller
coaster ride to commonality of understanding generally consists of
highs and lows that sometimes stray from the academic
perspective.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 12, 2011 at 10:00 am Link to this comment

Response to MarthaA - 1
Dialectic is a method of argument for resolving any disagreement
that is central to East and West philosophy, since antiquity.  An
ancient Greek word, it was popularized by Plato who used the
technique through the mouth of Socrates and is called the Socratic
method of argumentation.

Borrowing a term from Bakhtin, the method is a dialogic argument
between two or more people holding different opinions about a
subject, who are determined to discover the truth of a matter through
dialogue, with deductive arguments, that is, with the exercise of
philosophical reasoning and there is no restriction of time in finding
it.  Whatever it takes to realize the truth is however long it takes.
There is no closing of the door.

Also not a debate form, in dialectic no one is committed to a particular
rationalized belief with the goal of winning by convincing one opponent
beliefs are incorrect.  In dialectic, the truth is the goal and it could be
that one’s position is found to be faulty.  Rhetoric is avoided because
of its use of debate or discourse, which is a preshaped formalized way
of thinking having limits of what is possible truth.  Emotional appeal
must also be resisted, as well as attention paid to the mood of listeners
or readers.  These devices are useful to the sophist who thinks he is
building excellence in his hearers, but in actuality he is merely using
persuasive or emotive language as a tool to manipulate the thoughts of
those who listen to him.  The Socratic Dialectic stands in opposition to
Sophistic Rhetoric.  Hegelian dialectic as formalized into the three
stages thesis, antithesis, and synthesis although (TAS) was not really
used by Hegel, he accredited it to Kant and Fichte.  He did use abstract/
negative/concrete as terms as well as immediate/mediated/concrete.
Hegel’s method was to put implicit contradictions out in the open then
proceeding from that point.  All of history He thought was one dialectic
exercise.  There is an element of subjectivity that is criticized in
Hegelian dialogue.  If a selection of an antithetical point is made that is
not the logical negation of a thesis, there is no clean way to generate a
synthesis.  One cannot simply select an antithesis to the selective
purpose of a user’s subjectivity as the result would be rhetorical
contradictions, not logical and any synthesis would not be defensible
against a plethora of other possible mergings, or syntheses.  Hegel
believed contradictions or negations are inherent or innate to things.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 12, 2011 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

Response to MarthaA - 2
Marx was diametrically opposed to Hegel who said his own dialectic
process uses the ideal is nothing but a form of thought, where Hegel
claimed the process of thinking was The Idea, where independent
subjects is a demiurge that sustains the notion of a supernatural artisan
(god(s)) responsible for creating the physical universe.  Marxist
dialectics combined two main ideas, surplus value and the materialistic
notion of history and is explained in Das Kapital.  Class struggle is the
central antithetical problem that is to be resolved with Marxists
dialectics because of its importance in both the social and political
nature of the society.  Understanding the contradictions between mental
and manual work underscores class struggle. 

Which form of dialectic one uses will determine how propaganda is
usable.  It is a skill that can use sophistic or emotionally persuasive
language to excite the normally sleeping minds of the masses.  Yes, it
can be used as a framework for an intentional program of mass
“brainwashing.” But that is all it is.  A framework.  Which is not to
minimize its usefulness. 

Using historical circumstances as illustrations of particular points of
view is counterproductive if the thesis is already accepted as the truth. 
It depends on where one stands as to the truth value of conclusions. 
You have to argue for the conclusions and that is not what you have
done.  You merely report what you think has been done.  Make your
argument and then we can give rational argument for or against it.  If
there is argument against it then some synthesis might be possible. 
Otherwise it is just another, albeit esoteric, exercise in idiosyncratic
opinion which has no more weight than any other’s.

I don’t know if you are right or wrong in your accusation about the
United States’ responsibility of troubles in the world.  It seems much
more complex than what you have abbreviated.  Nothing exists alone in
the world, if the United States is responsible then it is because others
have been complicit.  But you do not explain well enough exactly how
the US is responsible, nor how what goes on in the world is a web of
many factors and actions of other nations.  Interestingly enough you
seem to allow too much emotion to prevent you from presenting clearly
and concisely.  Concision is the key to getting others to understanding
intricate political situations with any significant depth.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 12, 2011 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

MarthaA:
You have me confused with someone who gives a shit about your opinion of me or anything.

However, I wait with eager anticipation Shenonymous’s inevitable dismembering of every aspect of your nonsense arguments and revealing them for what they are.  She is much better at digging into that abstract and separating the rational from the sophist than I am.

I live in the real world.  If I hit a 16d nail with a 20oz hammer it goes into a stud or a joist in 3 to 6 blows—it doesn’t turn into a butterfly or an owl.
Likewise, existence is existence and the ability to recognize that you exist is the OBVIOUS difference from non-existence.  Even my dog knows he’s alive and exists.

I think I’ll make some popcorn to watch you be taught a lesson in linguistics, logic and how to tell meat from bullshit.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 11, 2011 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment

For you, Anarcissie, as one of the Right-Wing Boiler
Room inhabitants
, I can understand why you and
Leefeller are supportive of other members of the
Right-Wing Boiler Room Operation, but other than that,
what is the meaning of what you have to say to those who are not a
part of the Boiler Room, and do not advocate the agenda of the
Boiler Room Operation? ———NOTHING!!!!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 11, 2011 at 7:53 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, I have initiated a dialogue with
Shenonymous, who, as I understand, teaches Critical
Thinking in college, and in the past has been able to comprehend
different topics on Truthdig forum that almost everyone else
claimed convenient ignorance of.

I am not good at explaining things to the slow, the dull, and the
dimwitted, whether it is actual or convenient ignorance that is
claimed, as with the ignorance the Boiler Room inhabitants are
manifesting with regard to the Logic of x=x sublation and sophism.

Perhaps you and the rest of the Boiler Room inhabitants can pull
yourselves away from sophist propaganda long enough to
participate in constructive dialogue, or not; either way, the greater
audience will be able to decide for themselves what the relative
value of Boiler Room participation in the up coming dialogue
amounts to, and decide for themselves whether or not your
shameful behavior is from a shameless sociopathic sophist
propagandistic origin, one of ignorance, or of convenience.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 11, 2011 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 9 at 10:19 am,

“Logic is just a system to establish truth value
and premises can be outside of the realm of truth. 
If looking for truth, the premises
must all be true to see if any argument is consistent. 
That is all logic is good for.  But there
are several kinds of logical patterns that
unsuspecting thinkers might not see through the
fallacies that might be couched in the premises.  I
won’t go through all the patterns, but a couple
are Modus Tollens, Modus Ponens, DeMorgan’s
Theorums.  I suggest a primer on logic would
give anyone a taste and observation of the way
we think logically in an organized way.”

Shenonymous, June 9 at 10:19 am


Page 1 of 2

I am not at all interested in esoteric dialogue on the diversity of
abstruse forms of logic as a cumulative cover that can be, has
been, and continues to be used to obfuscate the practical
application of Hegelian Logic as it has been applied and used for
propaganda in the United States from the time of the origin of the
United States as a nation to the present, and continues at present
into the future.

I am interested in the form, structure, application, and use of
Hegelian Logic in dialectic and the Logic of Sophistry as defined by
G. W. F. Hegel in his book, ‘Science of Logic,’ and the process by
which that same Hegelian Logic has been used in dialectic and
sophistry by the established linguistic frame of the Political RIGHT
and the REPUBLICAN PARTY to demonize the Political Left and
Liberals in the United States, from the time of Nixon to the
present, how that same linguistic frame of Hegelian Logic has
been and continues to be used in dialectic and sophistry by the
linguistic framework of the Political RIGHT and the REPUBLICAN
PARTY in the construction, application, and dissemination of
propagandistic dialectic and sophistry in the United States in
pursuit and maintenance of political control, how that same
Hegelian Logic was used in propagandistic dialectic and sophistry
during World War II in Nazi Germany, how that same Hegelian
Logic and Sophistry was used to demonize Native Peoples in the
United States, how that same Hegelian Logic and Sophistry was
used to demonize and enable slavery and post slavery
demonization of African Americans, the overall use of Hegelian
Logic and Sophistry in American linguistics as a propagandistic
frame for the past 235 years and how that same Hegelian Logic
and Sophistry is currently used as a propagandistic frame in
dialectic and sophistry in the United States, and will continue to be
used as a logical frame as a denial of the use of Hegelian Logic
and Sophistry in American Linguistics in the past, the present, and
the future.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 11, 2011 at 6:48 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 9 at 10:19 am,

Hegelian Logic and Sophistry Dialectic (cont.)
Page 2 of 2

With regard to logic, I define logic, for the purposes of this
dialogue in Hegelian Terms of x=x sublation.

With regard to sophistry and dialectic, I also define both in
Hegelian Terms as follows:

“This style of reasoning which makes and clings to the false
presupposition of the absolute separateness of being and
non-being is to be named not dialectic but sophistry.  For sophistry
is an argument proceeding from a baseless presupposition which
is uncritically and unthinkingly adopted; but we call dialectic the
higher movement of reason in which such seemingly utterly
separate terms pass over into each other spontaneously, through
that which they are, a movement in which the presupposition
sublates itself.  It is the dialectical immanent nature of being and
nothing themselves to manifest their unity, that is, becoming, as
their truth.”
—‘Science of Logic’ by G. W. F. Hegel

The processes of dialectic and sophistry as defined by Hegel that
have been, are being, and will continue to be used in both the
United States and the World, and are in great part responsible for
our present difficulties in the United States and the World have
been responsible for past difficulties in the United States and the
World and will continue to be responsible to ever increasingly
greater and greater problems in the United States and the World,
if we do not bring the use of Hegelian Logic in dialectic and
sophistry out into the clear light of day, so that people are less
inclined to be led by linguistic use of Hegelian Logic in dialectic and
sophistry as a function of a lack of awareness.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 9, 2011 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

Traveling and having a spectacular time.  Just thought I’d let you all
know! LOL Checking in now and then to see the progress.  What a
hoot!  There is none!

As you well know, MarthaA, sophists use rhetoric as a means of deceit,
where cause and effect thinking shows what causes actions and why
they cause actions hence the reason for the effects.  Effects are not
apparent but are based in facts appropriate to causes. 

Thinking methods can essentially be classified into four types.
Two-dimensional thinking, three-dimensional-thinking, symmetrical
thinking, and triplet thinking.  Two-dimensional thinking enables
one only to observe the sides of a thing, three-dimensional-thinking
enables observing the whole form of a thing.  If you can imagine a cube
having length, width, and depth, then imagine a square with four sides
you can easily see the distinctions between the two kinds of thinking.  I
will not go into symmetrical or triplet thinking here.  Usually when one
tries to just observe a thing two-dimensional thinking is the usual
mode.  When understanding and insight is desired, three-dimensional
thinking is employed.  It is not so easy however to three-dimensionally
think.  That is why so much thinking is only from one side or one point
of view, and why there are biases.  Does that help?  How they apply to
sophists or cause and effectists you will have to do your own work.

Speaking from experience, both youngsters as well as adults. students
do need discipline when in class because they tend to fool around too
much.  Adults much less because either they are there in a free of cost
capacity to improved themselves or they are paying for it.  But it is
hardly authoritarian unless all expectations in a learning situation is
claimed!  Which is ridiculous and really doesn’t need much discussion.

Logic is just a system to establish truth value and premises can be
outside of the realm of truth.  If looking for truth, the premises must
all be true to see if any argument is consistent.  That is all logic is good
for.  But there are several kinds of logical patterns that unsuspecting
thinkers might not see through the fallacies that might be couched in
the premises.  I won’t go through all the patterns, but a couple are
Modus Tollens, Modus Ponens, DeMorgan’s Theorums.  I suggest a
primer on logic would give anyone a taste and observation of the way
we think logically in an organized way.

Charlie Chaplin may have thought Hitler was funny because of his
gestural and melodramatic delivery of his message to the German
masses, which if one would care to make a study of it, the masses
love spectacle.  But I highly doubt Chaplin though Hitler’s message
was funny.  It is also well-known in psychological circles that to make
fun of a horror euphemizes it and allows real criticism to be able to
assault the citadel of misery.

No Wikipedia is not itself an authority but its reports gives notations,
references, and most often bibliographies as well as other links on
the topics presented.  I wouldn’t discount it as a quick and veritable
resource but one does have to be responsible enough to check out
the references.  Problem is too many are too lazy.

I have never seen a Republican who expressed shame for any of their
deplorable intentions and acts.  But then I have not lived long enough
nor experienced the entire world.  C’est la vie?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 9, 2011 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

MarthaA, June 8 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment

I can understand why you, Inherit The
Wind, as one who is shameless, would NOT
see what there is to be ashamed of, and that is
shameful in and of itself.

You should be ashamed of yourself.
**********

That, dear lady, is a tautology.  Yet another fine example of your incapability of using or understanding logic.

I should be ashamed of myself because I don’t see any reason to be ashamed of myself?
ROFLMAO!!!!

That’s just bat-shit crazy stupid! It makes no sense whatsoever.

But it’s hilarious.  Think Robin Williams could put it in his act?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 9, 2011 at 7:17 am Link to this comment

The act of shame may only be a human trait, rocks and Republicans may be capable of shame, but I am dubious. Shame would usually follow the feeling of regret from knowingly doing something naughty, then getting caught and suddenly having remorse for the act in all its naughtiness!

For instance, Congressman Weiner may have been naughty in lying for a whole week about his actions regarding his wienie or was it his uncontrollable desire to photograph his weiner then his sending the Weiner photos to various young women of unquestionable natures around the country, which was the real naughtiness?  The question seems to be should Weiner be ashamed for promoting his wiener or should he be ashamed for lying? Obviously Weiner was shameless until he was called on his escapades?

Once again we see Martha A’s clearly deficient mental resources going to bat,... here again the usual lack of reason and the ever extensive demented perceptions.  Martha’s cycle of things seems to work with the moon. So this point in time she happens to be demanding ITW be ashamed of himself. Facts would show,.... it is really Martha who should be ashamed, just by her constantly insulting everyone and their intelligence with her constant bullying and boorish prattle, seemingly shamelessly done much as a Conservative Republican.

Martha sounds like the scurvy ridden sailor,  who refuses to eat oranges then demands oranges be ashamed of themselves for causing her scurvy and her bat=shit rantings!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 9, 2011 at 6:26 am Link to this comment

Besides, or as part of, trolling, spamming, ranting, and gaming, there is a surprising amount of moralizing and shaming on the Net.  The latter are a further dimension of the pathology the former exhibit.  Someone with a taste for dredging sludge should look into it and diagnose it.  But not me.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 8, 2011 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment

I can understand why you, Inherit The
Wind
, as one who is shameless, would NOT
see what there is to be ashamed of, and that is
shameful in and of itself.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 8, 2011 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA:
Stick a sock in it.
Wikipedia is not an authority on what Chaplin was thinking.  His autobiography is.  I have read it.

You continue to confuse your delusional fantasies with verifiable facts.


I have no idea what you think I should be ashamed of, for there is no shame in laying out that what you spout is pure bullshit.

However, I said it before: Your definition of “fascist” is anyone who disagrees with you.  Funny, that’s CLOSE to my definition of fascist:  Someone who viciously attacks and slanders anyone who disagrees with her.

I have nothing to be ashamed of.  You, however, do.  Of gross dishonesty.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 8, 2011 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment

“He says almost EXACTLY what Anarcissie says. He found it hilarious
that Hitler seemed to be mimicking his “Little Tramp” who had been
around before either Hitler OR Mussolini came to power.” —Inherit
The Wind, June 8 at 12:59 pm

You, Inherit The Wind, are talking about a personal attitude of
Charlie Chaplin that expresses his own personal humor that Hitler was a
caricature of his character the “Little Tramp;”—Again, this is
denigration of Adolph Hitler and is in NO WAY casting an antic
disposition
upon the reprehensible acts and deeds of Hitleresque
Fascism and the Holocaust, and it is ludicrous for YOU to claim
otherwise.

Didn’t you read the Wikipedia article?  Apparently NOT, so I will repost
the Wiki info:

“At the time of [Charlie Chaplin’s film, “The Great Dictator’s”] first
release, the United States was still formally at peace with Nazi Germany.
Chaplin’s film advanced a stirring, controversial
condemnation of Hitler, fascism, antisemitism, and the Nazis,
the latter of whom he excoriates in the film as “machine men, with
machine minds and machine hearts”.” —Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator

Again, YOU should be ashamed of yourself.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment

Zombie:
  1 part white rum
  1 part golden rum
  1 part dark rum
  1 part apricot brandy
  1 part pineapple juice
  1 part papaya juice
  ½ part 151-proof rum
  Dash of grenadine or other syrup

Preparation   Mix ingredients other than the 151 in a shaker with ice. Pour into glass and top with the high-proof rum.

Drink more than two of those and you’ll be one!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 8, 2011 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

At a certain point you have to stop worrying about it.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 8, 2011 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment

Bat-shit crazy!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 8, 2011 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment

YOU, Anarcissie say that Charlie Chaplin thought that
Hitler was funny, and this is YOUR distorted representation of “The Great Dictator,” a motion picture ridiculing Adolph Hitler by means of wit, satire, sarcasm, irony, farce, slapstick, buffoonery, parody, and mimicry—like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

***********

I should no longer be amazed at how may ways you find to make a fool of yourself by citing easily contradicted facts.

We don’t have to guess what Charlie Chaplin thought of Hitler and why he made The Great Dictator.  He TELLS us in his autobiography.  And, guess what?  He says almost EXACTLY what Anarcissie says. He found it hilarious that Hitler seemed to be mimicking his “Little Tramp” who had been around before either Hitler OR Mussolini came to power.

Living in such a fantasy world as you do, that’s what bat-shit crazy is.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 8, 2011 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

“Was Hitler funny?  Charlie Chaplin thought so.  End of
story.”—Anarcissie, June 8 at 6:49 am

“At the time of [Charlie Chaplin’s film, “The Great Dictator’s”] first
release, the United States was still formally at peace with Nazi
Germany. Chaplin’s film advanced a stirring, controversial
condemnation of Hitler, fascism, antisemitism, and the Nazis
,
the latter of whom he excoriates in the film as “machine men, with
machine minds and machine hearts”.” —Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator

YOU, Anarcissie say that Charlie Chaplin thought that
Hitler was funny, and this is YOUR distorted representation of “The
Great Dictator,” a motion picture ridiculing Adolph Hitler by means
of wit, satire, sarcasm, irony, farce, slapstick, buffoonery, parody,
and mimicry—like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

For you to claim that ridicule, to diminish and denigrate Adolph
Hitler’s behavior, is humor on the same level as using humor to
cast an antic disposition upon the reprehensible acts and
deeds of Hitleresque Fascism and the Holocaust
is a ludicrous
claim; YOU KNOW IT, and to do so is shameful and you should be
ashamed of yourself for doing so, but I know that you are not.

To cast an antic disposition upon serious injustice is the
first step toward making that injustice acceptable
behavior, and for YOUR role and participation in trying to cast
serious injustice into a role of antic disposition, YOU, and
ALL who do so, should be PROFOUNDLY ASHAMED.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 8, 2011 at 11:12 am Link to this comment

As I have explained previously to Inherit The Wind, humor
as satire, sarcasm, and irony is different than casting serious
matters into a frame of “antic disposition” as Shakespeare
notes in “Hamlet:”

http://erichmusick.com/writings/03/antic_disposition.html

Inherit the Wind has cast Hitleresque Fascism and its
attributes into an “antic disposition” that enables the
treatment of serious matters as matters of “antic disposition;”
this type of behavior is reprehensible and shameful on MANY
LEVELS and is even more so for one who claims to be a Jew.

Inherit The Wind’s “antic disposition” diminishes
Hitleresque Fascism and the causal consequences of the
Holocaust.  In this regard Inherit The Wind should be
ashamed of his/her self, but I know that she/he is not.

In no way am I suggesting any kind of an equivalence between
the antic disposition of Shakespeare’s character Hamlet
and Inherit The Wind.

In Shakespeare’s, “Hamlet,” the character Hamlet did NOT want
an “antic disposition” put on his pretended madness, and
on this Truthdig forum, I do NOT want an “antic disposition”
put upon Hitleresque Fascism and the Holocaust by
Inherit The Wind or anyone else.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 8, 2011 at 10:30 am Link to this comment

Thanks Anarcessie, I also need to reread it again, yes after reflection, he did seem to ignore the left sides abuses, boy having a blind cause must make life so damn easy for those inclined to relish in blind causes!

Hey ITW,... It seems a bit on the heartless side to call another person…  bat-shit crazy!... Just because they seem, sound and clearly appear doltish, deluded, divisive, denigrating, dumb and downright dense, dim and dull, maybe even a bit on the prancing dimwit side,... after very little forethought and even some second thought, bat-shit crazy does seem to have a bit of merit and a clairvoyant justified substance to it,... so bat-shit crazy it is!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 8, 2011 at 9:18 am Link to this comment

Leefeller—I tried the zombie article again, since you like it so much.  It still seems like a muddled rant to me.  Zombies, for instance, are not an image of the elite or the capitalist class but of the poor, the destitute, the Third World, risen from the dead and bent on vengeance (devouring the living) because they have been deprived of life.  Remember Night of the Living Dead?  Where to the living hole up?  In a supermarket.

Maybe I gave up too soon, but as far as I read the author (Giroux) seems to ignore leftish (‘progressive’) and middle-of-the-road authoritarianism.  That seems like a pretty major omission—there’s plenty of it.  Try dissenting from global-warming theology in certain quarters.

Finally, in regard to the case described by the article here, it is true that recording what teachers teach and punishing them for wrongthink is authoritarian.  But the education industry as a whole is already authoritarian.  Students who indulge in wrongthink may be given bad grades and not get the piece of paper—the credential—they need to move on to their first crap job after graduation, so they can start paying their monumental debts.  If some person, not a part of an authority system, ranted to someone else on the street or at a cocktail party in favor of unions or communism, no one would care.  It’s the authoritarian context which gets people excited.  At least, it was in this instance.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 8, 2011 at 9:06 am Link to this comment

To All Who Post on this Thread:

Inquiring minds really do want, and have a need to know from
someone, any responsible party, how it is that posters on this
blog can make a claim to any kind of authority to make posts on
this Truthdig forum, when, at the same time, they claim to be
equivalent to the intellectual capacity of a gate post, with regard
to understanding of linguistics based upon sophist definition, as
opposed to linguistics based upon logic???

Throwing away logic and then claiming to know something seems
to me to be antithetic.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 8, 2011 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

“There’s no understanding or rational thought there.”

Revelations be awakened . this would be the short version on reality of fruitcake mental manifestations. Always out of context, used with repeated samo samo recitations for as long as the stomach turns and the cut and paste key works.

Anarcissie, since I found “Zombie Politics, Democracy, and the Threat of Authoritarianism - Part I”,..most enlightening and not at all fuzzy, (zombies were a bit of a stretch), but the jist was there.  I look at it like differences in ones preference for Tequila and how far one will go before the tongue becomes fuzzy and stopping when they can no longer feel their hair?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 8, 2011 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

I don’t bother with material unless it’s either entertaining or instructive.  Or very short.  Was Hitler funny?  Charlie Chaplin thought so.  End of story.

Truthdig, like the rest of the Net, is full of people who are ranting, gaming, trolling and spamming.  It’s a curious phenomenon and a disquieting one, but I leave dredging through the morass to professional students of social pathology.  A person should get paid for reading it.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 8, 2011 at 5:42 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, June 7 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA—It is said that we laugh so that we will not cry.  Speaking of which, have you ever seen Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator?
***********

Anarcissie, I brought that up but bat-shit crazy MarthaA who thinks anyone who challenges her is a fascist used that as “proof” I find the Nazis and Hitler funny and not worth taking seriously.

But MarthaA is deep and solemn and sees anyone who jokes about evil as evil themselves for..“not taking it seriously”.  This is, of course, pompous bullshit.
As you said, we joke about what we fear—whistling past a graveyard as it were.

Obviously she would put Chaplin in the same boat, making fun of Hitler.

Read her posts, without vomiting, if you can.

I spent many years in historical research on the period before the Nazi rise to power and on their dictatorship, so my factual knowledge of National Socialism versus Italian Fascism is far greater than MarthaA’s, which is about as accurate as Sarah Palin’s recent remarks on Paul Revere.

Meanwhile, MarthaA teams up with the “Dr” who has revealed that HE is a Holocaust Denier…so what do you make of that.

There’s no understanding or rational thought there.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 7, 2011 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA—It is said that we laugh so that we will not cry.  Speaking of which, have you ever seen Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 7, 2011 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, June 7 at 5:29 pm,

Fascism is an exciting subject for Inherit The Wind, because
to Inherit The Wind, the extermination of Jews by
Hitleresque Fascists is humorous, and a good laugh from the
extermination of Jews is always exciting for Inherit The Wind.

Just ask Inherit The Wind, she/he will tell you all about what
humor there is in the Nazi Fascist Holocaust as she/he recently did
with me.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 7, 2011 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

And, exactly what does Inherit The Wind’s post mean, as a
self described Jew that thinks Hitleresque dialectic and sophism that
enabled the Holocaust is funny———NOTHING.

It is more likely that Inherit The Wind is Bat-Shit Crazy,
because she/he would have to be, to think Right-Wing Fascists of
the Third Reich
exterminating Jewish citizens is a topic of humor.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 7, 2011 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment

So what, though?  Why is it such an exciting subject?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 7, 2011 at 7:06 am Link to this comment

All this leads to the obvious conclusion:
MarthaA’s definition of Fascist:

ANYONE who disagrees with MarthaA or challenges her bat-shit crazy fantasies and jaberwocky phraseology is clearly a Fascist.

Anybody notice the oxymoron here?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 6, 2011 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

“As a strange bit of reality, I am finding my self reluctantly in
sympathy for Adolf,...” —Leefeller, June 6 at 9:41 am

Thank you for your verification of my past assertion that you were
Hitleresque during your time as a minion for OzarkMichael,
and that to the present you are still in sympathy with Adolph
Hitler
; YOUR confession does not leave much to the imagination.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 6, 2011 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

Since you teach Critical Thinking in college, Shenonymous,
perhaps you can be more effective at explaining the difference
between three dimensional thinking and linguistics that uses
sophism as a fourth linguistic dimension, and three dimensional
thinking and linguistics that uses “cause and effect” as a fourth
linguistic dimension, to the people here on Truthdig forum that are
pretending to be blockheads; in my estimation, as a strategy to
avoid dialogue that will endanger linguistic sophistry as a
legitimate mode of dialogue.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 6, 2011 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment

“what I perceive as the real, ...real reality!”—Leefeller, June 6 at
7:48 am

YOUR perception is the problem, Leefeller, because YOUR
perception of an immense globe made out of ping pong balls the size
of a planet would be of one ping pong ball, a single small ping pong ball,
to the exclusion of the planet of ping pong balls
as a whole; this is the
difference, Leefeller, between structural perception and
gestalt causal perception———I do not expect you to understand,
but others will, and chuckle at your lack of awareness, and if you are
playing stupid as a device, you will diminish your own esteem from
others using this Truthdig forum by your pretense.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 6, 2011 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

Since I have not read Martha A’s version of Adolf Hitler’s” Moms Keeloaf” (nor do I intend to)  I have little knowledge in the concepts of Fascism, in fact so little, I will take my one percent of the common majority to correctly make it 69 percent just to spite gods will and Martha’s stupidity and her prominence as the house idiot on everything.

As a strange bit of reality, I am finding my self reluctantly in sympathy for Adolf,... I suspect it has something to do with the connection of gods will and the goofy moronic interpretations promoted as gospel by Adolf’s number one deluded Adolf fan?

If one set aside Martha’s fetish’s for Adolf and gave them a worthy spanking,...we would find ourselves in a vast field of crickets?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 6, 2011 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

There has been a lot of talk on this Truthdig
thread about the horrors of Fascism being
diminished and being made into a humorous
caricature by way of dialogue about Fascism and
repetitive mention of its horrors.

As with anything else, Fascism and Fascists come
in all shades, varieties, and degrees, both in
individual aspect, and as movement leaders and
followers.

Individual Fascists who are not connected with a
movement and are both trying and using the
enforcement of God’s Will for their own individual
greedy benefit are less dangerous than
“movement leaders” and “movement followers”
who are centered upon control of National Policy
on a level of both domestic and foreign affairs.

The individual Fascist acting out of desire for
greedy benefit as a foolish figure of transparency
that is not taken seriously, does not rise to the
level of danger to the overall public welfare of
the nation, as the Movement Fascists as leaders
and followers in organized movement activity
centered upon control of National
Policy on a level of both domestic and foreign
affairs.

The problem with Fascism in the United States is
not foolish individual figures of Fascism as
isolated individuals; the problem with Fascism in
the United States is Organized Fascism
on a “movement level,” organized by the
REPUBLICAN PARTY in combination with Private
Corporate Interests and led by the REPUBLICAN
PARTY to achieve the political aims of Private
Corporate Interests with followers that are both
members and supporters of the REPUBLICAN
PARTY that have an agenda of both
State by State and National control
of the Government of the United States
and
resulting control of domestic and foreign policy of
the United States; this is a serious problem
that rises to the level of Hitleresque Fascism

and is NOT COMPARABLE in any way to isolated
instances of self serving Fascism from individual
greed that are so transparent that they are
often funny in a sick sort of a way.

It bothers me greatly to hear people saying that
it delegitimizes the perception of Fascism to have
a broad base of dialogue with regard to Fascism
that reflects differing levels of knowledge,
awareness, and comprehension in the general
population.  I do not see this as a process that in
any way diminishes the harmful effects or
perception of Organized Movement
Fascism

I see this dialogue as an opportunity, rather than
a threat; an opportunity to broaden the base of
knowledge, awareness, and comprehension of
what Fascism is, how Fascism has been used in
the past, how Fascism is used in the present,
and how Fascism will be used in the future, so
that all who would otherwise seek a false sense
of advantage in sophism and demagoguery
promoting Fascism as a Nationalistic solution to
perceived political problems of the United States,
both foreign and domestic, will be known for the
Hitleresque and McCarthyistic demagogues that
they are, and be dealt with accordingly.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 6, 2011 at 7:48 am Link to this comment

Martha’s A’s comments go way back to the dark ages here on Truth Dig, even though I try very hard never to notice!... Well it seems we have solved the Fascistic and the new Authoritarianisms scheme of things and now the bonding of Humpty Dumpty the antagonistic fence sitting and the atheistic done and gone to satins comforting embrace crowd. .....  So now with copious amounts of relish there is the much newer and bigger controversies rising with every new day, and today the most posing of these is the most looming question of all… is that Weaner’s… weaner?

From what I understand all the kings men and all the kings horses are trying to find the answer to this most important question. A major question of such significance has untrenched the entrenched urinals of live News. Not since Russ Limbaugh reportedly had a seamy affair with a blowing ball has the news been so insignificant.  Historians have said repeatedly it is News which defies reality and actually develops history as we must get to know it.

Now what does Weaner and his dilemma have to do with Martha’s A’ss?... I really have little reason to doubt these two corresponding events have importance in the grand scheme of things. Simply because both seem to have similar status in the art of digress and insignificance in what I perceive as the real, ...real reality!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 6, 2011 at 4:19 am Link to this comment

Back on the road again, and Good Morning Truthdippers!

Yes, anarcissie, it is the goosie/gander dyad, What’s good for the theist is
good for the atheist.  I completely agree about the newborns seeking patterns. 
I think the activity of pattern is innate and looking for patterns lasts through
life.  Actually I found myself conscious of doing that at a young age of about
nine when I noticed isomorphic objects and their utter similarity in surface
shape and color but were totally unrelated in function and other physical ways.
It struck a deep and stunniing impression on me and thenceforth I found
myself seeking and seeing patterns as a habit. I didn’t use the word
isomorphism at that time, I learned about it later in college.  I wonder if that
resembling process can account for creating gods to look like men then saying
men were created in the god(s) image (except for Horus of courus, Ganesha,
and Midsummer Night’s Bottom (course Donkeyhaed Bottom is not a god, or is
he?). 

The really real is always baffling.  Also in college, the “really real” was always a
big joke in our philosophy classes.  But how do we determine reality from
the appearance of reality?  Between what appears to be true and truth?  For us
to intuit truth we need to be more than emotional or reactive beings.  We have
to be rational and able to weigh options for their relative veracity.  We also
have to seek those options for it is rare that truth is on the surface of our
search for reality.  Plato’s Allegory of the Cave gives the paradigm of the
fraternal twins Reality and Appearance and the problems that travel along our
questing trajectory through life.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 6, 2011 at 1:17 am Link to this comment

When I was born, I was not born as an atheist, I believed in Santa Claus from the day I was born, until my 20th birthday, the day my parents told me Santa Claus did not exist. Needless to say my 20th birthday really sucked, but I know my parents were wrong, because I know Santa really exists because no one has proved to me Santa does not exist, and I chalk up the lumps of coal in my stocking to just one of those things those sneaky Republicans like to do.

Tequila!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 5, 2011 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment

Yes, I don’t think we are at cross-purposes, ITW.  We are working our way
through the maze of beliefs not unlike what humans have been wrestling with
for however long we have thought about such matters.

To say it is fear, though, that drives people to religion is too simplistic for
modern humankind.  Maybe that was what it was in primitive times when
religions had their origins in the tales of the talisman or shaman’s reasonings. 
And the emotion tagged along through history.  And maybe the perception of
how psychologically powerful it was did give those who could clue into it the
edge to take advantage of the mindless masses primitive as much as they
were.  As man developed consciousness and the ability to think things through
and demanded evidence for beliefs, there was reason for religion to dwindle in
importance and disappear. 

But that is not what happened.  Humans enlarged and diversified their
religions and all manner of unique differences evolved depending on what was
important to a culture at the time of structuring their particular religion and
we have hundreds of religons today.  So we have to get beyond the fear factor. 
Religions became badges of honor with regalia that dazzled the most
provincial mind, and they were useful through their power to influence the
minds of the people in controlling the social structure that set up the political
and economic classes. We only have to think of the Ancients, Egyptians,
Greeks, Romans, in their ostentation dress, even Buddhists had their outward
rituals, godless as they were.  Then a look at all the opulent dressings of the
Catholics, look at the magnificent architecture throughout the ages that
edified religions and there we have the spectacle for the awestruck. Pride is
not missing from religion.  All this is conjecture here, but there is a great deal
of anthropological (science) and philosophical (metaphysics) scholarship on
the psychological nature of religions.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 5, 2011 at 5:39 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous—I guess my question was a rhetorical device for saying that people are not born atheists, although it didn’t occur to me as that.  Now that I think about it, being born an atheist would be a lot of work.  First you’d have to construct the idea of a god or gods—and what a circus humans have made out of that project!—and then decide not to believe in any of them.  All before exiting the womb!

But of course they aren’t born believers either.  What I think they are born with is a strong urge to recognize patterns and to intuit large systems from partial and sometimes erroneous data.  So, when it comes to the question of life, the universe and everything, the pattern-making mechanism, although it has very little to go with, constructs beings to fill the void.

Atheism doesn’t seem like a very satisfactory or likely outcome of this process, but since we know so little about what’s really real, I think people should go with whatever comports with their experience and makes them happy, and if it’s atheism, so be it.  As the prophet Zimmerman saith, ‘I never asked for your crutch. Now don’t ask for mine.’

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 5, 2011 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

Well for me Religiosity came from that damn door to door babble salesman!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 5, 2011 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment

She,
We are not at cross-purposes here, except that my personal definition of Agnosticism may differ from the formal one.

Please remember: I differ between the Marxist dogmatic Atheist, who declares, based on Marxist-Leninism, that God cannot exist, and the rational Atheist you have defined, who, like my Agnostic, says if you cannot logically demonstrate something’s existence, it’s not incumbent on me to accept that existence.  So just because Linus waxes poetic on the Great Pumpkin doesn’t mean I have any intention of accepting such an existence.

Anarcissie: Where do all the religions come from? Simple: Fear. Fear of the unknown combined with some prick’s realization that he can capitalize on that fear so he can be fed without actually having to work for it.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 5, 2011 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, June 5 at 3:59 pm,

Blather.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 5, 2011 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment

The foundation of American Linguistics in the United States is that
of singularly defined structuralism, together with negatively
balanced dialectic used to accuse, condemn, denounce, and
destroy political opposition and positively balanced dialectic to
glorify a false sense of advantage as a benefit of American
ideology; this is the formula used by Adolph Hitler, and this is
the formula being used by the Conservative Right-Wing Republican
EXTREMISTS and their Democratic Middle Class allies throughout
the United States
, just as the same linguistic foundation was
used throughout Nazi Germany.

Henry Kissinger, to his credit, has taken a step at getting past the
use of this type of framing of linguistics and stated the reason why
it is necessary, that it will lead to WAR with China, because China
will NEVER accept the American Linguistic Frame of Singularly
Defined Structuralism, and America will NEVER give up the
Linguistic Frame of Singularly Defined Structuralism, because the
American Linguistic Frame of Singularly Defined Structuralism has
been effective for 235 years of power and control over the Native
Peoples, slaves, and the American Populace; America’s existing
order that politically control the United States see no reason to
change something that has worked so effectively for them in both
domestic and foreign affairs for 235 years, and the United States
will NEVER willingly acknowledge the use of America’s Linguistic
Frame of Singularly Defined Structuralism as an integral part of
America’s base of power and control that was used to establish
National control of privatized capital, privatized capitalism,
privatized commerce, privatized WAR, and privatized
governance
of a Hitleresque nature that acts under a cover of
a false sense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with
freedom and justice for all as a trope; with the United States
presently having more people imprisoned by laws that DO NOT
represent life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with freedom
and justice for all than CHINA, a nation with a population of ONE
BILLION (1,000,000,000) more people than the United States.

It is time for the American Populace, the 70% Majority Common
Population of the United States to ask the question——Life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with freedom and justice for
all of WHO? ——because all we, the American Populace, are
getting is wage slavery, criminalization by legislated law and
order, that we are made subject to by legislation without
American Populace Representation
, and tyranny and
oppression by commercial interests and government power and
control that does not serve the best interests of the American
Populace.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 5, 2011 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

I cannot speak for Ommmm nor do I want to, unlike Mr. Ommmmypoo I speak only for myself. As per Martha A., even though Om like Martha A speaks for everyone else.  (I have a hunch whist the ‘A’ stands for after Martha’s name,.... it sounds like ass and rhymes with asp), what the hell are you ranting about now Martha A.s?  Something new I see, a change up pitch for the peat and peat mosses of this world, the rubbing of words with the blarney salt of bad taste continues like epicurean delicates from the noggin of empty space between Martha A.s unprofound statements, which I am not inclined to imbibe in at this time or any other for that matter. So Matha A.s been humored by me in a nice stab at politeness regarding Martha’s As.s! Oh ....gee….to many sssssss’s!

Yes… call me anything you want, just don’t call me late for Tequila!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 5, 2011 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

Of course my last post does not address why religion was so popular through
history and is even up to today?  In the way that stories appeal to human
imagination, I think religion began its appeal in the same way except in the
case of religion, among other reasons, it explains phenomena that would have
been unexplainable to the primitive mind.  Then the mental capacity for belief
is activated.  I think the same mental dynamic continued without pause to
serve several purposes not the least of which is to allay the fear of the
unknown, but would also involve honor, idealism, curiosity and acceptance by
one’s peers and society. I don’t believe religion is a simple matter but is an
intricate psychological device that satisfies a variety of mental needs.  A sense
of self power is one and the appreciation of power in others goes along with
that,  a sense of order in the perceived world, and a way to calm the mind of
stress by projecting stressors onto supernatural causes and effects.

Death, perhaps the biggest event in human cognition, ends the acquisition of
knowledge and it is antithetical to survival of the organism so the evolutionary
explanation seems to fit.  Stories found in every religion discuss what is
mysterious to those who do not seek to find answers to the questions of
existence and use metaphors and symbols to make the answers memorable
and seem logical and true.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 5, 2011 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment

“if everyone is born a little atheist, where do religions come from, and why
are they so popular?”

A bit of a baiting question.  I would think you already know the answser to that
question, anarcissie, given you are well read.  Do you think humans are born
with beliefs?

I’ll give a small bite answer and you can digest it or not. I read once that
religion was invented by the first liar.  Storyteller of the clan could replace the
word liar.  A little bigger morsel:  Anthropologist Barbara J. King writes about
gods and gorillas, if you are able to read without being preconditioned to
religionism, how scientists are coming up with secular theories about the
origins of faith, viz., religions.  This does not preclude the existence or non-
existence of god as such a belief does not really need religion.  Philosopher/
scientist Daniel Dennett proposes that religion is a meme.  A meme is an idea
that evolves culturally.  In this case, the culture meme is like an infectious
virus that affected our ancestors and continued to spread throughout cultures
as genes do to our physical being.  One culture often appropriates the ideas
and cultivated behaviors of other ones.  Another anthropologist, Pascal Boyer, 
argued that religious belief is an impulsive byproduct of a brain that evolved
to detect predators along with their other survival needs. In Boyer’s view, the
brain developed a hair-trigger detection system to believe the world is full of
“agents” that affect our lives. British biologist Lewis Wolpert, had yet another
theory.  He theorized that religion developed once hominids understood cause
and effect, which allowed them to make complex tools. Once they started to
make causal connections, there was a compulsion to explain life’s mysteries.
Their brains, in essence, turned into “belief engines.”

These thinkers are either religious skeptics or outright atheists who mean to
imply that we’ve been deceived by evolution to believe in supernatural beings
when none, in fact, exist. What makes King so unique is that she had no
intention to undermine religion, but in fact was fundamentally influenced by
religious writers Karen Armstrong and Martin Buber.  However, her main
insights about the origins of religion didn’t come from researching the
primitive history of humans, but from observations of live non-human
primates.

She studied ape and monkey behavior in Gabon and Kenya, and at the
Smithsonian’s National Zoo for 20 years. Her book, “Evolving God: A
Provocative View on the Origins of Religion,” King argues that “religion is
rooted in our social and emotional connections with each other.”  Tracing the
origins of the human religious impulse not just to early cave paintings and
burial sites 20,000 to 40,000 years ago, but very much earlier to ancient
ancestors millions of years ago. She also says the foundations of religious
behavior seen in chimpanzees and gorillas watching the capacity of these
simian cousins of us humans for empathy and imagination and why religious
belief may have given our human ancestors a competitive edge to pretty much
obliterate their Neanderthal rivals.

Surely I don’t have to repeat the history of religions?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 5, 2011 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment

“My recent post supposedly showed how everyone is fascist.”
OzarkMichael, June 1 at 10:42 am

In all your posts on this thread or in the past,
OzarkMichael, including June 2 at 10:40
pm, June 2
at 2:05 pm, June 1 at 7:31 pm, and June 1 at
10:42 am, you have
proved nothing, other than that you, like Adolph
Hitler, are a
Conservative Right-Wing Republican
EXTREMIST Fascist
that
is part of an organized Republican Party Agenda
to implement a
Hitleresque Fascist Government in the United
States, that has and
will continue to lead the United States to the
same final destination
as the Third Reich under Adolph Hitler.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 5, 2011 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA—You are free to form whatever opinions you like about my mental processes.  I’ll try not to get in the way of your enjoyment.

Leefeller—Can you be more specific?  I see the ruling classes as kleptocrats, for the most part, rather than totalitarians.  The danger of fascism, I think, will come when the kleptocrats have finished bankrupting and devastating the country; then we may be told by a fresh set of thugs that we need a stern infusion of faith and discipline (led by them) so that America may stand tall, or some such phallic baloney.  But I don’t see these guys coming over the horizon yet.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 5, 2011 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment

drbhelthi, June 1 at 3:47 am,

“Interesting that the Inheret The Wind cubicle appears to be
operated on a shift basis.” drbhelthi, June 1 at 3:47 am

Probably at least 4 to a cubicle in the Conservative Right-Wing
EXTREMIST Boiler Room
, and it does appear Boiler Room
inhabitants work on a shift basis.  I doubt if Inherit The
Wind
has a whole cubicle to himself—more than likely there
are three or more people in the Corporate Communist cubicle
telling him what to say and there are several
cubicles in the Conservative Corporate
Communist Boiler
Room
and more than likely more
Conservative Corporate Communist Boiler
Room
Cells
all over the country drawing paychecks
from the Koch Brothers and/or Rupert
Murdoch.

Report this

Page 4 of 6 pages « First  <  2 3 4 5 6 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook