You have a very strange thought process, JDmysticDJ.  You said I
said I have adopted the behavior of men.  I did?  No I didn’t.  I was
talking about mankind in general, not men in particular.  Mankind
includes women.  You do know that don’t you?  Try at least to be
in the ballpark of what I said.  You have a bad habit of putting words
into other’s mouths that are not said.  And while you are at it try to
define what is virtue and positive behavior just to see if we have the
same definitions.  And what is this business about biting?  Did you
extract that from the dog eat dog business?  M’thinks you are
somewhat of a distortionist, but sadly, I think you may not be
aware that you are.

I guess one can be a distortionist by degrees, though I would say
that once a distortionist always a distortionist however to what
degree one is.  Unless, that is, one sees into oneself.  Much self-
reflection is required as it is a pathology.  You obviously do not
know what reciprocity means.  It can only help if you get yourself a
good hefty dictionary and expand your understanding of the language
for you have demonstrated an ignorance of several concepts in our
conversation and have shown much hubris.

Speaking about peace does not necessarily bring about peace.  One
must be peaceful.  I often ask kids when they ask for something that I
am able to give them to give me a smile, a brightness comes over their
face and they smile and I then joyfully give it to them.  They had been
too intense and had not noticed.  I think smiling, that is, genuinely
smiling, not these pathetic smiley face emoticons, but from inside
smiling because recognition of the beauty in the world, that we do not
have to be dogs who eat other dogs, we do not have to be cannibals, is
uniquely and humanly healthy.  Some dogs just don’t know their size. 
And dad used the dog eat dog just as you do.  But at bottom is the
Hobbes view of humanity.  Regrettable human behavior has its origins
in the natural world.  We are natural beings.  Yes, I agree.  Human
behavior can be changed, although some leopards cannot change its
spots.  With humans, sometimes, it is not possible without help
because of the deep damage.  But therapists thrive and do occasionally
help others to change their spots.  Seeing the light, meaning, seeing
into one’s own psyche, having an epiphany about oneself, is crucial to
changing unhealthy behavior or better, to changing one’s thought
processes. It does mean dumping one’s old ego and finding a new one. 
And as far as being virtuous or practicing positive behavior, that is what
I am and what I do.

I suggest you get back to music. Bye bye.

Shenonymous

Your father said “It’s a dog eat dog world.” What did he mean when he said that? Was it an observation about the natural world, or was it a comment about regrettable human behavior? Do you know what he meant? I have used the same expression; my use was an expression regarding human behavior. Human behavior can be changed. Believing that human behavior can not be changed condemns us to the history of human folly.

You say that you have adopted the behavior of men. Did it ever occur to you that the behavior you have adopted may not be a virtuous or positive behavior? Actually, men don’t like to get bitten any more than women do. Do you believe that biting is gender specific; aren’t you living proof of the falsity of such a belief? I will not make assumptions about you; do you believe that we are governed by natural laws that negate a free will? If you believe that dog eat dog is a natural law that can not be overcome; then you’d best develop an appetite for dog, and an understanding that you might be eaten.

“Sheepdog, standing in the rain
Bullfrog, doing it again
Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles
What makes you think you’re something special when you smile?”

“Child-like, no one understands
Jack knife, in your sweaty hands
Some kind of innocence is measured out in years
You don’t know what it’s like to listen to your fears”

My daughter had a miniature poodle once that attacked a Great Dane, and later attacked a couple of wire haired terriers - bear hunters - who were encroaching on his turf. I had to come to his rescue and try to peacefully impress on him the fact that he was dumber than hell.

I’m sure you can hold your own, but sooner or later that big dog gonna’ get yuh. 

I’m declaring a cessation of hostilities. I’m leaving this exhausted field of battle. Fortunately no lives were lost, no blood was shed, no dogs got eaten, and no plastic robots knocked any blocks off. During this little skirmish, some have been obstinate in their criticism of an advocate for peace. That’s harm and a foul, with greater consequences.

Chomsky is the quintessential rational thinker; he is non-committal about things he understands no one can claim an understanding of. Chomsky is first and foremost a humanist with a strong humanitarian conscience. Given his accomplishments, and his awards, I continue to believe he is a giant intellect.

By your observation, then, if I am a consistent flamer, you will
provide some examples.  Not an absolute altruist, I believe in the
theory of reciprocity which means responding to a positive action
with a positive action, and responding to a negative action with a
negative one.  I never take first aim at anyone, but I do defend
myself.  It is easy for men to mistake defensive pugilism for flaming
especially when it is not expected of a female. That what is dished
out is dished back.  My dad used to say, it’s a dog eat dog world. 
He didn’t know it but he held the classic Hobbesian perspective of
animal existence including the human animal, seen in Chapters
XIII-XIV, of Leviathan, which amounts to classic anarchic competition.
On behalf of self-interest, humanity forms peaceful societies via the
social contract, without which life would be ‘nasty, brutish, and short.’
Hobbes sees man as part of the animal kingdom that naturally reacts
as other animals do in their being in the world.  In a polarity, the liberal
John Locke, on the other hand, saw man as a social animal by nature
and that a state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens
giving them sanction to rebel when it doesn’t.  That peace was normal
and violent conflicts are committed by evil doers.  He thought humans
know what is right and wrong naturally, what is theirs and what is not
but do not always act in accordance with that knowledge. “He who
attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put
himself into a state of war with him…”

Flamers attempt to put others in their power by attempting to reduce
them to rubble through their inflammatory words.  This is not ever what
I initiate but I do see being flamed as incidents of coercion (war), which
is resisted with my every intellectual device.  If I outflame the flamer
well then, so be it.  Not my bad.  I am only reciprocating and I just may
be better at it.  If in your infinite wisdom want to call me a flamer well
you certainly have that right.  I may also say that you are chauvinistic
and that I suspect thus on account of dogmatic values.  In the final
analysis, both men have rational points and irrational ones. Locke’s
contract was for a judge. Hobbes’s contract was for a master.

After all this talk of Hunky Gebeebiz not on a cracker, I find the whole thing very amusing and funny, what I gather from it is an exposure of society’s hypocritical realities as a whole and mocking Christianity’s long bloody history as reality.

I suppose Ommmms teabag special kind of fascism has not taken hold in San Francisco? So freedom of expression is allowed? Hunky Gebeebiz seems to be expressing and exposing the silliness and the hypocrisy of of worshiping idols the only thing missing was some choir boys being buggered by pedophile Catholic priests. (but I must confess I am not an expert on Hunky Gebeebiz nor on double standards like Ommmm proclaims to be)

Now since my alleged double standard has come to light, I will show Ommms double standard as it appears to me. It seems according to Ommm, all gays promote hunky Gebeebebiz, all Atheists promote hate and death, all TD posters are left wing cicadas and all of everything are the same, well accroding to OMMmmmm.  So in the name of equal opportunity double standards and in Ommmm unlogic, I suggest all Christian are the same, all Tea bags Republicans are the same and all of them promote Pedophilia, this is a double double standards, infantile yes, stupid yes, moronic yes, one can take their double standards where the sun don’t shine.

She showed us Ommms double standard, and Ommmms rabid dogma for what it is,.... !

If the world mocked more dogmas, I suspect it could be a better place to live, but of course dogmas are sacred usually fanatically sacred, so only mockable at ones own risk, as we have seen from the dogmas of the middle east. 

Well it is said by the new money changers, Gebeebizz is coming on May 24 to take care of business,... but fascism as I see it has been coming for a long time too!

So mock away before gathering dogmas and their profound ignorance over takes the little sanity in attendance… Seems only a matter of time when, Hunky Geebeebiz fans, TD double standard cicadas and fist fighting Atheists, ...will be forced to ask,... “who let the dogmas out!

Shenonymous

Thanks for clueing me in on the “Flaming” deal. I’ve never come across this bit of jargon before, but for some reason, I’m reminded of Pat Robertson when he said, “I didn’t say assassinate, I said assassinate.” or words to that effect.

I was surprised when my truthdig profile popped up the other day and it showed I’ve commented here nearly a thousand times. Along with commenting, I’ve read a far greater number of comments from others. I’ve noticed that some people who comment here are virulent flamers, while some are consistent flamers. I’ve noticed that some people are intolerant of itsybitsy flaming directed at them, and consistently respond with somewhat virulent flaming when their perspective is challenged. I have a tendency to flame the consistent and virulent flamers, which is hypocrisy and moral arrogance on my part. More frequently than I want to admit, I virulently flame ideas and concepts I perceive to be ignorant and tragically harmful, and those who purvey those ideas I perceive to be tragic and harmful. I consistently flame in those instances. Back on point, I’m fairly certain that Chomsky doesn’t use the word “Flaming” in such a context. Who cares? It’s not important, but my ego hates being flamed, how about yours? By my observation, you are a consistent flamer, who is very quick on the draw, so to speak. It’s a jungle out there, carnivores rule; they only get affectively flamed by bigger flaming carnivores. Yay, tho I walk through the valley of death I shall fear no evil, for I am the evilest, biggest, baddest flamer in the valley, he said as he went down in flames. Acts of self immolation?

Allow me to digress back to point. I’ve never seen Chomsky lose a debate, I’ve seen him be shouted down and affectively silenced, and I’ve seen people attack his political perspective, but they dare not challenge his veracity, that’s a losing strategy, it’s more affective to try and silence him or accuse him of having a heinous political perspective or philosophy. He’s a self hating Jew, an Anarchist, a Libertarian, a Socialist, an old widower, or any other invective that they hope might stick to the wall. The speed of Chomsky’s synapses might have deteriorated in his later years, but it’s not necessary to think fast in order to be cogent, it’s only necessary to think correctly. Chomsky is as politically, philosophically, and morally correct as anyone in the public eye by my appraisal. Assigning Chomsky to irrelevancy has the affect of assigning an entire mode of thought to irrelevancy, a mode of thought that is unassailable in its veracity and humanity. One might see contingencies where there are no contingencies.

My very loose metaphor regarding the Chicken and the egg, had to do with the nurturing of the young and innocent towards maintaining that innocence as much as possible, and that maintaining that innocence is made more difficult because of current social mores. Charles Darwin was a naturalist, and out of his field of expertise in respect to nurturing. Why you felt the need to mention Darwin in respect to this loose metaphor escapes me.

In respect to the religion - Something one believes in and follows devotedly, by one definition - of atheism, the free agents have openly displayed their devotion many times. They form a triumvirate here, whether they are mighty, is subject to interpretation. An absolute belief in the metaphysical is as illogical as an absolute disbelief in the metaphysical; neither belief can be understood or verified by definition. Science can not scientifically refute the metaphysical, and religionists can not prove the existence of the metaphysical. Charles Darwin as a naturalist would grant that we exist, what was the origin of the first bit of matter? It’s a contemplation without answer or understanding, a metaphysical contemplation. I’ve often thought the seeming impossibility of our existence, makes anything possible. Who’s to say that our existence is limited to this plane, or this life, who’s to say that we are not limited to this plane or this life, can anyone scientifically prove either devotion. We are limited to the scope of our personal experience and our observations. In terms of magnitude our existence is infinitesimally small in respect to the Universe as it is scientifically perceived. Scientists seek to define the force(s) that govern the Universe. I have no faith in science’s ability to do so, but I believe there is a force beyond the realm of understanding. I have faith in my existence and thus I have faith in the un-understandable.

An atheist when confronted with the fact of his/her existence must either become perplexed, or closed minded, pedantic, and fanatical.

Finally, one member of the mighty triumvirate, as I recall, defined himself as an agnostic, much to the criticism of the more pedantic members of the mighty triumvirate. What came first, the “Chicken Baller” or the egg.

Ommmmmm, I God! 

“I never read it in a book

I never saw it on a show

but I heard it in the alley

on a weird radio

if you want a drink of water

you got to get it from a well

if you want to get to heaven

you got to raise a little hell”

Leefeller

Sonny and Brownie would be a point of agreement between us. I saw them at the “Purple Onion” In San Francisco. I think it was the Purple Onion, I’m not sure, I saw them in the 60’s.

Lies we tell ourselves.  There is no mention of Zombie’s sexual
orientation (preference).  It cannot be said that he is gay, or not gay. 
It intentionally is not said.  So it is only conjecture from reading the
entire article and 111 comments that one might come only to some
opinionated judgment.  I tend to think he is a man, and while I have
my deductive reasons (not really important here), there is no reason
to believe it absolutely.  His/her gender is also in question.  Perhaps
in other articles he has revealed which it is.  But here he does not tell
but he does say, “I actually like Hunky Jesus; I’m not a
Christian, nor am I religious in the slightest, so the “blasphemy” doesn’t
bother me one bit.”  Non-committal?  Maybe.  The article still struck me
as “political.”  Just a sneaky inkling.  For convenience then, and because
it is my opinion, I assuming Zombie is a man so I can avoid a clumsy
he/she construction.

But due consideration should always be given to serious matters. 
Atheists presenting atheism as the high ground?  Now that is serious. 
As Cruel World says, “Just don’t assume that atheists are as egotistical
and power-hungry as you are.”  Apparently the Zombie-Argument on
this TD forum is not exclusively about gays or gays bashing
Christianity, what would the reaction be if Christians ridiculed gays in a
similar manner, or whether the gays were crass or unjust mockers of a
religious order.  On this forum, the report really is also about a
declared atheist taking a fictionalized, contrived high ground after all. 
So the Zombie-Argument was pimped as a tool to denigrate atheists. 
Or at the least, giving the opportunity to take a cheapshot at this
atheist.  What a hoot.  Snipers exist!  Seems like there is the moment to
turn (hijack) this Chomsky forum into a forum of atheist vs. religionist. 
Well in my usual regalia, I am ready.  But first things first.

To be atheist does not necessarily mean one is a bullheaded atheist.  If
not all are, this atheist is always willing to consider reasonable
explanations about serious matters.  However, despite anything to the
contrary, none has been forthwith coming.

So, let us suppose the Zombie piece really was about double-
standards, which, under usual circumstances, is a fair question. 
As he asks rhetorically, “Can they (the gays) take it?” Meaning can
the gays take a similar degree of mockery from Christians as they
dish out?  Zombie’s rhetoric is about a double-standard he assigns
to the entire gay community based on the behavior of one group.
We won’t elaborate on the ad hominem, guilt by association, fallacy
by reason of the time and space it would digressively take.  But he
makes the same fallacy about ‘all’ Christians.  Fair is fair, right?  As
if a few of what really are a group of hypothetical Christians, who
would mock the gays in a turnabout ‘what if,’ represents all
Christians.  Shall we write that in the archives?

Zombie claims the practice of double standard is “destroying our
national soul” using the definite article ‘the.’  And that mocking rights
must be the right of all.  No argument,... if it is true.  For we would not
want to destroy our national soul!  Now that is an intriguing idea.  First
of all it must be decided that there is a soul and then that there could
be a ‘national’ soul.  But here is the rub…to parenthetically include all
similar double-standards as the de facto thesis, by using the mocking
double-standard argument is the fallacious stretch. It is the sneaky way
arguers slip in their real target without really taking direct aim (which
seems to be an infection among the sniper type). The fallacy of
deflection.  Okay, so the guy is a sloppy reasoner.  So let’s get back to
the double-standard of the article that the gays bashing Christians and
Christians not having equal time, and that if they did have equal time,
the media, it is argued, would rip the Christians up and down the
wazoo (meaning up and down the vasty).  Is this really an evenly based
article?  Here is a fallacy example: I would bet the farm all of Zombie’s
articles gives contentious topics his sloppily justified conclusions.  I’ve
never read any of his other articles.

And the ubiquitous “What ifs” in the form of what if atheists, those who
reside on the highest ground, harbors a double-standard, no…”the”
double-standard?  Well, being on the high ground might mean sitting
on a high horse, which is even a little more above the high ground. 
Even so, the accusation is empty for no double-standard has been
specified.  The fallacy of generalization sticks in the throat of the
accuser.  And it looks like a chokehold.  Adjectively so we come to the
real crux of the matter:  where the duplicity of the entire thesis is to
take a snipe (we must by now have been sensitized to it) to take a
persecuted’s snipe at Truthdig’s putative double-standard simply by
printing stories the “Leftists like to resort to!” [my italics] And here
we have it, a shotgun slug array of Sniper’s triumvirate target, the
atheist (ahem, me), the gays (a regular target of Christian
Conservatives), and Truthdig (an alleged haven for Leftists and centrist
liberals.  Three with one blow!  Reminds me of a fairytale!  LOL The
charge, or plaintive cry is that the Christians are viewed as a lower class
of people, hence a scapegoat class!  How ironic, as these species of
Christians (not all Christians mind you, since we know Christians who
do not have such a view), accuse the three quarry of the very conduct
practiced by the stalking headhunter himself!  Yes this is a very serious
problem.  And yes the antagonist is definitely not a pietist.  But is
definitely making more than noise.  It is creepy stealth persecution in
the disguise of a Victim with a capital ‘V.’

Neat strategy.

Now I like Watts and his songs, but my favorite is “Hole in the wall”, by Brownie McGee!! Good old blues and a song with good sound and little meaning!!

With all the chicken shit out there Ommm focuses on his personal fetish for gays and what they did to outrage him…. Well Ommm, all this talking of gays and double standards, cicadas and slugs, I am prompted to bring up Britts number 3… Britt researched the different Fascist regimes and what made the tick. 

“3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause”
    by Dr. Laurence Britt

“The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice-relentless propaganda and disinformation-were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.”

I don’t see no goats nowhere,... scaping or not!

I have a thing about causes and especially the because!

“It is a fallacy to use one incident to judge the entire universe of gays.”

Zombie(the person who noticed the mass hypocrisy of the Left) is gay. Do you think he is judging gays? I dont think so. Perhaps that is an accusation against me. Let me pronounce some judgements so i can actually be guilty of judging something.

The Hunky Jesus Event prompts me to judge the following: a city which allows the event to occur in its public park, police who allow the event to proceed when children are present, a media which doesnt report those facts year after year, and most of all…one ought to realize from all this that gays are a privileged class. They are very free relative to what they can mock in a public park without any civic or social consequences. Am I shocked? No. i have seen worse.

It is a fallacy to use one incident to judge the entire universe of gays, because only some people take such obvious advantage of their protected class status. But the protected class status still exists, and the the lower class status also exists. 

“I will say why I do not offer a double standard. I am neither gay nor a Christian so I have no emotional attachment to either, and don’t hold a double standard for one against the other.”

Atheism is presented as the high ground. It must be marvelous to attain that high ground, whereby you are protected from the habit of employing a double standard. But does that high ground really place you above it all?

What if the double standard does not arise just from being gay or being Christian? What if it is not a pathology that arises only from belonging to a particular group, or from taking a side?

What if the double standard can just as easily arise in those who occupy the highest ground?  Isnt it true that the double standard is applied most vigorously by people who think they are above it all? You do not have to take a side to get the feeling of being above it all. In fact, the atheist’s high ground can do that very nicely.

So it isnt about Gays vs Christians. Nor is it about atheists vs Christians. Its about a double standard which Truthdig pushes on many fronts and Leftists like to resort to it. The Christians are viewed as a lower class of people and they are also a scapegoat class. This is a very serious problem, with serious results. Pietists would be willing to quietly await those results whether it occured far away or in future generations. I am not a Pietist, so I make some noise for the sake of those far away and for those in the future.

I know i will have to answer for my rude noises here, but I reckon that the Pietist will have to answer even more… for his silence.

Reminiscing can be cathartic, especially if it is excessive.  I perfectly
understood what you were saying about George Carlin but do not
see that in the twilight of his life he was purposelessly cynical.  He
was consistently purposefully cynical his entire career.  Even up to
the end, he was making death jokes with Jerry Seinfeld speaking
about plane crashes (now there’s an irony).  They were talking about
Tim Russert and Bo Diddley and George said: “I feel safe for a while.
There will probably be a break before they come after the next one.
I always like to fly on an airline right after they’ve had a crash. It
improves your odds.”  I did wonder who he meant by “they?”  Is
there more than one Grim Reaper?

One sees what one wants to see.  Interpretation of what is said is
colored by ones own preconditioning and it takes a strong mind to
see one’s own contingencies.  Champion Angel speaks about giving
up one’s mind, and self-reliance without pretensions.  I wondered if
the hole up from the circle was the same hole Tom Waits was keeping
da debble way down in?  What does hole mean in either song?  Seems
they mean the same thing.  I do not see the Champion Angel as lonely
at all but as a writer of notes, and the promise was that “we are not
alone.” So we have different histories that reads songpoems differently. 
Isn’t such differences what makes the world go around?  And isn’t it
in the final analysis not really all that important?  And no one’s
mentioned James Taylor’s Down in the Hole where Light and love and
the world above mean nothing to the mole.

You are way off on the flaming ‘thing.’  Flaming in ‘Net talk is the
practice of visiting forum, blogs to others, and expressing strong,
negative emotion, frequently but not always the use of ‘derogatory,
obscene, or inappropriate language,’ but always dishing out ‘personal
insults.’  It is a form of bashing and is hostile and insulting.

You furthered the which-comes-first dilemma in an interesting way,
with “It’s a chicken and the egg scenario in my opinion, the quality of
the chicken determines the quality of the egg, in this case, not
genetically, but philosophically.”  I’ve never thought of the quality
aspect and I don’t think anyone else has at least in my experience. 
Since it was presented as philosophic, I would add only one thing, “a
healthy life” of the chicken determines the quality of the egg.  It would
be fascinating to know at what point in evolution organisms started
producing eggs.

You don’t really have to worry about the contrived triumvirate.  We are
free agents.  You should feel unrestrained to empty yourself to
whatever degree eases your mind.

Shenonymous

Santa Monica, ah! Those were the days. I used to cruise the clubs on Sunset Strip, and I saw The “Allman Brothers” when they were the “Looking Glass” in a club a little bigger than your average starbucks. At least I think I did, it was the 60’s you know, the 60’s are hard to remember. I do remember body surfing on Santa Monica beach, I came very close to getting lost at sea, and I remember burning the hell out of my bare feet on the blacktop of the Santa Monica Pier. I also remember jumping from a fourth floor balcony into the hotel pool, it was fun! I also remember a party in the Hollywood Hills thrown by a “House Sitter” who sat for some kind of a mogul. TMZ was in the neighborhood looking to catch the stars (I’m lying about the TMZ part.) I could go on and on, but modesty and a clearly demonstrated humility prevent me.

Of course when I commented about George Carlin being lost at sea, I was commenting about the purposeless cynicism George Carlin displayed in his later years. Perhaps purposeless cynicism is characteristic of later years, but I hope not, I’d rather be happy.  I commented about George Carlin’s purposeless cynicism solely for the purpose of discrediting your defense of Leefeller. Clearly Leefeller doesn’t need anyone coming to his defense; he is very good at being offensive and defensive, in his own inimitable way. Hey, I’m outgunned here. I have to be offensive in order not to be pounded into smithereens by the mighty triumvirate. I’m sure Sun-Tzu would have something to say about my predicament, but he’s ancient history.

Now, I don’t recall ever wearing petticoats but maybe I did in the 60’s, its hard to remember you know. I do remember wearing nylon scarves, dress shirts with puffy sleeves, and a three quarter John B. Stetson hat that I rolled in a real cool distinctive way, well not real distinctive, it was pretty much your basic good guy cowboy roll, but petticoats, no, I think I would have remembered petticoats, 60’s or not. I’m very much a prude in respect to men wearing petticoats, I didn’t like “Some like it Hot” (That was a movie,) and I didn’t like it when the Monty Python blokes dressed in petticoats, and I don’t like it when lonely mercenaries dress up like women and dance with each other, and cop a feel and whatnot, but maybe that’s because my flaming is itsybitsy. What’s a flaming? If your talking about me be a flaming faggot, then I can assure you that my flaming is not just itsybitsy its non-existent. If you’re talking about the size of my thing, as my wife used to call it, her testimonial was that I had a big thing. Actually she became cynical in her later years and used other words in reference to my thing. She only called a man’s thing, a thing, when she was young and innocent child, those were the days.

Allow we to empty myself of myself for a while, (I don’t think being full of yourself is physically possible, and I most certainly would not want to find out.) What I want to do is to wax philosophic about something other than myself, which is difficult.

(More)

#2

I used to be heavily involved in tracking music, and I noticed over the years, later years you might say, music became progressively more and more cynical about love. Now I’ll admit to being all wet about the Charlie Darwin song and its waterlogged symbolism, but I have some criticism regarding the “Champion Angel” song. I don’t have a clue about what the song is saying, except that it has to do with being alone, and it’s not happy like raising hell and getting to heaven. Maybe its my brain that’s itsybitsy, but I don’t think the song “If you Want to Get to Heaven” is at all presumptuous or pretentious, to me and my itsybitsy brain, the song seems to saying that heaven can be found right here on earth, to me the song is very optimistic and joyful, the opposite of being cynical. It seems to be saying that an afterlife will be or won’t be, who in the hell can be certain, the best that we can do is the best that we can do, and that the best is to be joyful, and righteous.

As a means of giving credibility to the song “Champion Angel” and its creators, you refer me to a review in the Guardian, well two can play that game;  there is a review in the Guardian that calls Chomsky “The Conscience of a Nation.” Clearly Chomsky doesn’t talk about fun things, but Chomsky does talk about being guilty and the need to be innocent. From personal experience I can say that it’s more fun being innocent than it is being guilty. No the things Chomsky talks about are not fun, but it is necessary to talk about them in order to stop them, to prevent the guilt, and to promote the innocence. Chomsky is not a demagogue; he disparages demagoguery and hypocrisy, regardless of its source. Demagoguery from the Right seeks to discredit the Left, Demagoguery and hypocrisy from the Left does discredit the Left.

Chomsky with his renowned Linguistic skills often writes and says things in a few sentences, a few sentences that would require a convoluted paragraph from others, sometimes its necessary to think about Chomsky’s sentences in order to understand them, but they are readily understandable with brief analysis. I believe that Chomsky has two strikes against him regarding his appeal, what he writes and says requires some contemplation, and much of what he writes and says is not pleasant to contemplate.

(More)

#3

“I don’t respond to comments as a representative of the left. Political
stances are invented descriptions of political ideologies and there is
a range that could be described as an evolved spectrum of those who
would be positioned to the extreme left perspective who wants to
change society to be more advantageous to the masses to the extreme
right who wants to conserve ways they think advantageous to a
perceived elite class. Sociologists describe the right always as the
political sphere associated with the interests of the upper or dominant
classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower and middle economic
classes. The conservative right has historically defended entrenched
prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has perennially attacked
them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to
the hierarchy of birth or wealth; the left has fought for the equalization
of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. 
There is a centrist position on the left side of the spectrum, where I
place myself, as there is on the right.”

This paragraph from you is, in my humble opinion, very astute, and I’ll suggest that most people would place themselves similarly on the political spectrum, what I believe is of importance is what are the positions we take that place us on the political spectrum. Clearly there are differences on the Left and Right, I place myself on the prudish side of the political left spectrum regarding social mores, and I believe that prudishness in respect to certain things promotes happiness, innocence, and the welfare of us all, and that the most deserving of consideration are the young and the innocent. I believe that the young and the innocent are naturally so, and that they lose their innocence because to societal mores.

Some pull their hair and scream regarding current political realities. I believe that those political realities are dictated by social mores, and that political realities degenerate correspondingly to degenerating social mores. It’s a chicken and the egg scenario in my opinion, the quality of the chicken determines the quality of the egg, in this case, not genetically, but philosophically.

“Mongo just pawn in great game of life.”

It would appear that you yourself might have some sort of a
hypercritical disorder that shows up in a rigid and inflexible set
of beliefs among which is that I am exhibiting a double standard. 
As usual you only accuse but do not actually show, that I do. In not
showing that Christians mock gays, or are unable to mock gays
responds only to a morbid interest with the Gays at a park in San
Francisco that mocked or ridiculed the Christians in a highly offensive
sexual manner. It is a fallacy to use one incident to judge the entire
universe of gays. There is no excusing the Gay behavior in San
Francisco, nor is there in the inexcusable behavior of some Christians
toward gays.  As I had said, neither shows much humanity. It would
seem you are short-shrifting this forum by not showing how the
Christians excoriate the gays.  Who is the real hypocrite?

Your obsession is to try to clean the slate by criticizing me perhaps
thinking if you say I am a hypocrite, a buzzing cicada, or that I show
a double standard enough times it will be believed, either by me, others
on TD, or yourself interestingly enough.  I am especially concerned with
the latter.  The name-calling is infantile and counterproductive unless
your intention is to belittle me for some personal reason, in which case
it is not working and will never work as it is infantile and I know it…
and so do you.

I will say why I do not offer a double standard. I am neither gay nor a
Christian so I have no emotional attachment to either, and don’t hold
a double standard for one against the other.  I closely know both gay
people and Christians.  The gays I know are decent people who go
about their lives in ordinary ways having productive jobs, family life,
and compassion for others both gay and straight and do not assault
others to become gay or elicit special favors for gays.  Most of the
Christians I know are the same.  They do not bludgeon others with
their religion but act with much compassion and kindness for those
who have met with adversity in their lives. Both gays and Christians are
in my family and among my friends. They are loved and respected just
the same. This also shows I am not hypocritical in my response to your
sensational post of April 30 6:58 pm.  Perfectly obvious, is that I was
balancing the accusations you made to show it is not one sided.

There are Christians who accept homosexual orientation and don’t
have trouble affiliating or associating with gays. Nor do most gays
have problems interacting with Christians.  Many gays are Christian,
therefore, just many Christians are gay. The essence of the religion is
supposed to be the guide. Two sites of interest: a Wikipedia not
permitted on TD is sexual orientation.  The other is:

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html

I don’t respond to comments as a representative of the left. Political
stances are invented descriptions of political ideologies and there is
a range that could be described as an evolved spectrum of those who
would be positioned to the extreme left perspective who wants to
change society to be more advantageous to the masses to the extreme
right who wants to conserve ways they think advantageous to a
perceived elite class. Sociologists describe the right always as the
political sphere associated with the interests of the upper or dominant
classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower and middle economic
classes. The conservative right has historically defended entrenched
prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has perennially attacked
them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to
the hierarchy of birth or wealth; the left has fought for the equalization
of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. 
There is a centrist position on the left side of the spectrum, where i
place myself, as there is on the right.

You know I wish upon a cracker, TD had not dropped the rest of Chomskys writings, for I would prefer to discuss Chomsky’s alleged lofty comments then reading the incessant incompetent bully whining by Ommmm or reading JD’s Donald Trump impersonations.

Boy,.... I need to watch, ITW’s Blazing Saddles once more for sanity’s sake!

Screw it!

Hey,... the word is out set your calendar for May 24,  then the real Geebeebiz on a cracker will make it happen, but now it seems people are worried they may not recognize Geebeebiz? Well I have seen the advertisements, is he going to be on the Telie?  Can I buy stock? What the hell is this all about? ...... I am getting worried, May 24 is just around the coroner.

“With all the tripe that is published by Christians about Gays, it is no wonder the Gays respond with salacious festivals”

Another hypocrisy arises during the defense of the original double standard, namely: excusing the bad behaviour of the protected class by blaming the lower class for it. That was perfect!

That is a double standard, the Truthdig Triumverate are abuzz with it in theory and in practice.

How I react to your double standard is of course part of the show. How I expose your double standard is something you can critique or mock… or ignore, mostly the cicadas ignore when they dont understand something. 

Notice there is no whining, moaning, or groaning on my part. Today I discovered yet another double standard, and a rather minor one at that. Minor yes, but common, because Leftists excuse the bad behaviour of many protected classes by blaming the lower class for it.

Ommmm wants to talk about gays and JD seems to prefer enjoying talking about hisself and his worship of Chomsky? Well since the article is about Chomsky I am torn on what to talk about?

JD’s idol Chomsky or Ommms fetih for Gayh!

Ooops, my lipth is coming back.

One could say it is obvious, Ommmm dast not want to talk on Chomsky, for he prefers to control the topic and insult people by calling the all you liberals, ciciadas, attempting to make them cry.

Then there is JD who likes to preen his peacock feathers and let it be known how smart he wants everyone to know he is and how much smarter Chomsky is than anyone in the world. At least JD is showing a tid bit of disjointed houmer, while Ommmm shows ominous castings of slime. 

Since Ommmm, feels some mocha need to be in control and is such a bully,.... I am leaning toward JD’s windy dissertations even though narcissistic as they seem.

Now all I need is for someone to give a shit!

Cleverness is not anything I’d claim for myself, JD. George Carlin
died of a heart attack in Santa Monica, California (a city where I
lived for a time, and I guess the hosptial’s proximity to the Pacific
Ocean, just about 8 or so blocks away, one could say he as lost at
sea, if by some stretch of the imagination you meant that
metaphorically).  You are just too too funny JD, smashed pumpkins,
haha and cruelty.  A bit full of yourself aren’t you?  I should think
after the last link to the San Francisco Gay Mocking Festival nothing
would be too “naughty” for anyone at least on this forum.  And what
naughty parts do you think Smashing Pumpkins dared?  Be
specific, we won’t blush.  Your petticoats are affectatiously peeking
and so is your S&M whip.  M’thinks you are a bit of a prude. Or maybe
your flaming is just itsybitsy?  Ooh-hoo, by what fiat do you think you
are going to get to heaven JD?

Unlike Jackie Blue my wishes have mostly come true and I’ve no
complaints.  One can’t get everything in this world,... or any other. 
And I definitely have had my share of fun.  What makes you think no
one else knows the music you do?  It is cool though that we have got
onto playing music on this thread.  It is an improvement.  So maybe
you aren’t quite burned out,... but almost.

Looks like though you need to read more carefully.  That is something
I constantly have to tell my students!  I explicitly said the poem was
not mine!  And, if you had taken the time to listen to the youtube music
at the link I provided you would have seen that the Charlie Darwin song
was performed by The Low Anthem.  While not Smashing Pumpkins they
are a finer group who I believe writes their own lyrics and music.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/feb/04/low-anthem-charlie-darwin

Another favorite on the album is Champion Angel who a sweet niece thinks is
her auntie.  But you can check that one out at youtube yourself.  The music
is great.

Champion Angel

Throw up your voice but not your mind
While them agents of change go monopolize
Their colors and their faces are just shades of the same
All lost in the game

And we don’t need no personal saviors here
Just a warm hearth and water. It’s purely biological
No posturing mannequin man or woman
Shall receive my hand

Among all you angels is a champion angel
Among all you devils there’s a free soul
Up from the disenfranchised the engine cries
Up from the circle there’s a hole

The child insubordinate disrupts the pecking order
So go marry young while you can
‘Cause the weave of the rug and the cut of the throne
Testify before the ocean’s open hand

I promise you this promise we are not alone
But why is it I alone that promise this
Deny the forces that would hurry men
If you still can

We come now to a fracture in the road
Here time has taken her toll
The endless freezing and the thawing of the heart
Would eventually divide us apart

What’s that you found in the pocket of your coat
Looks like a small sentiment that she wrote
Don’t be my personal savior I would not be saved
I chose to walk alone

Shenonymous

Before I begin I’ll state that I am experiencing a religious dilemma.  Today is Sunday, May 1st; a day that has been declared Holy by both of my religious books. This day has always been a good excuse for resting from one’s labors. So I, being religious, should not be laboring to respond to your comment. However, religion is way full of contradictions. For example, in the new and revised edition of Holy Book #1 a person said it’s O.K. to rescue the little sheepies, and for his crew to gum on wheat gleaned from the farmers field on the Sabbath. So apparently there are certain dispensations. According to my liberal interpretation, it’s quite alright for me to labor at saving the sheepies today.

According to Holy book #2, today is also the day we should worship Karl Marx, nuclear missiles strutting through red square, Eugene Debbs, Joe Hill, Bill Haywood, the Wobblies, French rowdies, and all the other disciples. I’ll admit to being uncertain about these issues, religion is very complex. Maybe if we simply dance around the May pole everything will be O.K. I’ll point out that the father of Social Darwinism doesn’t have a Holy day, which is a fact that I find significant. I envy atheists, their religion is much simpler. Atheists write their own rules and adhere to them only when it serves their interests.

Sadly, I must once again disparage your intellect. You imply that I attempted to claim Tom’s genius as my own; that is an absurd assertion. Everyone knows that the hymn offered and associated with Tom is wired to the public domain. No one had a beef when the blind boys of Alabama copped it.  Having known Tom since the time when he was only an entrepreneur with a squeegee and a bucket; I’m sure that he wouldn’t mind my creative use of his work. (That claim is probably false on many levels, one can never be certain, but the generalities are true, and it sounds good.)

To your credit, I really enjoyed the poem you posted, is it yours? The Waterworld theme was excellent, and unless I’m mistaken, it was a clever reference to my comment that Leefeller daddy #2 died lost at sea. You really turned the tables on me with that one, but maybe I’m reading too much into it, maybe it’s not yours and you’re not really all that clever. Let me point out that when setting poetry to music, it’s usually accompanied by the instruction, “Sung to the tune of” If I’m totally wrong on all levels, please post the accompanying music, I would enjoy attempting to pick it out on my zither. Before you do, be aware that there are copyright issues to be considered.

Also, you brazenly use the “J” word. You’ll note that I don’t use the “J” word. Using that word is not acceptable in polite company, unless as an exclamation or when cursing, which is quite acceptable.

Well I’m pretty much burned out, now might be the appropriate time for another hymn.

Let me give the attribution right off the bat, I don’t want to be accused of plagiarism again. This one comes from “The Ozark Mountain Dare devils.” If you get a chance to listen to the recorded version of this one, you’ll notice that the majestic harp is prominent.

I never read it in a book

I never saw it on a show

but I heard it in the alley

on a weird radio

if you want a drink of water

you got to get it from a well

if you want to get to heaven

you got to raise a little hell

I never felt it in my feet

I never felt it in my soul

but I heard it the alley

now it’s in my rock and roll

if you want to know a secret

you got to promise not to tell

if you want to get to heaven

you got to raise a little hell

I never thought it’d be so easy

I never thought it’d be so fun

but I heard it in the alley

now I got it on the run

if you want to see an angel

you got to find it where it fell

if you want to get to heaven

you got to raise a little hell

if you want to get to heaven

if you want to get to heaven

if you want to get to heaven

if you want to get to heaven

I have the nagging feeling of being a brute; I fear that I’ve been much too cruel, to a poor little girl.  Allow me to soothe you with another hymn from “The Ozark Mountain Dare Devils.” It’s called “Jackie Blue”

Uh oh! I’m unable to plagiarize “Jackie Blue” in order to soothe you. It must be a sign from above. Anyway the song has some naughty parts, and I don’t know you well enough to assume naughty parts. All I know for certain about you is that everything is Greek to you, and that you don’t believe in God or Chomsky.

I sincerely hope that I have not smashed your pumpkin, Jack O’Lantern, whatever…

A Tequila moment with Geebeeibiz on a Cracker

Obviously?... It is not very hard to know what you don’t know, like I knew it when I said it, but you really did not know it, did you?  So,... not so obviously!

I bet my dogma can kick your dogmas ass!

Yes and no,.... it depends on what the answer to the question is.

Gay Rights! Calling anything right, seems to piss off the conservatives, unless they are doing the calling.
....

All of anything seems a lot, (all you liberals!)

Conservative logic is like,.. I don’t know….... non existent?

Do not mock me, because I do not like it, but I mock you for only then does it fit.

The argument is for even-handed speech, or put another way,
justice.  Has the Christian community dished anything out that
could be called reciprocal?  Or is there only the pregnant
supposition that they would be condemned without trying it out?
It is one thing to moan and groan about disproportionate
condemnation and set up hypothetical arguments but unless the
Christians actually mock the Gays and see what is the outcome, then
there really is no argument.  It will always remain in the realm of
defensive/offensive conjecture.  But then that is the way it is wanted.
It is a phallacious form of argument (pun intended).  To set up a
confrontation that never takes place.  That way the whining can
continue.  The Zombie demands equal rights but will not actually
exercise that equal right because it does not do his denunciation
any good.  The theater would be all gone!  Seems like he was actually
having fun at the Hunky Jesus contest himself. 

For a few on the other side, but don’t be disappointed, there aren’t any
vulgar pictures. If that is what you are looking for…  get a ticket from
the
next guy.

http://tinyurl.com/3w9cf6d

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2005-02-17/news/right-hand-of-
god/

http://tinyurl.com/3z67x6z

http://tinyurl.com/3mgqxvo

So it can be a contest between the Christians and the Gays, but what do
you do with the Christian Gays? Their website is banned from TD.

If Christians want to take potshots at Gays, and they frequently do, then
they will.  But we don’t really hear about them either as the four news
published articles did not make national news, not even State news. 
and these were just a few found on the ‘Net.  Then there is always the
story of Matthew Shepherd, and that did get the attention of national
news. 

http://tinyurl.com/6fhrvbf

With all the tripe that is published by Christians about Gays, it is no
wonder the Gays respond with salacious festivals.  Neither the Gays
shown in the San Francisco park fest nor the Christians’ behavior of
violence against gays shows much humanity. 

But I do have a curiosity.  The Gays in San Francisco took mocking aim
at Jesus Christ and the Christians are properly offended and
appropriately find it shocking.  But the argument was what if the
Christians did a similar act toward Gays?  But what would the Christians
do to mock the Gays?  What actually would mock Gays?  I would think
they would not find it mocking.  They often mock themselves.  At least
Gays don’t kill and do violence to Christians. But the reverse is not true.

The other thing I find strange.  It is the lack of description of what it is
about Christianity that ought to be honored, ought to be valued, ought
to be something in which one could find solace.  To hell with what the
gays do, to hell with what anyone does.  Isn’t Christianity supposed to
be about the teachings and miracles of Jesus?  The defensive posture is
just that, a posture.  What is Christianity supposed to teach?  For it is a
teaching religion isn’t it?  If Christianity is the religion of forgiveness
and grace, then that is what ought to be advertised, so it seems to me. 
But of course, there is no emotional payoff in that.  I find it sad that
that is what is needed.

Isn’t it “Way Down in the Hole”?  Thinking JDmysticDJ needs to
admit it was Tom’s not his.

Down in the Hole. Tom Waits. Takes a minute for the song to begin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2MjRcVO4g

Obviously JDMysticDJ knew what Leefeller meant right away and didnt need to have it explained to him. Oh, and everyone else knew what Leefeller meant right away. Yet the Triumvirate of Truthdig had to revel in some prolonged mocking. “Geebeebiz on a cracker” was apparently so clever, and so risque, and so daring that the buzz extended for many posts.

As usual, cicada buzz is neither clever nor brave. Lets learn from it though. Every cicada post provides me with an opportunity to expose one Leftist double standard or another. Lets begin:

There are concepts and people in this country who cannot be mocked, they are in a protected class. The mainstream media would crucify anyone who tries to mock the protected classes and I think there might even be laws against it. 

On the other hand, there is a lower class of concepts and people who can be mocked, who the government will give you a grant of money to mock. The media will not focus on you for mocking the lower class, will not try to harm you, will not make you anathema for mocking the lower class of people. After all, they identify with lower concepts, so the lower class people have to just bear it.

That lower class can also be used as a scapegoat. That leads to death, it is serious. The mocking is not serious, it is just a double standard, but that is my topic today since the cicadas performed that function.

Here is a website of some recent mocking of the lower concepts. It is posted by a gay person who noticed the double standard.

Dont be afraid to click on the website and read the whole thing. It isnt as bad as it sounds. In fact the actual story will not harm your delicate Leftist sensitivities at all, instead it will amuse you even more than “Geebeebiz on a cracker”, which kept you going for a dozen posts.

So have fun and all, but please read the article and you might learn something about one of your many double standards.

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/04/27/christians-mock-gays-at-shocking-easter-service/?singlepage=true

My mind is buzzing like a period cicada;

All I could think of when I read that was…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB6UQXx98KU

Back from girlie shoppin’

Again, about Geebeebiz on a cracker, I was going to say in my last
post, that, in my opinion, Leefeller was not suggesting Jesus Christ
was anywhere near this forum. But I thought that it was understood.
Guess not.

It matters not to me what you think of my intellect JDmysticDJ.  It
could be your cryptic observation was scant or maybe you simply
always have heartburn or possibly some other ailment of not being
able to move solid waste out of your body.  But it is not of any huge
consequence at least not to me.  You are kind of silly sometimes,
though, like your comment about if I thought Chomsky would deserve
more respect were he to die in a plane crash.  What do plane crashes
have to do with his intellect?  He could die riding a hippopotamus but
that wouldn’t have anything to do with how or what he thinks.  I don’t
wish a plane death on anyone.  Though it was morbid of you to suggest
that I might.  It looks like you are trying to put a sentiment in my
comments that just isn’t there.  Again, an incidence of inflated
disingenuousness and kind of tawdry.  Were you raised that way?  And
yeah, I do lack a Y chromosome.  But my flaming red hair, stiletto heels
and blowing smoke from two pistolas compensate nicely.  I did like
your poem about the mouth disease.  Seems appropriate.  And yeah, I
did read what you said the title was…  One good poem deserves
another, not mine, though I have a book of them.  This one comes with
music as well and I thought you might enjoy it, maybe not.  The entire
album is terrific.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKUo1HHfpUY

Charlie Darwin

Set the sails I feel the winds a’stirring
Toward the bright horizon set the way
Cast your reckless dreams upon our Mayflower
Haven from the world and her decay

And who could heed the words of Charlie Darwin
Fighting for a system built to fail
Spooning water from their broken vessels
As far as I can see there is no land

Oh my god, the waters all around us
Oh my god, it’s all around

And who could heed the words of Charlie Darwin
The lords of war just profit from decay
And trade their children’s promise for the jingle
The way we trade our hard earned time for pay

Oh my god, the waters cold and shapeless
Oh my god, it’s all around
Oh my god, life is cold and formless
Oh my god, it’s all around

Well JD, I did not say JD in me previous post about placing ones foot in ones mouth,.... through if the foot fits? 

I found the Gebebeez poem a keeper, this shows me JD’, your funny bone is not always in Uranus!

JD,.... obviously it appears after reading your response to She, ITW’s comment about digging a hole did not sink in and your comments sounded a bit baited and sexist. Comprehension seems to evade you, like common sense or integrity from a Republican.

Shenonymous

Do you recall me mentioning the difficulties of written communication? Now, my appreciation of your intellect is only further diminished. The difficulty in communication was clearly caused by poor comprehension, and not from poor composition. I was clearly commenting about the cynicism of Leefeller’s other daddy, not the justifiably revered daddy. I will not compare Noam Chomsky to the rope twirler and humorist; clearly their talents can not be compared because of the different nature of their talents. I’m wondering why you don’t recognize Will’s wisdom when he said, “I never met a man I didn’t like,” in respect to Chomsky. Would you have more respect for Chomsky if he were to perish in a plane crash in Barrow? I think Chomsky has the edge on Will when it comes to wisdom. If Will had a dislike for Wiley Post he might have experienced more longevity. I’ll proffer that Chomsky has friends, in fact I am one, but I’ll suggest that Chomsky is more motivated to being a friend of humanity, in totality, rather than merely having a friendship for individuals.

My mind is buzzing like a period cicada; it’s full of witticisms and criticisms, but I will have to defer for a while because I want to engage in a guilty pleasure.  I have developed an addiction I’m not at all proud of. I’m addicted to watching rednecks being forced to turn only left at high rates of speed. I derive a mildly sadistic pleasure when these rednecks veer too far to the right and are punished as a result. Yes it is a harmful addiction, but I’ll proffer that it is a less harmful addiction than being addicted to Tequila.

Incidentally, I really appreciated your effort to slug OzarkMountainMichael, but being a girl, I should say woman; you lacked the necessary power behind your punch.

Coming up will be an assertion that the mighty triumvirate has been displaying severe, and more mild, symptoms of Ayn Rand’s disease, those symptoms being an adamant atheism, a hatred for altruism, and a psychopathic lack of empathy, even a philosophic hatred of empathy. It’s my contention that the members of the mighty triumvirate have displayed those symptoms; some of those symptoms more obvious than others. I’ll also be revealing that I am a man on a mission, and that the motivator of that mission is the very same motivator that motivated Jake and Elwood. Being a good person who strongly believes in altruism, excepting altruism that benefits rednecks, I’ll be endeavoring to dig the mighty triumvirate out of the hole they find themselves in. It will require digging a tangent at an incline, it will be strenuous, but it will be worth it, if only for the sake of altruism. The mighty triumvirate might enjoy the sermon from the hole I’ll be delivering, not to be confused with a previous “Sermon on the Mount” Yay, tho there will be striking similarities, Amen!

Now I must take a much deserved respite from the tedium of political and religious dialectic, and the perhaps more useful satire in order to be amused by the sufferings of rednecks who stupidly veer to the right.

Now might be an appropriate time for a hymn.

When you walk through the garden
you gotta watch your back
well I beg your pardon
walk the straight and narrow track
if you walk with Geebeebiz
he’s gonna save your soul
you gotta keep the devil
way down in the hole
he’s got the fire and the fury
at his command
well you don’t have to worry
if you hold on to Geebeebiz’s hand
we’ll all be safe from Satan
when the thunder rolls
just gotta help me keep the devil
way down in the hole
All the angels sing about Geebeebiz’s mighty sword
and they’ll shield you with their wings
and keep you close to the lord
don’t pay heed to temptation
for his hands are so cold
you gotta help me keep the devil
way down in the hole

After singing this hymn, I’m having second thoughts about any future misguided altruistic digging.
I’ll pray about it.

Before I go I’ll point out that it’s called “Hoof ‘and’ Mouth disease,” not “foot in mouth disease” it’s a disease exclusive to bovines, and a good human being like myself is not subject to contracting the disease, I’ve been around bovines tormented by flies and not once did those flies attempt to invade my mouth, and furthermore, I lack the dexterity and desire to put my foot in my mouth.

JDmystiDJ, your April 29 5:14am first paragraph is so soulful.  Did
you think that by whimpering you might precondition a sympathetic
chorus for yourself?  It is beneath you, really.  Saving face?  Is that
what you think you are doing?  Pehaps are you simply being only
routinely defensive?  You appear to be obsessing about Leefeller
and his oft exclamation of Geebeebiz on a cracker!  What a hoot! 
What do you think Geebeebiz on a cracker means, anyway? Leefeller
purposefully fractures language and being from a farmer culture puts
a kind of hayseed humor on his sharp perceptions of the social scene. 
You act like a fraidycat tightrope walker who is just starting to learn
his footing but take it back in the next breath.  It’s disingenuous.

Will Rogers, whose parents both were Cherokee, married once and
fathered four children of his own, died in an airplane crash near Barrow,
Alaska. Probably more famous than Chomsky who lacks all sense of
humor in his writings, Rogers is memorialized in uncountable ways,
highways and hospitals are named after him, schools, even a stamp
commemorated him.  Hmmm.  Has Chomsky’s face been put on a US
stamp? What exactly are you implying in saying he “expired in a barren
sea of angry purposeless cynicism?”  That was pretty crass and
ignorant.  Oklahoma’s favorite son, was a Democrat and held liberal
values but also held fast to his individualism.  He railed against
conservatives and liberals as well, who he saw as not fulfilling their
liberal duty.  No one was exempt from his cutting humor.  He was a
self-made man who synthesized common man with rugged
individualism. In his time, politics were not as vehement as they are
now, and he expressed in his column that political problems were taken
too seriously. He commented on a society that was disintegrating into
competing classes brought on by economic stresses. Not much has
changed over the decades.

Nor did George Carlin die in a barren sea of angry purposeless cynicism
as any biography would show.  In one of his books, “Napalm and Silly
Putty, he said, “One of the more pretentious political self-descriptions
is ‘Libertarian.’  People think it puts them above the fray. It sounds
fashionable, and to the uninitiated, faintly dangerous.  Actually, it’s just
one more bullshit political philosophy.”  It has been claimed Carlin was
one of the greatest promoters of liberal causes who delivered to
audiences in his unique brand of comedy an explanation of what makes
liberals believe the things they do.  He championed a long list of liberal
causes in his innumerable television specials, books, stage perform-
ances, and other public offerings that included views on:  religion,
women’s rights, gay rights, minority equality, abortion, gun control, the
death penalty, evolution, consumerism, corporate influence, the poor,
the middle class, the wealthy, and patriotism that define the core
foundation of the beliefs that identifies one as liberal. You may not
have appreciated Carlin, JDmysticDJ, but in his inimitable way he helped
to improve and reinforce those liberal beliefs in an audience that could
be counted in the millions.

Did you pick up the quotes about Chomsky somewhere?  It looks like
there are footnotes from a citation.  Nothing said in those quotes
necessarily impresses a Liberal!  The comparison is inane.  I have no
opinion that his intellect is far superior to yours, but I would say it is
not “far” superior to mine!  We have different views, have spent our lives
in different ways, which does not assess intellect.  It is doltish to put it
to a contest.  You’ve said nothing that convinces me to change my
views of Chomsky’s.  You can drool all you want over Chomsky, kiss his
_ _ _ if you want, I prefer the views and actions of Bernie Sanders, but I
wouldn’t fawn the way you do.

There are two excellent theories for arguing with ones foot in ones mouth, and neither of them seems be worth a darn,....  an observation of little intellect but what seems most apparent, is when ones lips are moving or when ones mouth is open,  one will not usually learn very much, but they may catch a few flies.

JD, my friend:

As a good pal frequently says to me:
“ITW, when you are already in a hole, STOP DIGGING!”

You are usually too bright to keep tangling yourself up like this.

We probably agree that Henry Kissinger may have quoted Sun-Tzu, but he was too damn thick and dogmatic to have any understanding of it…kinda makes you think Rumsfeld was Dubya’s Kissinger…

What a mammoth and futile task I have before me; attempting to vanquish a powerful clique; a triumvirate of intellectual and satirical brilliance so daunting that I quake in fear. I will openly admit that I fear my limited abilities are not up to the task, and that endeavoring to do so is foolish, but “Fools rush in…” I feel certain that Sun-Tzu would severely admonish me for this foolishness, but, being a fool, my face must be saved regardless of how counter productive and obfuscating that face saving may be in the grand scheme of things. Chomsky be damned, it’s my face that is in jeopardy now. I am much too big to fail.

Leefeller writes,

“She, is right again…. I tipped over me Tequila bottle at the time and I placed me comma in the wrong spot…. I did not mean to say JD was a Geebeebiz on a cracker”. ... and I did not say, JD is Geebeebiz on a cracker! ...what I meant to say was JD,.... ‘Geebeebiz on a cracker’..... now I can see the confusion if one was planning on be called Geebeebiz on a cracker or if they actually considered themselves to be Gebeebiz on a cracker.”

I might be a fool, but I’m starting to gain a little more confidence now. The duplicity of Leefellers comment is easily recognized, he denies a thing, while at the same time restating the thing. Maybe I can put this issue to rest by flatly stating that I do not consider myself to be “,Geebeebiz on a cracker,” nor do a fear being, “Geebeebiz on a cracker” my only fear is that someone might succeed in portraying me as “Geebeebiz on a cracker.” I flatly refute this errant portrayal, if one wishes to give credibility to such a portrayal, one should give evidence of my condimentcy.

Shenonymous in her esoteric way, suggests Leefeller is the progeny of two daddies. It’s sad to relate that one of those daddies expired on the barren tundra or the frigid waters of Alaska, while the other daddy expired in a barren sea of angry purposeless cynicism. The comedic value of this daddies’ latter work may have some merit to those with a cynical bent, but I find this latter work to be… purposeless cynicism, having no socially redeeming qualities, or comedic value. It is my sincere hope that Leefeller will not expire in such a way.

(Hours Later)

I went crackers! I wrote 12,000 characters of dialectic which turned out to be the kind of intellectualizing I dislike so much, replete with idol worship and over disclosure. Here’s a heavily censured version.

Inherit The Wind offers Santayana’s wisdom, and suggests that I am guilty of not recognizing that wisdom, but I do recognize that wisdom. I see no value whatsoever in reliving Sun-Tzu’s history.

” The Art of War became known in Europe in the 18th century, and something of a manual for U.S. military strategists in the 20th century, when it was popularized by Henry Kissinger, among others.

The Ancient Greeks were an ignorant, perverse, and warlike people. The Ancient Greek philosophers quibbled among themselves like children. Historian Barbara Tuckman used Ancient Athens as one of three examples in her book, “The March of Folly.”

(More)

#2

Shenonymous writes:

“I am a self-styled iconoclast and
have no gods.  I do understand the true-believer motives and
understand the minions of Chomsky.  I have read his works too and
while he may have said some pearls about linguistics, he is considered
a master in that area, I have not appreciated his views on the political
scene.  Much too libertarian for my liberal socialistic perspective.  I am
against anarchy and do not hold the individual as sacrosanct when one
chooses to live in a society.” 

“[Noam Chomsky] is a self-declared anarcho-syndicalist[11] and a libertarian socialist, principles he regards as grounded in the Age of Enlightenment[12] and as “the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society.” Chomsky has defined himself as being nominally an Anarcho-Syndicalist in the Wobbly tradition; The I.W.W., the International Workers of the World, “Workers of the World Unite” a social movement. Chomsky very reluctantly gave his endorsement of the recent Health Care Legislation, a legislation criticized as being socialism by some. Chomsky’s reluctance was a result of his appraisal that the legislation was not socialistic enough. I’ll proffer that there is as much difference between Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism, as there is between Socialism and National Socialism.

“Noam Chomsky, is an American linguist, philosopher,[2][3] cognitive scientist, and social activist. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[4] Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as one of the fathers of modern linguistics,[5][6][7] and a major figure of analytic philosophy. Chomsky is the author of more than 150 books and has received worldwide attention for his views.”

In addition to the credentials listed above, Chomsky is a Pulizer Prize Winner, the author of numerous articles, and the subject of many books and numerous articles, he was a close associate of Howard Zinn, and he is my nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. In short, Chomsky is a giant intellect, an intellect far superior to yours or mine. We might all of us have been created equal, but we are not all of us equal in achievement, or in moral character.

It is not such a bad thing to be called a bug or a slug. It is a caricature meant to convey a personal criticism. I can live with criticism and caricatures, even harsh ones.

There are worse things. Such as accepting caricature of a class of people. That leads to prejudice. Accepting prejudice is far worse than being called a bug.

Or another example, endorsing the Five Easy Steps is worse. That undermines the principles of democracy.

Another worse thing would be imposing a double standard. That leads to chains. I would rather be called a bug than impose a double standard. I would rather be called a slug than ignore that a double standard is being imposed on me or on other people.

Here is a far worse thing than being called a bug: scapegoating. That leads to death. If I compromise with that I deserve to be called far worse than a slug. So… no compromise.

At this juncture I have unfettered freedom to expose and resist the worst things, and being called a ‘slug’, even being a slug, is worth it.

We will meet at the next Truthdig article. Rest assured that if i post it will be along the same line of attack, just as your posts will be the same old buzz.

She, is right again…. I tipped over me Tequila bottle at the time and I placed me comma in the wrong spot…. I did not mean to say JD was a Geebeebiz on a cracker”. ... and I did not say, JD is Geebeebiz on a cracker! ...what I meant to say was JD,.... ‘Geebeebiz on a cracker’..... now I can see the confusion if one was planning on be called Geebeebiz on a cracker or if they actually considered themselves to be Gebeebiz on a cracker.

JD: Your claim to Sun-Tzu being irrelevant reminds me of George Santayana’s insightful comment: Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Sun-Tzu was known in China and Japan (as Sonshi) but wasn’t known in the West until an atrocious French translation appeared in the late 1700’s.

In 1910, the first and most famous English translation appeared.  Since then, numerous versions have been published, but they don’t differ that much in the main text and its implications.

If you don’t understand Sun-Tzu, either implicitly or explicitly, you will never have a hope or a chance of defeating the evil that is seeking to destroy our nation and our liberties.

Even a comedy like “Dogma” has Chris Rock saying what is a fundamental truism of The Art: “If your enemy knows where you are, BE SOMEWHERE ELSE!”

We wring our hands and moan “Oh why, oh why do these bad guys seem to run everything?”  We attribute it to God’s will, karma, a doomed world of evil, when the REAL answer is simple: They are better at strategy and tactics.

I’ve read Leefeller’s exclamation “Geebeebiz on a cracker” many
times before on other forums, JDMysticDJ, I don’t believe in his
reply to you was anything else but a Yeowie Kazowie moment. 
The Leefeller Guy sometimes forgets his punctuation (you know,
commas, hyphens, semi-colons, and their friends).  Some of us
have become used to it and look forward to reading his satiric
but incisive and often hilarious comments.  I’ve always thought
his political humorw as akin to Will Rogers crossed pollinated with
George Carlin.  Oh well, we all have our “style.” 

I was merely translating what Rumsfeld had said, again, tongue in
cheek because of course it was on his rash advice and Cheney’s Bush
felt empowered to preempt war in Iraq. 

Again I am surprised at your swagger with respect to dismissing the
awareness our thinking ancestors had.  You run the risk of being too
overcommitted to the truth of your own approach to thinking and might
believe we spontaneously generated six or so thousand years ago!  I call
it thinking one “has” the trooth.  Good ideas are timeless, it doesn’t
matter how far back in history they emerged.  To not recognize that
puts one in the foolish position of not being able to learn from history. 
It is a kind of blindness not to accept the wisdom of the ancients.  That
does not mean one has to accept everything an ancient philosopher
said.  Plato is not my favorite philosopher of old (shhhhhh!  Please
don’t tell my 21st century Platonist friends). And while I quote Harry
Stotle very often, I don’t like his or Plato’s view of women! and have a
few choice words for them!  May their molecules turn over in the
aether! (I believe they were cremated!)  I am a self-styled iconoclast and
have no gods.  I do understand the true-believer motives and
understand the minions of Chomsky.  I have read his works too and
while he may have said some pearls about linguistics, he is considered
a master in that area, I have not appreciated his views on the political
scene.  Much too libertarian for my liberal socialistic perspective.  I am
against anarchy and do not hold the individual as sacrosanct when one
chooses to live in a society.  I believe in government because I think it is
the most rational organization for large groups of people.  Anarchy
might work within a small collective.  And it probably has on that level
but it has never been able to work in large populations and only results
in war and mayhem.  But in your devotion to Chomsky you ought to
understand that Chomsky was an educated man and has an education
in the ancient philosophers.

Shenonymous

Thank you for the enlightenment regarding Gorgias the ancient Greek philosopher [?] personality, entertainer, huckster, sophist, subject for Plato’s barbed quill…? I think I now have a better understanding of what is meant by Gorgiasias Rhetoric. I will put this information in my memory bank along with other information stored there which I perceive to be of little value. Complicating my understanding are the differing explanations given by you and OzarkMichael, but if it’s any consolation to you, and based on the explanations given, and OzarkMichael’s apparent psychopathic tendencies, I find your explanation more acceptable.

I have a hunch that you might have been a philosophy major at an institution of higher learning, if not you are to be commended for your accomplishments in self education. Upon review, I’ll acknowledge that you were writing from an educational level above my grade when commenting about Rumsfeld and his obfuscation, which I believe was an attempt by him to avoid acknowledging his errors. If I understand you correctly either Rumsfeld took advantage of his higher learning to accomplish obfuscation, or perhaps he improvised on the spot to accomplish that obfuscation, which ever, it’s not the source of his obfuscation skills that is important, but the obvious obfuscation that has importance.

It must be very clear to you that I have a great respect for Noam Chomsky. Your earlier comment about Chomsky, which amounted to an assignment of Chomsky to irrelevance, obviously caused in me a negative appraisal of you, which further complicated my ability to decipher your comments. I’ll suggest that the choice of words and punctuation are very important in written communication, for example, when Leefeller says,

“Hey, JD Geebeebiz on a cracker! Martha A and Ommmm both seem to get stuck on things, for some reason it usually turns out to be one word.”

Is he calling me “JD Geebeebiz on a cracker,” or is it a simple declaration aimed elsewhere. Maybe I’m dense and unwilling to recognize the insult, is it a rejection of me because he finds me objectionable? Based on the way the example is written, I can only assume it is a rejection, but it does not at all matter to me one way or the other. The point is that for written communication to be most affective, the choice of words, punctuation, sentence structure etc. is important and can lead to misunderstandings.

Given my aforementioned negative appraisal of you pertaining to your rejection of Chomsky, possibly you can understand why sentences like, “It would seem his [Rumsfeld’s] point was that one must consider being very cautious about going to war,” and “It would seem that Rumsfeld was more than acquainted on the subject and knew full well knew what was going on,” would be a source of misinterpretation by me.

We have discussed a number of intellects on this thread, ancient philosophers and their humors, an ancient strategist of war, and, [let’s not forget] Chomsky. Long before this discussion, it has been my opinion, that primitive philosophers, though mildly interesting, lack any real significance in the modern world, which I don’t believe can be said of Noam Chomsky.

Knowledge of the Greek philosophers and such as Sun Tzu might be an interesting intellectual exercise for some, but this kind intellectualism strikes me as being nearly totally irrelevant in respect to the events that dominate our lives. I don’t hesitate, or have any uncertainty, when I assert that Chomsky’s genius has been obfuscated here by meaningless irrelevancies.

Clearly I have contributed to the irrelevancies with my attempts to ridicule, and those attempts were amusing to me, but it seems clear to me now that those attempts were not successful in discrediting the objects of my ridicule, but all is not lost, this experience has given me certain specific recognitions.

I’m awfully disappointed in you JDMysticDJ.  That was no defense of
Donald Rumsfeld. When his known unknown speech came out it was
assumed by the media and many of the other effetes in this country
(shall you be counted among them?) that he had invented a kind of
poetry as one commenter said back in 2004.  In fact, as I showed,
he borrowed (plagiarized) the entire idea from many others before
him from Persia to Galileo, including the recently mentioned von
Clausewitz right here on this forum.  It was strongly debated at the
time he made the speech that he abused and tortured the language
by some and that he showed impeccable language, syntactically,
semantically, logically, and rhetorically by others.  It was a complete
linguistic farce and that is exactly what I was demonstrating in my
derisive comment.  Whether or not you appreciate the Italian
economists who long before Rumsfeld dealt with the concept is
irrelevant as they are recognized in the field and you have shown
yourself to be quite ignorant in your comments.

I assumed you knew what you were talking about in your April 26, 7:30
pm post, but I see I was wrong.  Gorgias was a famous pre-Socratic
Greek Sophist, who hailed from Sicily.  He was famous for his
affectatiousness, which I amply implied in my post that Rumsfeld
showed himself to be, and I would say a few who post on
Troothdig show themselves to be as well. Plato rather “disliked”
Gorgias for his sophistic doctrines, branding Gorgias as an orator who
“entertained” his audience with superficial speeches and who believed
that it is unnecessary to learn the truth about actual matters when one
has discovered the art of persuasion.  Could there be Gorgiasians in our
midst?  To call someone a Gorgiasian Rhetorician, JDMysticDJ, is to say
they are pompous and pretentious.  I may be pompous but I am not
pretentious.  For a reference do check “Paralogic rhetoric: a theory of
communicative interaction”, by Thomas Kent, page 18. Now it is I
laughing at you.

Taking a turn on another track, it looks like there could be a battle
between the cicadas… and the slugs.  For one good name deserves
another.  Let’s perhaps rhapsodize a bit as perhaps Gorgias would to
see if there is a metaphorical allegory in the characterization of a slug.

A slug is a shell-less snail, one that skates on a thick, gooey mucus
that oozes from the front foot that gives it traction to climb and grease
its way as it slithers on level ground.  And the one thing all slugs have
in common is slime.  It can be said that when slugs begin their usual
climb up the stems of daylilies and perch on petals, you can almost
hear the “bed” of slugs (a bed of slugs is a what a group of slugs are
called) having a debate of whether to gorge themselves on the garden
right then and there, or…drag it away to save for a later snack, and
when there is more slime around than can be found under the best
rotting logs, slugs have achieved the status of infestation.  They are
voracious.  Not only will it devour many species of plant, it will also
stalk and eat other slugs.  Slugs have merciless ways.  They are
predatory gastropods and they have a healthy and carnivorous, actually
cannibalistic, appetite and an acrobatic behavior.  They can leap and
jump around as well as slither.

So if the leftists are cicadas, is it only righteous reciprocity that the
rightists are… slugs?

I asked: “If the Tea Party occupied the grounds and sometimes the floor of a Senate building for a week or two with occasional acts of intimidation committed by a few, Extreme signs and extreme chants by a few more… what would you call that? Dont censor yourself, just let it out.”

ITW answered with a joke: “Why, it would be treason, of course! Punishable by a sentence of life in front of a firing squad, followed by flogging, beheading and ending with a lifetime of hard labor.”

Thats pretty funny.

Then ITW’s real answer: “I believe in the First Amendment. Period. Unequivocally. Even bat-shit-crazy racist secessionist teabaggers have the right to peaceably assemble for redress of their grievances, no matter how despicable they are to any sane and moral person.”

Ah than let me say that even Wisconsin big-government socialists and union thugs who want to loot the public treasury have the right to peaceably assemble for redress of their grievances, no matter how despicable they are to any sane and moral citizen.

Yes, one either believes in the 1st Amendment or one doesn’t.

JD:
I don’t claim to read She’s mind…but I do know she wasn’t defending Rummy, but rather criticizing him….at least I think she was…

She can explain Plato far better than I can.  I wonder: If one understands Sun-Tzu, does that mean that one can’t understand Plato????

“Gorgias” is not the same as the “Georgia” which is near Persia. Search engines will ‘correct’ your spelling back to ‘Georgia’ or ‘Georgians

It is the name of one of Plato’s writings about Socrates. The name comes from the rhetoritician(great speaker) named Gorgias.  I summarize Plato’s “Gorgias”, which i know something about:

Socrates was charged with crimes. He was going to be brought to court to answer the charges in front of a jury. A fine rhetoritician(a student of Gorgias) wants to advise Socrates on how to win the trial.

Three problems arose. First, Socrates could not converse with a mob as if it was a rationale being. The mob is an unthinking thing that buzzes like cicadas.

Socrates will talk to individuals as individuals, on an individual basis. This great characteristic of Socrates(saving his dialogue for one person at a time, but treating the mob for what it is), would be called a weakness by Leefeller, judging by one of his latest criticism of me.

Second, Socrates would not address his fellows in the flattering way they desired, his method was critical. He is working for an improvement which most people do not want, so he often talked in riddles. Interestingly, Leefeller makes the same complaint about me.

If he was direct and honest with the court, Socrates worried that his position would be equivalent to that of a doctor being prosecuted by a pastrycook before a jury of children. The pastrycook is prosecuting on the basis of taste and fluffiness. If the doctor defends himself by explaining that his medicine is really good for the children, won’t the pastrycook and the children simply cry out that the medicine is nasty-tasting and condemn him? The doctor in such a trial would be at an “utter dead end”, says Socrates.

I did try to face trial on the charge of Fascism for a long while and at times was able to escape the dead end, but it kept reappearing. It is an “utter dead end” after all. So no more of that for me. Lets put you on trial instead, because 1/2 of what you accuse me of, you are far more guilty of than I am. Thats my solution.

If you want to know how Socrates handled the problem read “The Gorgias” by Plato.

Talking in riddles appears to be a Republican thing, I remember Ronald Regain, saying;... “I didn’t say I didn’t say it, what I said was… I didn’t say I said it”?  (is this a question or an answer? Ommmmm suggestively follows in the RR foot steps.

Hey, JD Geebeebiz on a cracker! Martha A and Ommmm both seem to get stuck on things, for some reason it usually turns out to be one word.

I try not to do that in a giant way! When things become a fetish like my fascination with Fascism or Ommmms apparent stuck on one word fetish with the word “Uprising”, me thinks I need to grab me Tequlia bottle and have unfond memories of Martha A!

Ommmm, if over 200 thousand Tea Bags showed up to anything, I may consider them worthy of a second look,.... except burning crosses don’t count!

Inherit The Wind

“Somehow, Leefeller and I, with our limited vocabularies seem to have not problem understanding her…”

Excellent! Now maybe you can help me out. Can you explain Gorgiasian Rhetoric for me? I searched for an understanding of the term, and was only able to find a vague association with Persian Jews. I like to expand my horizons, and diminish my ignorance, so any help you can give me would be appreciated.

I suspect that Chomsky would be able to answer the question, but maybe not, Shenonymous has expressed her lack of confidence in Chomsky’s intellectual capacities, which irks me, and should give you a good guess as to why I responded to her in the way I did. My bad!

Also, I realize that you can not read Shenonymous’ mind, but I’m curious as to your best guess as to why Shenonymous defended Rumsfeld’s linguistic gymnastics.

Just a theoretical observation, Rumsfeld could have avoided a lot of head scratching, and ridicule by simply saying, “There were some things we didn’t know.” Rumsfeld chose to go off on a semantic journey which was an intentional or reflex response, in order to obfuscate the question, and prevent a follow-up question. That’s my theory. I hope you have not problem with my offering this theory, (My bad!)

Rumsfeld’s answer did make perfect sense, with some brief analysis, but he sure wasted a lot of words.

Oh yeah, just another observation. Your chivalrous defense of Shenonymous is commendable, but it smacks of Chauvinism. I half expect her to tell you to mind your own damn business, (My bad!)

Meanwhile, just for grins, answer this question: if the Tea Party occupied the grounds and sometimes the floor of a Senate building for a week or two with occasional acts of intimidation committed by a few, Extreme signs and extreme chants by a few more… what would you call that? Dont censor yourself, just let it out.
************

Why, it would be treason, of course! Punishable by a sentence of life in front of a firing squad, followed by flogging, beheading and ending with a lifetime of hard labor.

OM: I believe in the First Amendment. Period. Unequivocally. Even bat-shit-crazy racist secessionist teabaggers have the right to peaceably assemble for redress of their grievances, no matter how despicable they are to any sane and moral person.

One either believes in the 1st Amendment or one doesn’t.

Leefeller said: “Your apparent disdain for other posters opinions seems to be what is happening in Political land, a disdain for the majority of people or a large segment who do not agree in half or whole.”

perfectly stated. Every word exactly chosen. Of course you do not realize the irony of it.

For you, Leefeller, have long been part of the Political Landscape of Truthdig, and your disdain for ‘the majority of people or a large segment’ was evident from day one. Over a long time i dealt with your disdain by defending against it. That game cannot continue.

ITW said: “Chomsky used uprising inappropriately.  I have to agree.  Uprising implies violence..but Chomsky is far, FAR to the Left of me.”

“Uprising” is neutral when it comes to violence. It does not commit to violence, although admittedly it does not rule out violence out either. Yet my Five Easy Points stand and you have signaled full agreement to them on condition that we use another word besides “uprising”. Strike it out then. I withdraw that word.

Substitute “mass protest”.

The accusation against you of supporting Five Easy Points was not dependant on the word “uprising”. Striking that word out and substituting “mass protest” doesnt take the sting out of my accusation. Think it through.

Meanwhile, just for grins, answer this question: if the Tea Party occupied the grounds and sometimes the floor of a Senate building for a week or two with occasional acts of intimidation committed by a few, Extreme signs and extreme chants by a few more… what would you call that? Dont censor yourself, just let it out.

I suspect you have been helping yourself to me Tequila!
************

It’s that cheap stuff, with the worm in it.
My livestock is limited to two head of dogs and one head of cat. I do have a wife but I don’t consider her property.  If I did I’d be dead.

Rumsfeld is an arrogant imbecile and a bully.  He wanted a war in Iraq.  If South Molucca had attacked Singapore, that would have been a good enough excuse for Rummy to attack Iraq. It wasn’t that he didn’t know what it was he didn’t know, it’s that he didn’t CARE that he didn’t know what he didn’t know.

He should be in a cell with Cheney and Maddoff.

BTW, JD, Shenonymous is neither Persian nor Jewish.  She IS an intellectual with a powerful command of language.

Somehow, Leefeller and I, with our limited vocabularies seem to have not problem understanding her…

After reading JDs last post to She, I can understand the women part, but I am no expert,... thats why I raised cattle?

Ommmm, your last post seems so bizarre, I suspect you have been helping yourself to me Tequila!

I ask you Ommmm, are you a dictum or an enabler, from what I can tell your posts have a large amount of obfuscation in them, which seems ignoble to me, but I am not into buying your cup of tea. Your apparent disdain for other posters opinions seems to be what is happening in Political land, a disdain for the majority of people or a large segment who do not agree in half or whole. So now we go to Britts number 2. (I find this funny).

“2. Disdain for the importance of human rights”

“The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.”

For some reason I see very clearly see the above Britts 2 being practiced and incorporated today by the bought and paid for Republicans/Tea Bags, but I also see a slight connection to what OM seems to be doing here on TD, as the lone strawflower marginalizing the majority. Now in my hypocrisy, I may be doing some of the same things to Ommmm. Though I suggest,  my disinformation and denial and apparent abuses of human rights are not in existence.

I believe Fascism exists, just like bigots exist, though the perpetrators would deny their positions with clear vehemence! Such is fantasia of the fanatics mind!

Inherit The Wind

You’re starting to convince me of the virtues of war. I don’t have any women or cattle.

Shenonymous

“Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense of Known Decisions is classic Gorgiasian
Rhetoric, when he said, “Reports that say that something hasn’t
happened [whether Iraq had supplied or was willing to supply
terrorists with WMDs] are always interesting to me,” he mockingly
jibed in 2002, “because, as we know, there are known knowns; there
are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns;
that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.  But
there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t
know.”  It would seem his point was that one must consider being very
cautious about going to war.”

You’re a riot, I’m laughing uncontrollably. Your comment is amusing because we are “one’s who know, and know we know” that Rumsfeld charged into the war with a theory so wrong that he has proven himself to be “…a man who didn’t know, and didn’t know he didn’t know” Rumsfeld obstinately refused the advice of all the experts, predicted an outcome that never occurred, and continues to believe the Iraq war was the thing to do. “This is a dumb man, and one that will be dumb forever.”

It appears to me that you have a tendency to offer pseudo-intellectualisms with the express purpose of being confrontational. Apparently you’re motivated by a love of debate and will take either side of an argument just for the sake of debating and showing off your worthless, esoteric, meaningless, knowledge of worthless, esoteric, meaningless, philosophical perspectives. Your rhetoric is Gorgiasian, what ever in the hell that means. Are you a Persian Jew? Forgive me, I’m not intending to insult you, I like Persian Jews, Persian Jews in Iran marched against the Israeli invasion of Gaza, and believe that it’s only fair that Iran be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Chomsky’s a Jew, is he Persian? “I don’t know, and I know I don’t know.” “I am an illiterate man, teach me.”

Speaking of being illiterate:

“It would seem that Rumsfeld was more than acquainted on the subject
and knew full well knew what was going on.”

You knew too much.

Regarding Italian economists; they don’t know, and we know they don’t know, this much is known.

I know I am mockingly jibing, I can’t control myself, you are a kick in the head, or would like to be.

ITW????

What the hey!....  I did not read Ommmmms post, because I got stuck on the first sentence and I couldn’t find Ommmm strawman to help me out.

It looked like a privite note to Cliff anyway, and I know Ommmm likes to pick on one person at a time and I did not want to interrupt his unfocused train of thought.

She, I am starting to watch Rachel Maddow when I can, I find her commentary fresh and a small ray of hope. Caught the show this evening; The Vermont thing is very good news indeed.

The attack on the middle class or the Great unwashed masses as Ommmm don’t like me call the people, has only been done in Republican states at the state level, ....wonder why that is?

Cronyism serves the Republicans well, I know the Democrats do it, but they just are not experts at it like the Republicans.  Well planned marching orders from people like the Kochs and the Heritage Foundation and one must not forget ALEC.

For old times stake lets bring up Britts number 13.

“13. Rampant cronyism and corruption “
      by Dr. Laurence Britt,

“Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.”

Hey…. I don’t see nothing going on!

Leefeller is “pals” with Cliff Carson????

How’d I miss THAT??  I thought Lee was twitting CC, (as opposed to “tweeting” him, “twitting” being a fine, old word that long predates Twitter.)

Lee, you done me wrong!  And how did OM figure out that club’s double-secret probation and “special” handshake?

Cliff Carson was unhappy that i quoted one of his sentences to express myself. I know full well what his type means when they complain of censorship. The quotation itself I used in my own way for my own purpose. If Cliff or anyone else wants to stand up against me please pick something more substantial and meaningful to argue over.

Let me show you how it is done. Let me show you how to find something important that creates a meaningful verbal brawl. Here is a quote from Cliff Carson: “The most evil thing on Earth is the World Financial Cabal. Their business is “Blood Profiteering”.”

I would not pick some insignificant fluff to argue about. That is beneath me. For example, i wont point out that Cliff’s “WFC” acronym doesnt belong to some mysterious make-believe Cabal, but the WFC is actually an organization that goes from town to town and puts on shows with fantastic headliner events such as… “Steel Cage Deathmatch! Gorilla Monsoon vs Fabulous Moolah!”

No. That sort of quibbling is beneath me. I go to the bottom line, the most important thing, the stuff that really matters. So lets try that again, shall we?

Here is a quote from Cliff Carson: “The most evil thing on Earth is the World Financial Cabal. Their business is “Blood Profiteering”.”

Now I will show you how to take issue with someone in a significant way over an important point. ready? Begin:

What is buzzing in your brain, Cliff, that you would take a non existant entity and make up a stupid name for it and then take your nonexistant entity with your make-believe name and call it “the most evil thing on Earth?” You trivialize evil and you sound like a moron. I take that back. You are not a moron, instead you are ‘the most evil thing on Earth’.

Yes, evil, that is you Cliff Carson, because you are building a case for blood libel on a global scale. And since you have this preoccupation with Jews in that same post, we can all see what you are talking about.

Everyone read Cliff Carson’s post in toto. Not just the one sentence with the idiotic “WFC”. Think about the whole damned thing:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/is_the_world_too_big_to_fail_20110422/#397963

Antisemitism has a home here on Truthdig. There are plenty of them here, Cliff Carson, and you will also make lots of Leftist friends who will be interested in what you have to say because it harmonizes with their buzz. Not me. I will not give you an inch.

However… Shame on Leftists for allying with such prejudice for the sake of political power.  Shame on Truthdig for slurring over this issue at every turn. Shame on Leftists for working as hard as they can to paper this over with happy slogans, books, articles.

Blood libel is a moral sickness worse than any financial crisis and I despair over it. Its getting worse, not better. Is this the America we are becoming?

A brave German woman who heard the blood libel being preached in her home town said it best: “He sounds like Hitler! I am so ashamed, where is everybody?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0neYjikiuQ&
Leefeller. You buzzed about ‘fascism’ with your new pal Cliffy like two cicadas in a tree. I wasnt going to say anything about the irony(why bother?) but your pal Cliffy decided to start something with me.

There is something wrong, Leefeller. You are happy to converse, make common cause, and shake hands with the greatest evil on this earth. You are dancing on the edge, playing upon the event horizon of a dark abyss. You are helping others become comfortable with evil in your own jokey way.

That should be a wake up call to you, but your buzzing drowns out wake up calls, even my harshest ones have no effect.

I expect you will say something nonsensical now. Something about my name perhaps?. Let me laugh in advance because this is all so funny: “haha”.

Anyone interested in their rights in America ought to watch the
Rachel Maddow show this evening.

Genocide is more profitable and is more of a racket than war since
in genocide, perpetrators don’t lose any members. The Janjaweed
in Africa were certainly as vicious as any humans can be to other
humans. The only thing that made it less than war is that it was not
international.  And how could any one call it a war when the humans
who were starved. raped, and slaughtered had no armaments to with
which fight a war and much less food. 

Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense of Known Decisions is classic Gorgiasian
Rhetoric, when he said, “Reports that say that something hasn’t
happened [whether Iraq had supplied or was willing to supply
terrorists with WMDs] are always interesting to me,” he mockingly
jibed in 2002, “because, as we know, there are known knowns; there
are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns;
that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.  But
there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t
know.”  It would seem his point was that one must consider being very
cautious about going to war.  But Rumsfeld was not the original author
of the unknown knowns or unknown unknowns.  It actually originates
with von Clausewitz, and “the unknown unknowns or those things a
commander doesn’t know he doesn’t know.”  And since real war does
not follow conventional rules he takes a sort of Machiavellian
perspective of “encouraging war be unfair by introducing unknown
unknowns.”

But long before 19th century von Clausewitz was Ibn Yamin Faryumadi,
a 1286 A.D. Persian poet said there are four kinds of man:
  * One who knows and knows that he knows… This is a man of
    knowledge; get to know him!
  * One who knows, but doesn’t know that he knows… This is a man
    who’s unaware, so bring it to his attention.
  * One who doesn’t know, but knows that he doesn’t know… This is
    an illiterate man; teach him!
  * One who doesn’t know and doesn’t know that he doesn’t know…
    This is a dumb man; and would be dumb forever!

And from 16th century Galileo comes the Latin, “Ignotum per æque
ignotum,” meaning “the unknown by the equally unknown”, is a related
form of fallacy in which one attempts to prove something unknown by
deducing it from something else which is also not known to be true.”

Among a few other instances of the idea, there is a 1994 article in
Theory and Decision, a business and economics journal, by Salvatore
Modica and Aldo Rustichini, two Italian economists, who wrote, “A
subject is certain of something when he knows that thing; he is
uncertain when he does not know it, but he knows he does not: he is
consciously uncertain. On the other hand, he is unaware of something
when he does not know it, and he does not know he does not know,...
and so on ad infinitum: he does not perceive, does not have in mind,
the object of knowledge. The opposite of unawareness is awareness.”

It would seem that Rumsfeld was more than acquainted on the subject
and knew full well knew what was going on.

JD:  I think Vinegar Joe called him “Peanut”—but he did detest.

Sun-Tzu is kind of like Homer or Jesus.  Nobody’s actually sure he really existed or if he was a composite of various people.

Of course, back then, in the Warring States Period, everybody in Central China was trying to kill everybody else, and take their women and cattle.

On the topic about war, military and opportunism this seems a proper place for an introduction to Brits number 4. From here it looks like a duck!

“4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism “

“Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.”

Yous guys may want to check out “War is a Racket”  By Major General Smedley Butler. Semedly is his first name, you don’t want to know his middle name!

Here are the first two sentences, actually just for Ommmms first sentence strawman fetish.

“WAR is a racket. It always has been.”

“It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”

By the way this was written in the early 20th century, so some things have changed internationally.

Actually a great read from someone who was not quite a giant, but he did create his own uprising! (cannot help me self)!

Inherit The Wind

“You might as well say you aren’t interested in Machiavelli or von Clausewitz.”

I am not interested in Machiavelli or von Clausewitz, (I’ve already studied Kissinger, Bryzinski, Madeline Albright, Condaleeza, and Hillary)

I wouldn’t know von Clausewitz from Baron von Munchausen, Ludendorff, Patton etc., but I understand he said, “War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument…” Personally, as a political instrument, I think war is a dull tool, but what do I know, I’m ignorant, and blissful.

Now let me quote from Zu De, who was Mao’s number one General. Zu said, “What the hell! Any fool knows you don’t attack when you’re going to lose your ass, you don’t have to be a freakin’ genius to figure that out.” Zu gave up opium on a slow boat through China, and turned out to be a cracker jack General, but I remain unimpressed. Have you thought about giving up opium too? It turns out that opium is the opium of the masses.

Knowing the history of the agrarian reformers from their early days of being massacred to their later days of being famined by agrarian reform, the massacre part gives me pause about objecting to war so strenuously. The guy that massacred the agrarian reformers was that little punk ass general Shek, but don’t quote me on that, you can quote General “Vinegar” Joe Stillwell who said, and this is a direct quote, “That General Shek is a punk ass little shit” maybe I’m paraphrasing, you could look it up. There is too much talk about generals here, I think they’re all a bunch punk ass little shits, but at least I’m on the offensive now. I was having to defend Chomsky, and now you’re having to defend that punk ass little shit Sun-Tzu. As Sun-Tzu once said, “That’s offensive you barbarian, I’ll boil you in oil.” You could look it up.

Now, regarding Mao plagiarizing Sun-Tzu, I already knew that, honest that’s the truth. I know all about that stuff, I even had a little red book once. You can say I was all faddish about Mao and his agrarian reformers, but I’m real careful about saying anything nice about Mao, because most people think he was a punk ass little shit. I saw a movie one time about these crazy little teeny boppers waving their little plagiarized red books around demonically, and putting dunce caps on their elders, and whatnot, it was weird.

You put far too much emphasis on the KGB’s reliance on Sun-Tzu, according to recently released documents, the only quote from Sun-Tzu that the KGB put much credence in was the following, “You should marry your daughters off to scrawny little enemy spies.”

Naturally, I have a vested interest in discrediting Sun-Tzu and his famous book “The Art of War.” Actually the book is very useful, in it’s way, reading “The Art of War” is like taking a quick trip through Quantico Virginia.

You conclude by calling me a blissful ignoramus and touting this little bit of nothing.

“Sun-Tzu himself said that:
“’Know yourself and your enemy and you need not fear the result of a thousand battles.’”
“’Know yourself but not your enemy and you will lose as often as you win.’”
”’Know neither yourself nor your enemy and you will always be defeated.’”

You think that’s clever? Check this out.

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

As smart as the above statement is, it led to “catastrophe” and there was nothing General Washington, or any other General could have done about it, unless maybe if that Generals’ name was Chomsky.

What OzarkMichael wrote ( and copied)that I said when intimating that “Truthdig” censors.

“I will quote one of you here to express myself: “As to Censorship, I personally have been told that I couldn’t use certain words to identify a subject.”

What I actually wrote ( I can copy too)

“As to Censorship, I personally have been told that I couldn’t use certain words to identify a subject. Truthdig has not told me that I have done anything wrong.”

I didn’t write that Truthdig censored my content, I wondered what had happened to “Lost” comments.  Later I saw them on another thread. 

Which brings me to mis-representations by certain people on this thread.

OM I have figured it out….all those cicadas you keep hearing - are actually just Tinnitus.

Well it seems Ommmm, was able to force himself and his dependable sidekick strawman past the first sentence, which could be a handicap for the rest of the world.  Though still OMmmmmm seems to get stuck on single words! Actually this revelation may be some sort of uprising in itself, only because I want it to be?

I cannot complain about this one word thing, because I kind of got stuck on the word Giant>

So OMmmmm remidns me of the word giant, Like A Giant pain in the butt, kind of giant!

For some reason I noticed the word uprising was used by Chomsky, but it only raised one eyebrow the one without a patch on it. So here is Ommmm, uprising about the word uprising before us, which has nothing to do with what the article is about or for that matter anything really, ....except what seems a myopic form of cherry picking for OMmmm and his sockpuppet strawman.

After many years of marriage I almost got used to nagging, (before my wife ran off with the door to door bible salesman)  now the advantage of Ommmm’s nagging over the other kind, seems to me,  one really doesn’t have to walk OMmmmms dogma if they do not want to.

I have a story about chains too, which also has absolutely nothing to do with Chomsky’s article too.

OM:

I’ll give you that; Chomsky used uprising inappropriately.  I have to agree.  Uprising implies violence..but Chomsky is far, FAR to the Left of me.

JD:

If you persist in ignorance about one of the most amazing classics, written roughly around the same time as Homer, which was used by Napoleon in his initial successes, and was as close to a bible on spying as the KGB could have, then I cannot help you.

It is also titled “The Art of Strategy” and much of Mao’s “Little Red Book” is plagiarized from Sun-Tzu.

Reading it is easy—there are only something like 11 chapters.  The commentaries take longer.

You might as well say you aren’t interested in Machiavelli or von Clausewitz.

Like anything, if you don’t know how war-makers think you cripple yourself in your attempt to defeat them.

Sun-Tzu himself said that:
“Know yourself and your enemy and you need not fear the result of a thousand battles.”
“Know yourself but not your enemy and you will lose as often as you win.”
Know neither yourself nor your enemy and you will always be defeated.”

He also said that the greatest general wins without having to actually fight the battle, but if he does, he has already guaranteed victory before he engages.

George Washington knew this. That’s why he retreated from so many battles. He knew losing his army meant the end.  Even when he had to sacrifice New York City and let the British split Colonial forces, he did so because the alternative was..catastrophe.

War is an evil fact of our anarchic existence and the desire of some to convince themselves they have the right to steal from others.

Avoiding understanding them and their strategies and tactics merely gives them another weapon.

Ignorance is not bliss.

My remark in question: The similarity of Wisconsin and Egypt is that they resist their problem not by the ballet box but by uprising

ITW protests my remark: “Here you derail.  BOTH resistance movements have been predominantly PEACEFUL, not “uprisings” which imply violent.  I suggest you re-read the 1st Amendment to our Constitution:  (...) In both Egypt and Wisconsin the vast majority are merely exercising the right to assemble.”

I suggest you read Chomsky, the first sentence in his Truthdig article: “The democracy uprising in the Arab world has been a spectacular display of courage, dedication and commitment by popular forces—coinciding, fortuitously, with a remarkable uprising of tens of thousands in support of working people and democracy in Madison, Wis., and other U.S. cities.”

I wonder why no cicada even blinked when Chomsky used the word uprising, which by the way I used solely in order to keep in line with the article and not to infer violence.

It must be that some people can say uprising but others cant. Even vocabulary has a double standard applied to it by the cicadas of Truthdig

Isnt that predictable? Because its a well known fact that double standards(which i have previously proven has its home in Truthdig) are traceable in vocabulary(which i have proven conclusively today).

Unless you can show me that any of the cicadas protested Chomsky’s use of the word “uprising”.

No? Even the ones who dont fully worship the Giant, or who dislike the Giant had nothing to say.

I will quote one of you here to express myself: “As to Censorship, I personally have been told that I couldn’t use certain words to identify a subject.”

Well, Truthdiggers, rest assured that there have always been many more restrictions on me, what I can say, and even what words i can use. But i knew it from the first day i came here. Were you aware of that? Only today i take the time to expose it, and while doing so I throw your chains right back in your face.

It was an uprising in Wisconsin. Chomsky said so and you didnt even peep about it. Just live with it now. Buzz about something else.

My remark in question: The similarity of Wisconsin and Egypt is that they resist their problem not by the ballet box but by uprising

ITW protests my remark: “Here you derail.  BOTH resistance movements have been predominantly PEACEFUL, not “uprisings” which imply violent.  I suggest you re-read the 1st Amendment to our Constitution:  (...) In both Egypt and Wisconsin the vast majority are merely exercising the right to assemble.”

I suggest you read Chomsky, the first sentence in his Truthdig article: “The democracy uprising in the Arab world has been a spectacular display of courage, dedication and commitment by popular forces—coinciding, fortuitously, with a remarkable uprising of tens of thousands in support of working people and democracy in Madison, Wis., and other U.S. cities.”

I wonder why no cicada even blinked when Chomsky used the word uprising, which by the way I used in order to keep in line with the article.

It must be that some people can say uprising but others cant. Even vocabulary has a double standard applied to it by the cicadas of Truthdig

Isnt that predictable? Because its a well known fact that double standards(which i have previously proven has its home in Truthdig) are traceable in vocabulary(which i have proven conclusively today).

Unless you can show me that any of the cicadas protested Chomsky’s use of the word “uprising”.

No? Not a single one? Even the ones who dont worship the Giant?

I will quote one of you here to express myself: “As to Censorship, I personally have been told that I couldn’t use certain words to identify a subject.”

Well, Truthdiggers, rest assured that there have always been many more restrictions on me, what I can say, and even what words i can use. But i knew it from the first day i came here. Were you aware of that? Only today i take the time to expose it, and while doing so I throw your chains right back in your face.

It was an uprising in Wisconsin. Chomsky said so and you didnt even peep about it. Just live with it now. Buzz about something else.

By Inherit The Wind, April 25 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind

You, in essence, legitimize the exploitation of the masses, which is sad. I’ve done my best to expand your intellect on this matter. Further discussion, it seems, would be counter productive and futile.
**********

“You should actually read what I’ve written and learn to separate the sardonic from the actual.  I’ve never legitimized exploitation. How could I be so virulently pro-union if that were so?

I do, however, understand how geo-political power works and that has NOTHING to do with whether I think the exercise of that power is moral or not.  Frequently, it is not.

But in this world of anarchy, it is simply axiomatic that nations seek to enhance their national security (with the real meaning of the phrase, not the Nixonian one).  I suggest you read Sun-Tzu’s The Art of War.  If you’ve read it, read it again and start with the very first verse, where Sun-Tzu teaches us that we master war solely because if we don’t, someone else will destroy us.  He talks about safety vs. catastrophe, not power, nor peace.  It’s the place to learn the fundamentals of relations between states.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I wish to be civil. Being civil is difficult. Ridicule is much easier. Wishing to be civil, I’ve got an opportunity to improve my civility skills here. Criticizing someone is often seen as being an attack lacking in civility, a reality that depends to a great extent on the size of one’s ego. Calling people un-civil union thugs, for example, is in my opinion, not civil at all. While people cheering, booing, and jeering in unison, for a noble and just purpose, is seen as being proof of lack of civility to some, which reinforces my opinion that being perceived as civil is difficult. Civil action is seen as being un-civil to some; you see where I’m going with this?

Actually, I am, as I write this, practicing what I learned from Sun-Tzu’s “The Art of War.” Sun-Tzu was a real civil guy. I have readed Sun-Tzu’s most famous quotations, and I have quoted him several times here on truthdig, always using his quotations with my tongue firmly imbedded in my cheek. (I’m trying for some commonality, in an effort to be civil.) I have not actually read “The Art of War” in its entirety, but I did listen to it on audio tape several years ago. As I recall, I was looking for some comedic relief, after reading Chomsky’s less comical writing. I could have read some Vonnegut for comic relief, but Vonnegut sometimes makes me cry, which defeats the purpose, don’t you think? Anyway, I will not take your advice about re-reading Sun-Tzu. Sun-Tzu is an old joke to me now, and I’ve got much more amusing things to read here on truthdig.

You have asserted that Sun-Tzu was a master of War, but I believe the last century came much closer to mastering war than Sun-Tzu ever did. I’d like to quote from Bob Dylan now, but Bob doesn’t have a lot of credibility anymore on these issues, and quoting his somewhat melodious poetry would use far too many characters. Be real now, don’t you think modern warfare is much more masterful. Even the latter day Genghis Khan was more masterful than Sun-Tzu was.

(Cont.)

Inherit The Wind #2

You further assert that Sun-Tzu’s “The Art of War,” is “…the place to learn the fundamentals of relations between states,” and that peace and power are only irrelevant after thoughts, if I’m reading you correctly. It’s all about being safe, right? If so, I’m left to conclude that military spending, and national security spending, and the removal of cherished rights, are fundamentally sound, in that they are making us safe and improving relations between states, right? I’ll have to give that some serious thought, but instead of reading Sun-Tzu I should be reading the writings of the Cold Warriors, don’t you think? The Cold Warriors were much more masterful at keeping us safe weren’t they? I’ll admit to being conflicted on this issue, Chomsky, who I respect a giant amount, does not agree that war mastering has been conducive to safety, not for us, or for others. Forgive me, but I’ll have to conclude that the fundamental relations between certain states, have become less than civil, and that those relationships are fundamentally flawed.

You most civilly, and un-sardonically, state the following:

“And neither soft’n’fuzzy liberalism nor muscular-posturing jingoist conservatism has a clue about it.  Both are catastrophically wrong.
Slavery exists where labor is scarce to prevent the wealthy from having to pay the workers a fair market rate.  Where labor is abundant, they can exploit them without the expense of slavery.  Don’t want coolie wages?  Tough shit—the next guy will.  Unions exist to combat that exploitation.”

Thank you very much! You’ve made civility very easy with this comment, I concur wholeheartedly, but I’m wondering what the price of 1000 year old rotten eggs planted by Sun-Tzu, has to do with this comment.

You pointedly continue on”

“Yet you’ve STILL missed the key point: The USA as a productive, industrial powerhouse is gone.  It didn’t evolve, it didn’t dissipate, it was MURDERED by the very people Chomsky says are driving for world domination.  Even Hitler wasn’t dumb enough to murder his industrial base, and Stalin didn’t have one.”

“The USA as a productive, industrial powerhouse is gone” I concur with your point here, but I don’t agree that that is “the point.” Isn’t the point being asserted by you, have to do with Chomsky being an errant numbskull. I have a great deal of antipathy towards the domineering… my vocabulary fails me, I’m having difficulty coming up with a word vile enough as a description for these greedy bastards who have exported our industry, but there are beneficiaries of this greed based activity, both the greedy bastards and those willing to work for a few bucks a day have been served by the interests of the greedy bastards, but that’s not the point is it. It is a very important point, but not “the point,” the point you’re asserting has to do with Chomsky’s numbskullism, right?

You write:

“Only the US has done this.”

I think the British Empire did something similar, but that’s a point I don’t want to argue.

You conclude, muddily:

“I try to keep things simple and clear but somebody always wants to muddy’em up.”

I’ll confess to liking you, but don’t take it personal; I just like Chomsky better, and I resent your attempt to dump a whole lot of irrelevant mud on his head. These irrelevant comments of yours, though agreeable, are in fact irrelevant to the point.

If you think these greedy bastards and their sycophants have not, and do not promote Empire and hegemony, as Chomsky quite cogently documents, then I can only say without being sardonic, and sarcastic, that you are wrong, and that is my point. (Actually my point is that Chomsky is a giant intellect, if the adjective is objectionable, I’ll change that adjective to “superior,” fair enough?)

JD, I find some peoples works much better than others, even the people I find exceptional in their presentations and logic and find myself in 99 percent agreement, I would not call a giant.

I suppose it is personnel semantics? For some reason I also find the word Giant,.... sexist? Referring to a women as a giant, seems to take from the concept of femininity,.... but maybe I am the one being sexist?  Okay, if would happen to use the word Giant, I would use it in a total different context,.. usually a negative one, for instance to describe the governor of Wisconson;  ‘Walker is a Giant Ass Hole!’ or I could comfortably call a poster who happens to be riding around TD on his own strawman;..... ‘A Giant pain in the Butt”. (We have several of them actually).

Look Chomsky is a good read and I like reading his work so we agree, but I do not worship him or anyone. Chomsky is an intellectual and one with notoriety, I will give him that.

It may be me,... because I have the same degree of raised eyebrows and nausea when I read posters on Hedges Articles every week, (whom I suspect are really his family or….his mom) every week I read several of these: ....“Chris this is your greatest article ever written and you are the bestist writer in the world”....  Why do I find this so annoying?  I really don’t know, I need to ask me therapist! 

ITW; really glad you got back to OMmmmmm and his straw man, I was busy getting my toe nails done!

Mack, I am not sure, but I believe Cicadas make there buzzz sound from little didgeridoo’s, and it is the Republicans who make lots of noise by sticking heir heads where the sun don’t shine, while rubbing their legs together…... we should ask OMmmmm!

Well at least you didn’t call me names, Mack, so you get my
applause for that!  We disagree and that is not a bad thing, and
being civil allows discussion not rancor and allows the possibility
to understand each other better.  I am open to rational argument
but so far I have not seen anything to justify changing my opinion.
And that is all it is, an opinion.  If there is fairly certain evidence,
then I provide it and if it is provided, I take it under serious
consideration.  Speaking of evidence, where did you say exactly is
Chomsky’s?

You noted, “The older or the maturing population, has trouble with
knowledge.”  You took my comment about a maturing population as
meaning the older set of people as in their age, but I really meant
humanity’s maturing since their primitive minds acquired
consciousness.  The ability to actively and skillfully conceptualize, apply
concepts, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information to reach some
answer or conclusion is really an aptitude that has come late in human
development.

What is more important are the actions of the Republican Party that is
attempting to destroy the entire middle class and impoverish the poor
even more than they already are.  To disenfranchise students from their
voting rights, and such nefarious things like that.

How do I figure there is a parallel between the rebellion in Egypt and
Wisconsin?  Well first of all they both were peaceful rebellions.  Second
of all the people got fed up with the coercion they were being dished. 
Certainly you don’t think the Egyptian rebellion erupted from just the
incident of the Tunisian who immolated himself?  The resentment had
been growing for decades of a government that took much but gave
little.  The suicide was a catalyst but the sickness was there growing for
a long time.  Granted Walker exacerbated the situation with his fascistic
fist of planned union destruction. He was a catalyst.  It only takes one
small act sometimes to set off an explosion.  But union busting had a
long history.  The tenacity of both the Egyptians and the Wisconsinians
is laudable.

I’m afraid you read much too literally.  You might need to read more
figuratively to get what I meant.  But nevertheless, we do have a
different view of the future.  However, your own theatrical analogy of
“we” being a herd and being slaughtered is overly dramatic, I think. 
Who is doing the herding and who is slitting throats?  “We” all don’t
think that way. 

I agree that fear is an effective tool.  Religions have been dishing it out
for thousands of years.  We are conditioned to it.  But of late it is the
main instrument of the Republicans using the deficit to justify putting
the old, the poor, and the middle class out of business while promising
their wealthy corporate friends more wealth.

Oh, most high and wise OM, here comes your fav iconoclast!  (LOL!)

First: There is an economic(capitalism) problem as well as an international policy(war) problem that both arise from exploitation and both must be overcome
**********

Yup.  Got that right.

******************
Second: There is a convergence, a similarity, a common struggle between the events in Wisconsin and Egypt.
**************

Yup. In both places people are tired of being f***ed over by the rich and powerful who ALWAYS have a “good” reason why they MUST do it and why catastrophe will follow if they don’t (or aren’t allowed to).

******
Third: The similarity of Wisconsin and Egypt is that they resist their problem not by the ballet box but by uprising
***********

!!!BUZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!

Here you derail.  BOTH resistance movements have been predominantly PEACEFUL, not “uprisings” which imply violent.  I suggest you re-read the 1st Amendment to our Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In both Egypt and Wisconsin the vast majority are merely exercising the right to assemble.

*****************
Fourth: Resisting exploitation via uprising will solve our econonic and our foreign policy problems simultaneously, killing two birds with one stone.
***********

!!!BUZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!

Here you derail again.  Not “uprising”, but ” peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

When there is no other legal avenue, this is a RIGHT.  And you, as a believer in limited government have acknowledged that rights aren’t granted but are INHERENT in being human.

************
Fifth: the top 1% of wage earners are the chief exploiters, causing the injustice and the suffering in this world.
******************

Yup.  Always have been, too. As we watch more and more of the world’s wealth concentrated into that 1%‘s hands, we haven’t seen a corresponding alleviation of suffering in the world.  Indeed, we’ve seen just the opposite, as the 1% doesn’t give a rat’s ass if a critical resource is controlled by a Saddam Hussein-like monster (such as the warlords in Congo) or by a more benevolent leader as long as they don’t do an Evo Morales and copy the old OPEC boycotts.

Thanks for laying it all out so cleanly, OM.  Made it much easier to both agree and disagree.

Lets tie this up with a summary of the Truthdig message. In Five Easy Points:

First: There is an economic(capitalism) problem as well as an international policy(war) problem that both arise from exploitation and both must be overcome

Second: There is a convergence, a similarity, a common struggle between the events in Wisconsin and Egypt.

Third: The similarity of Wisconsin and Egypt is that they resist their problem not by the ballet box but by uprising

Fourth: Resisting exploitation via uprising will solve our econonic and our foreign policy problems simultaneously, killing two birds with one stone.

Fifth: the top 1% of wage earners are the chief exploiters, causing the injustice and the suffering in this world.

 
While each cicada buzzes with some or all of the five points, one person resists the buzz but also listens intently to it for a long time. Listens well enough and ponders it long enough to see what it really means. From that vantage point one can see where the cicadas are being led.

Let me pat myself on the back for a moment. The only one who could do that is me. Who else can maintain their grasp on an opposing concept long enough to walk all the way around it until they understand it? Nobody. Who else can follow a concept doggedly, pursuing it until the foundation and the implication of the concept is understood? Nobody.

My authorship here is often deep enough, creative enough, or humorous enough, to be replace the Truthdig article, and sometimes it is all three at once. 

You will no doubt buzz about my bragging. In fact, thats the only part you will comprehend and remember. Well, thats why its there, its food for the cicadas. You need your nourishment.

Here is someone who expresses all Five Easy Points in one little video. Look at the banner behind the guy as the camara pulls back, it says “From Egypt to Wisconsin”. Pay no mind to the headline above the video, some conservative put it there and it is not relevant to our little chat. Do pay some mind as to where you are being led if you can. Or you can enjoy the buzz!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODZzCFt9Muw&feature=player_embedded

Mack, April 25 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

ITW quotes himself, or herself, if even gender is important here, and then tears down the arguments of ITW.
*************

It’s “himself”.  As for the rest, I don’t know WTF you are talking about or where TF you are coming from.

Not sure I care, either.

Actually, I am sure. I don’t care.

” I would not say America was in a “vast decline,” or the world for that
matter, but entire world is in a funk at the moment.  There is no
indication that it won’t right itself and start walking upright again.” 
Shenonymous

Well, perhaps there is some indication that both are deteriorating, and
consistently.
The plotting of the U.S. economy, the national debt, a recession in 1922
and a repeat in 2009-  should be considered as indication. Since the
world currency has been the U.S. dollar, and foreign countries own the
U.S. National Debt - on which they are losing interest - and the
“Federal Reserve” is having dollars printed as though paper is running
out. This, coupled with an occupant in the office of the U.S. President,
whom some high-level politicians are challenging to provide a valid,
American birth certificate as they have done, raises serious questions
of a U.S. Constitution nature.

Some of us think that there is a great deal of indication that neither
the U.S.A. nor the world will right itself anytime soon.  If ever.

Inherit The Wind

You, in essence, legitimize the exploitation of the masses, which is sad. I’ve done my best to expand your intellect on this matter. Further discussion, it seems, would be counter productive and futile.

**********

You should actually read what I’ve written and learn to separate the sardonic from the actual.  I’ve never legitimized exploitation. How could I be so virulently pro-union if that were so?

I do, however, understand how geo-political power works and that has NOTHING to do with whether I think the exercise of that power is moral or not.  Frequently, it is not.

But in this world of anarchy, it is simply axiomatic that nations seek to enhance their national security (with the real meaning of the phrase, not the Nixonian one).  I suggest you read Sun-Tzu’s The Art of War.  If you’ve read it, read it again and start with the very first verse, where Sun-Tzu teaches us that we master war solely because if we don’t, someone else will destroy us.  He talks about safety vs. catastrophe, not power, nor peace.  It’s the place to learn the fundamentals of relations between states.

And neither soft’n'fuzzy liberalism nor muscular-posturing jingoist conservatism has a clue about it.  Both are catastrophically wrong.

Slavery exists where labor is scarce to prevent the wealthy from having to pay the workers a fair market rate.  Where labor is abundant, they can exploit them without the expense of slavery.  Don’t want coolie wages?  Tough shit—the next guy will.  Unions exist to combat that exploitation.

Yet you’ve STILL missed the key point: The USA as a productive, industrial powerhouse is gone.  It didn’t evolve, it didn’t dissipate, it was MURDERED by the very people Chomsky says are driving for world domination.  Even Hitler wasn’t dumb enough to murder his industrial base, and Stalin didn’t have one.

Only the US has done this.

I try to keep things simple and clear but somebody always wants to muddy’em up.

Truth is:  We the People are Too Big to Fail—once we get our nonviolent resistance strategy and tactics together, and cooperate with sustained determination to “do no harm”. For after all is said and done, the need is not to kill or overthrow or defeat, but to cure a politico-economic disease

Inherit The Wind

You, in essence, legitimize the exploitation of the masses, which is sad. I’ve done my best to expand your intellect on this matter. Further discussion, it seems, would be counter productive and futile.

Leefeller

Andre the Giant could be considered a physical giant, which is a seeming reality that the rational diminutives will recognize. I’m not the only person who has recognized Chomsky’s stature; does that make us idol worshipers? If so, so be it.

Chomsky as Hitler; that’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

Actually, previously on this thread I stated my opinion that Chomsky is less than perfect.

By JDmysticDJ, April 23 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment

Does that absolve me of idol worship? Probably not.

JD:
I would argue that failure to achieve that goal, in fact SPECTACULAR failure, means that the US military as the sole arbiter of world behavior is doomed.

As for intent: EVERY nation wants to “rule the world” in one way or another. It is not anything more than the desire to ensure that control of your future and your safety is in your hands, not subject to the will of another.

“World Domination” ain’t working for the US, despite the military. That is because the greedy ignoramuses running the country and the economy have been especially penny-wise and pound-foolish since they got their hero, Ronald Reagan in office.

While many factors have lead to our decline, such as Detroit’s concentration on style rather than technology from the mid-60s to the mid-90’s, or US Steel retaining turn-of-the-century blast furnace technology into the 80’s, none of that was enough.

No, it was the unbridled de-regulation and SUBSIDIZING the export of jobs off-shore that has done it.  And that starts with Mr. Reagan, the Conservatives’ Messiah.

Anybody with a lick of sense can see that China is kicking our ass, economically, and many other nations are as well. Who would a have EVER thought a major oil company in the US would be….RUSSIAN???? But LukOil is just that.

Besides the military, just what DO we produce besides “fast food” joints and derivatives?

So Chomsky’s whole thesis about us being an expansionist imperialist empire has no factual basis.

There was a line in “All of Me” that ran something like:
“MY father didn’t exploit the masses.  I’m sure he would have if he could, but being a barber he didn’t have much opportunity!”

I would surmise,... defining any person as a giant, intellectual or any other type of giant seems to be tantamount to worshiping a sports or political hero, a famous celebrity or even a god? For a time Hitler seemed such a giant to the people of Germany….. People worship many things,...... right now money seems to be the worshipers idol, Especially for the alleged 1 percent, and their cronies.

I am a bit confused about the union thing, because civil service,  in my mind only included only federal employees? I have been of the opinion, civil service was created to provide job security and benefits,  which most people only get to hope and dream of?

All this noise we are seeing now like from Wisconson, is being done at the state and municipal levels by bought and sold Governators, Apparently an attempt to privatize in the name of profit instead of public service and of course without unions.

As usual, Shes food for thought has sparked me moral imagination, and some of me immoral ones too!

Mack; Fear or paranoia is instituted at many different levels of Fascism, We see the fear sponsored by Religion, as sinners are going to hell, so everyone should want to be be chosen. The constant threats to national security, real or imagined, I grew up hearing about Commies, China and Russia and practiced hiding under my desk in-case of a bombing? Always a new fear! Fear of gays, fear of aliens, fear of Moslem’s, fear of anything, pick a fear, they can conjure up any fear they feel like. How about fear of Unions?

Now I suppose raising taxes on the wealthy means we are supposed to fear an end to the trick down theory?

By Shenonymous, April 25 at 1:35 am Link to this comment

RE: truthdig rules

Personal attacks on our writers or readers
Excessive profanity

Racist, sexist or other discriminatory or hateful language

Statements that may be construed as urging attacks on political
leaders, officials, security forces or civilians—American or otherwise

Comments that are off-topic or irrelevant to the story or
discussion at hand
comments disclosing personal information about truthdig writers
or fellow commenters

Comments that are solicitations and/or advertising for personal
blogs and Web sites

Entries “signed” by someone other than the actual author

Just a minor incidental, truthdig’s rules are subject to the subjectivity of the person[s] doing the enforcing of the rules.

Another incidental, this article was originally posted in three parts; it has been diminished to one part.

By Inherit The Wind, April 25 at 7:31 am Link to this comment

“I fail to see why Noam Chomsky is an “intellectual giant”.

His fundamental thesis in this article is clearly confused: If the goal of America since WWII was to dominated the global economy and global politics, it has clearly, blatantly failed in every possible direction.  Just today I heard on NPR that 1/4 of ALL beef production in the world is controlled by a Brazilian corporation that bought out Swift’s Premium and is driving American cattle farmers out of the business.
Grain, cotton, oil, beef, steel, cars, electronics, even strawberries are no longer dominated by American-producing companies.  Only in military weapons do we still lead the world.
So…how’s that world domination thing working out for us?  Obviously, it ain’t.  We are in a vast decline.  Which leads me back to my original question:
Why is Chomsky an “intellectual giant”?”

Your observation lacks intellectual magnitude, in my humble opinion. Just because economic dominance has not been achieved in every respect does not signify a lack of intent. The fact that the U.S. dominates militarily, and uses its military might to achieve objectives is more than a mere indication of intention.

The U.S. uses its military might to advance ideological objectives, even when that ideology does not serve its self interest in every respect.  In my opinion, the people of the United States are not served by these actions, but the objectives of multi-national corporations, and economic hegemony and economic empire are.

It is the mavens of neo-liberal capitalism who are dominating the world’s economies, and the military might of the U.S. is used to dominate, intimidate, and restrict the actions of nations that oppose neo-liberalism.

Every public debate regarding U.S. foreign policy here in the U. S., from Left, Right, and Center, is not concerned with the issue of whether the U.S. should endeavor to dominate the world, but instead, what is the best method of doing so.

In my opinion Chomsky is an intellectual giant because he cogently documents this realty, while other supposed intellects, of lesser intellectual magnitude and moral sophistication, ignore this reality.

The U.S. President openly speaks of U.S. leadership on the world stage; there is no distinction between “leadership” and dominance in this instance in my opinion. The word “leadership” is subject to definition, but leadership in this case carries an implied right to lead, and actions intended to enforce or maintain leadership via coercion, or more drastic means, are in essence tyrannical.

Many, who express outrage about the consequences of tyranny, should also recognize the root cause of tyranny. Chomsky, with his giant intellect, exposes the root cause. That root cause, as is illuminated by Chomsky, is centricity, and a lack of moral sophistication, which results in turpitude.

Why ITW, you are right, as usual, but I had hoped it would be noticed that I said that with tongue in cheek.  For in the next breathe I argued that he had the directions wrong.  The upheaval in the Middle East, upon contemplation, is more similar in dynamic as that in Wisconsin than at first thought.  Chomsky, I’ve frequently said, is not one of my favorite intellectuals.  Hardly a giant except to his own hard left true believers.  I would not say America was in a “vast decline,” or the world for that matter, but entire world is in a funk at the moment.  There is no indication that it won’t right itself and start walking upright again.  It is cyclic between two extremes of prosperous and poverty both materially and mentally.  We just happen to be seeing it globally for perhaps the first time because of the immediacy of the electronic age more poignantly as the world rearranges itself and gets itself educated.  People are learning exponentially and knowledge is power, but for the maturing population a little knowledge can be dangerous and takes time for it to settle in its proper place.

By Shenonymous, April 24 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

“Chomksy says, “It is the fundamental duty of the citizen to resist
and to restrain the violence of the state.” List the violence the state
committed?  Exactly, please tell us! It is one thing to just moan and
groan about one’s government but when it comes down to it,
specifics are not in anything but the wind.”

Really? Are you serious? The specifics of violence committed by the State in question is a simple matter of tabulating data. “Violence” perpetrated by the state in question has affected tens of millions. Unfortunately, the magnitude of the violence has been so great that an exact tabulation is not possible, but the tens of millions figure is not refutable by a rational informed person. Chomsky, in his writings, has given specific examples of violence committed by the State in question, but Chomsky is far, far, from being a lone voice regarding this issue. Chomsky only echoes, and documents, this violence, using the most authoritative sources; sources that include the United Nations, Human Rights Groups, world renowned Medical Journals, Historians, Academics, etc. etc. The violence is not disputed from any political perspective; only rationalized, and justified, from certain political perspectives.

I do not have a doctorate in History, but even I can document the violence from A to Z, Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. Is it that you want to see specifics in order to provide justification or rationalization for the violence? The deaths resulting from the wars in Indo-China alone vary widely, from 2 million to 4 million, but the numbers of victims of violence who survived in Indo-China is not estimated or tabulated. A liberal interpretation would suggest that virtually all the people of Indo-China were the victims of the violence. There is a wall in Washington D.C. that very accurately tabulates a tiny percentage of deaths resulting from the violence in Indo-China. That wall does not include mere casualties, nor does it tabulate the varying degrees of violence perpetrated on the people of the United States; victims of psychological, philosophical, and political damage.

The United States is not devoid of humanitarian action around the globe, nor is the United States responsible for all the world’s violence, but the United States is responsible for the violence it has perpetrated, and humanitarian actions do not negate the violence perpetrated. Chomsky makes a moral judgment, backed up by legal precedent, the full quotation is:

“It is the fundamental duty of the citizen to resist and to restrain the violence of the state. Those who choose to disregard this responsibility can justly be accused of complicity in war crimes, which is itself designated as ‘a crime under international law’ in the principles of the Charter of Nuremberg.”

Regarding citizen responsibility for violence, that responsibility is never more definitive than it is in a democracy.

Finally, here is another quotation from Chomsky:

“Nixon at one point informs Kissinger . . . that he wanted bombing of Cambodia. And Kissinger loyally transmits the order to the Pentagon to carry out a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. ‘[Using] anything that flies on anything that moves . . .’ genocide.”

This comment from Kissinger comes from his own personal documents; documents that were only released after threat of legal action. Chomsky adds the comment “genocide,” and it is asserted that the comment to Alexander Haig was made in jest, but the comment relates directly to what actually transpired in Cambodia. Whether that action was genocidal, racist, or a tragic and cruel use of violence in order to meet Cold War Objectives is subject to interpretation.

Was the bombing of Cambodia, which resulted in the destabilizing of Cambodia, having horrific consequences, a necessity of Cold War Objectives, or was it idiotically immoral and monstrous, sociopathic lunacy?

I fail to see why Noam Chomsky is an “intellectual giant”.

His fundamental thesis in this article is clearly confused: If the goal of America since WWII was to dominated the global economy and global politics, it has clearly, blatantly failed in every possible direction.  Just today I heard on NPR that 1/4 of ALL beef production in the world is controlled by a Brazilian corporation that bought out Swift’s Premium and is driving American cattle farmers out of the business.

Grain, cotton, oil, beef, steel, cars, electronics, even strawberries are no longer dominated by American-producing companies.  Only in military weapons do we still lead the world.

So…how’s that world domination thing working out for us?  Obviously, it ain’t.  We are in a vast decline.  Which leads me back to my original question:
Why is Chomsky an “intellectual giant”?

There goes Shenonymous again, intellectually clarifying some distortions of
information.
I offer a clarification for another type of distortion.

One human (I assume) disinformation cicada, „Ozark Michael“,  is consistent with
CIA-type, dumbing down rhetoric, plus the habit of dictator-types of killing the
messenger.  Each time I read his/her propaganda, I am reminded of the summary
statement of the “official Chief” of the CIA, 1981, appointed by GHWBushSr.,
William Casey.  “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything
the American public believes is false.” From Casey´s first staff meeting, 1981. 
Casey´s spark of patriotism ultimately crossed the bent of his handler in the
White House, which earned brain cancer for him. Brain cancer cells are easily
injected via an alleged “inoculation,” similar to other toxins.

The documentation of thirty-three (33) conspiracy theories, validated by reliable
documentation, clearly dispels the label of paranoia that “Ozark Michael” has
erroneously applied to persons who are aware of the USGOV disinformation.  The
prime role of the GHWBushSr entourage, in the induction in the USA, of the
dictator suppression found in Germany in the 1930s-1940s is also abundantly
clarified:
http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx

All persons, with at lest five grains of brain, who have read salient parts of
scientific reports on the dust residue from the WTC bldgs., are aware that the
Nanothermite in WTC dust samples was NOT deposited by jet fuel explosions. Whether
the explosions shown on certain TV networks were even real or not.  The books
written by Andreas von Buelow, and reports by Stefan Grossmann clearly identify
the source of the destruction of the WTC, with its related murders, on 11 Sep.,
2001.  Attempts, to distort the Grossmann reports, even remove them from the internet,
adequately evidence their validity.  Hundreds of these reports were printed, filed
around the world, will continue to exist and also be republished.  These reports, in
addition to the seminal books by Andreas von Buelow, which are still available.

Chomsky says the trajectories of the revolts in the East and the West were heading in opposite directions. But they really are not in opposite directions except for the compass direction of east to west. Gaining elementary rights denied by a dictatorship is merely the embryonic state of defending rights sharply won against a neo-dictator. Both are in the same direction and fighting similar dynamics of dictatorship.

How perversely odd FDR should be called a fascist ,he who brought relief to millions and millions of Americans underprivileged or disenfranchised.  That a man whose sense of egalitarian justice should be called a vile insect by a representative of the most appalling fascistic of all political persuasions in American history, the Republicans, is a warped habit of the pot calling the kettle black. WWII set the tone for many global actions and it’s not without truth that FDR saw control-ling the “energy reserves” aka crude oil, before the Nazis gained its control was an imperative. Hitler’s Germany needed the black gold resource. Not the least chronicled is the connection between Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. It is no wonder that the “great powers” of Europe maneuvered strenuously to gain control of the Middle Eastern oil fields.  The fascist regimes of Italy and Germany without a doubt wanted extensive and expansive control in that region. They cultivated Arab leaders to revolt against the British and French stewards.

Re: public employees unions: FDR thought striking public employees would exhibit an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are met. He imagined such action would paralyze the government by those who have pledged to reinforce it is unthinkable and intolerable. Organized labor itself also was the source that public employees unions would amount to a counterproductive possibly dangerous situation for the government. AFL-CIO president, George Meany, said it was “impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” While an argument can be made that public bargaining unions have an advantage over private sector, traditional, unions. Proven true is that they can exercise more influence over their employers, the government. And they can help elect politicians who in turn would help them in bargaining negotiations.

Private sector employees mainly rely on social security retirement and personal retirement funds, rather than business retirement systems. They can more readily change private sector jobs.  Government employees fall under FERS, and many have willingly received lower wages and benefits in exchange for a more secure job and a retirement from a fairly stable and reliable retirement system. When the government can arbitrarily lower wages, there is no control over the amount of the adjustment. Those who have invested decades of their life to Federal service just can’t up and move into the private sector without risking their Federal retirement. They are umbilically tied to their public job. The indisputable truth is that public employees’ unions don’t get a penny from taxpayers. Here is the way it works says “The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy,” Joshua Holland: Public sector workers are employed by the government, but they are private citizens. Once a private citizen earns a dollar from the sweat of his or her brow, it no longer belongs to his or her employer. In the case of public workers, it is no longer a “taxpayer dollar”; it is a dollar held privately by an American citizen. Public sector unions are financed through the dues paid by these private citizens, who elected to be part of a union – not a single taxpayer dollar is involved, and no worker is forced to join a union against his or her wishes. No worker in the United States is required to give one red cent to support a political cause he or she doesn’t agree with.

Unwashed Cicada buzzing strawman!

Ordinary citizens are even less so now that corporations are people too! Number 9 of Laurence Britts 14 points of Fascism seems to be emulated in the apparent scheme of things and as events. From Lobbyists running the halls of Congress,  pouring money into campaigns to the revolving doors of the FDA, colorations are buying governors at the state level. 

“9. Power of corporations protected” 
      by Dr. Laurence Britt,

“Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.”

The suppressing of unions is covered in number 10 of Britts work and the continuous attack of unions has been a work in progress since the Steel Workers Strikes, choreographed by the Tycoons in the early 20th century.  Collective barging means meeting as equals to negotiate, I suspect being equal is not acceptable to the Fascist any more than it is to a Despot!

“10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated”
        by Dr. Laurence Britt,

“Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.”

OzarkMichael

I think your statement about Corporations might be penned wrong.  Corporations don’t attack me directly or any other individual directly.  Of course I might have misunderstood your meaning.

But Corporations can harm the Common Man though use of their Power and Money.  They get favorable treatment that the individual doesn’t get that allows them to opt out of paying taxes, something most of the common people can’t avoid.

I am going to give you a link to an article about 10 Giant Corporations that made hundreds of Billions last year but for 2010 paid no income tax whatsoever and most of them actually got subsidies, etc totaling into the hundreds of Billions.

The thing is I paid more income tax for 2010 than these 10 Corporations combined.  All told these Corporations accounted for around a Trillion dollars in profits and sums from the Government.  That would almost cover the 2010 deficit.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/03/ten_giant_us_companies_avoidin.html

So I have to disagree with your apparent view that Corporations don’t take advantage of people like you and me.

As to Censorship, I personally have been told that I couldn’t use certain words to identify a subject. Truthdig has not told me that I have done anything wrong.  I just noticed posts missing and wondered since I have seen it before.  You might know that AOL admitted to censoring content.  Their members left in droves after that admission and the value of their censored site plummeted and was finally shut down because of the financial loss.

You can verify this by googling.

Re: Censorship on Truthdig

The Truthdig mantra “The corporations have rigged everything against us” repeated daily and pumped into your brains until all you can do is buzz like cicadas, is giving you a paranoid character, and allows you to blame the corporations for every reversal in your life.

“Wahh, they deleted my post! The fascists made them do it!”

Listen to me, let me reassure you.

You guys arent dangerous to Truthdig. They love you. You are the beloved, the chosen, the future, the real people, the ones who deserve freedom while the rest need to be placed in chains. You obediently buzz with the Truthdig message. In short, you are what i call cicadas. Believe me, Truthdig nurtures cicadas and would not harm them.  The buzz you make is the music of Truthdig, the louder the better. As the years go by it builds to an unthinking, unrelenting, unstoppable crescendo. Truthdig would not censor the very music it calls forth from you.

Instead you posted beyond the terms of use and Truthdig had to take it down, or there was a glitch on this cheap website that dropped posts that came in a certain time. The fascists havent taken over Truthdig so please calm your buzzy little hearts.

If you have to blame Truthdig for something, blame Truthdig for pushing conspiracy theories and for exploiting your paranoid character so deeply that it turned you into cicadas.

Chomsky said: “If the trajectories of revolt in Cairo and Madison intersected, however, they were headed in opposite directions: in Cairo toward gaining elementary rights denied by the dictatorship, in Madison toward defending rights that had been won in long and hard struggles and are now under severe attack.”

It is true that Barack Obama made a promise and has a policy of maintaining and extending Union bargaining rights for government workers, specifically highlighted by the uprising in Wisconsin. That uprising is called ‘democracy’ by Chomsky. There is no reason to say that the Wisconsin uprising was especially democratic other than Chomsky agrees with their cause. Bit of a double standard there, Noam. It would be rather easy to show your double standard and your utter hypocrisy.  but i wont quibble with that for now.

Chomsky describes the conservative political opposition as dictatorial because we think that full collective bargaining for public employees is a luxury we cannot afford in the long term. That is why the charge of fascism is leveled against us. Others here followed suite and the cicada buzz began.

I would like to express my own opinion by quoting a famous fascist leader who i agree with on the subject. The quote comes from 1937, just a few years before World War Two:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions.”

You can tell that he was a fascist because he was against hard earned collective bargaining rights.

You can tell that people’s freedom is crushed by fascist leaders who say such things. As Leefeller says, the Union does not represent merely itself, it represents all the people. Any limitation on the Union is a limitation on ‘we the people’, and any limitaion on ‘we the people’ is fascism.

You can tell that the fascist deserves your scorn, that he is on the level of Mubarak of Egypt, Hitler of Germany, and the new governor of Wisconsin.

You can tell that i agree with that fascist on this matter, and also deserve your scorn, just like Mobarak, Hilter, and Scott Walker.

What you probably cannot tell is that the quote came from Franklin D. Roosevelt. If disagreement with the current regime, taking a stand against full collective bargaining rights for government employees is fascism, then FDR is a fascist.

Dont feel too bad, Mr President, you will just have to get used to it. May i call you Frank? And welcome to our friendly circle of political discourse here on Truthdig. Unfortunately you will have to sit next to Hitler. You have Chomsky to thank for that. Oh, and the seating arrangement is permanent. You have the Truthdig cicadas to thank for that.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445#axzz1KUNQoqaJ

shenonymous
I’m not sure when you spoke of moaning and groaning but never anything specific followed by “List the violence the state committed”, did you ask for someone to list a Violence committed by the United States against its people, or did you mean against the people of the world, or were you even speaking of the United States Government.  Since this article is about the World and whether it is too big to fail I assumed you meant a violence against people anywhere.

If you are speaking of the United States please allow me to list just one and if that is not sufficient I think I could list another 20.  If this is not what you were talking about then please accept my apology.

Let me start with a most vile, immoral, act:
  1.  Torture

Thank you shenonymous for the link. 

Some interesting things there.

Basically human rights ( from my perspective) begin with the fact that no child gets to choose the place, time, environment, social position, or anything else for that matter.  That child’s right is the opportunity to live a future.

Usually though, a child at birth shares only one consideration with all other children , the love and protection of its mother.

This is a fundamental law of Nature.  But all babies are certainly not born equal, not by a long shot.  The great division separating humanity into classes and therefore into different “rights” after birth accrues from a myriad of variables.  I assume this to be a Law of Social Humanity.

The child cannot change anything about its birth, but has a great number of options in shaping its future, the difficulty realizing a successful outcome will be proportionate to its starting point.

So to me the Basic Human Right is the opportunity to shape ones future for the good no matter the starting point.

Years ago, my first Grandson, then a teenager,  once asked me “PaPa, What is my purpose on this Earth”?.

I answered “You are the representative of all who has lived before you and and the hope of all who will ever live after you.  Your purpose is to attempt to leave the World better than it was when you came into it because if you go back far enough in the history of man you will find that today you are related to ever living soul on Earth.  Your purpose is to be a moral citizen of mankind always remembering to be your Brothers Keeper when the opportunity arises.”

He looked at me for several seconds then said ” Sorry I asked”.  Although he was totally unimpressed, I hope that he remembers what I said as he goes about mapping and finding his future.

Basic Human Rights are what collective society adopts as its moral standard of Behavior.

Chomksy says, “It is the fundamental duty of the citizen to resist
and to restrain the violence of the state.” List the violence the state
committed?  Exactly, please tell us! It is one thing to just moan and
groan about one’s government but when it comes down to it,
specifics are not in anything but the wind.

Oil price is set by Cartel Bosses in OPEC and Wall Street. Who else?
Saudis dominate the Arab world but they don’t have the short hairs
of the West in its economic fist. Given all of its hegemony that began
with GWB support, looks to be continued by Obama’s, why is anybody
surprised or ignorant of that fact? where is the big protest of that fact?
Almost inaudible moans and groans here and there.

“We must change mentalities towards a Progressive Agenda that puts
the Well-Being of all citizens above that of a comparatively select
few.”  The perennial whine.  How do you, Lafayette, suggest effecting
that change? I constantly see this call for change over and over on this
website not only on this forum but on all of them, and yet no effective
plan to act is ever offered. Leaving it up to serendipity is not going to
do it, nor just thinking about it.

Chomsky might be an intellectual giant, but he does not have the pulse
of the majority of the people. So he is a giant among a small partisan
cadre which really doesn’t amount to insightful change.  If Chomsky is
as fallible as ordinary Truthdippers, (take a look in the mirror to find
one) then why would anybody think what he says has much merit?

Censorship on TD is extremely offensive. If there are comments that
have been deleted by Truthdig, you might email the General Feedback.
Check the Contact Us at the bottom of the page to do that.  Every time I
have ever written with a question, I have always been answered within a
week. No comments appear by Woofwoofboy, Prisnersdilema, or TDoff
as mentioned in thethirdman April 23, 5:22pm! That is a travesty. A
concerted effort by Truthdig commenters in emails to the Feedback
might get some answers. They might just refer all of us to the
“comment policy” where what Truthdig will not tolerate are:
•  personal attacks on our writers or readers
•  excessive profanity
•  racist, sexist or other discriminatory or hateful language
•  statements that may be construed as urging attacks on political
leaders, officials, security forces or civilians—American or otherwise
•  comments that are off-topic or irrelevant to the story or
discussion at hand
•  comments disclosing personal information about Truthdig writers
or fellow commenters
•  comments that are solicitations and/or advertising for personal
blogs and Web sites
•  entries “signed” by someone other than the actual author

Explained is how comments are moderated.  TD say they don’t censor
comments, “Truthdig never censors comments based on political or
ideological point of view. A comment is considered for editing or
deletion only if it violates any part of our comment policy, posted
above.”

The history of human rights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCQWwkERit4

Chomsky doesn’t have a corner on what are human rights. Cyrus the
Great first to free all the slaves in his territory, gave the world the first
list of human rights. And check out the 1215A.D. Magna Carta

Agreed with Cliff Carson, time will level everything. Human rights were
ignored by the Bush empire, would you provide the denial of human
rights by the Obama regime?

All governments are Kleptocracies. But people want government.
Anarchy does not work. A dose of libertarianism (for the individual) in
democracy (for society) is what would appear to be the best form (ala
liberals’ concern). Humans as a race are still working it out. We are
impatient.

It is absurd to think the US can become a third-world country.  It shows
a naivete that doesn’t look beyond one’s own perspective.

Cliff; if one looks at the comparisons of what has happened in Tunisia and Egypt, Chomsky actually feels the people of those countries do not trust the USA and its allies to be fair and balanced in the development of a real democracy.

As to elections anyplace in the world, the USA says one thing and does another. One only need look at South America when a non pro big business sot becomes elected,....thats not democracy in their image.

Now back home, we have seen hints of irregularity, and shady goings on for awhile now, at least much more obvious ones. I suspect old hanging chaid has become history, taking home a laptop computer seems so much more manipulatively honest than throwing paper ballots in the river.

As for both parties being the same, that is in the bought and paid for category,...... I suspect the Republicans are much more proficient at being on the dole then the Democrats. Maybe Republicans just cost less in larger numbers and come as a package deal?

Lefeller

Re-your mention of the Wisconsin vote.

What I think I see in that state is a Governor, a Republican, who decided that he was above the law.  Reminds me of another Republican in high office who took the same course ( you might remember he claimed that our Constitution was nothing but a G.. D…. piece of paper.)

Enough people rose up and smote the Republican Party in 2008 for the very attitude possessed by Walker.

Alas, it turned out that the choice to right the wrongs of the Republicans turned out to be more of the same.

How many times do we have to touch the hot stove to convince ourselves that it is the hot stove (Corrupt Political Partys)that burn?

Neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party works in the best interest of the common people of America.  Can we at least learn that?

Walkers’ mouthpiece basically told the Court to “Go to Hell” and Walker said that his lawyers said he didn’t have to obey the court.  Reminds me of another Republican in high office who chose his lawyers interpretation as the Law of the Land.

We Americans didn’t prosecute that lawbreaker, instead we re-elected his partners in crime in 2010 and surprise, surprise, we didn’t get a different outcome…. well maybe a slightly different outcome because now emboldened by getting away with crimes against the people, they have come back to commit even more egregious crimes against the people.

Any why not, we people have thoroughly demonstrated to the criminal element that there is no punishment for the political criminal.

If one is to discuss fascisim, starting with number 14 seems like a nice place, after all we have seen some intimidating and makeing one show their birth certificate or passport does seem disenfranchising. Now for irregularity or fraud, what just happened in Wisconsin seems a tad on the frading side! Taking votes on crony privies computer seems a bit on the seedy side, but only acceptable only if one happens to be Republican! Boy I am glad they got rid of those acorns.

“14. Fraudulent elections ”

“Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.”

by Dr. Laurence Britt

HarlowMarlowe:

“America is a KLEPTOCRACY.”

Yep.

thethirdman:

“I too have had all my comments erased.”

Really? whats going on with this?

Right you are Leefeller, lets take a close look at what happened in Germany.

Consider the case of Germany and Hitler.  Remember that the post World War I German people dreamed a great savior in one Adolph Hitler after the First World War had destroyed the German economy and the country was suffering mightily from punishing sanctions placed upon the German Nation for their role in World War I.  These sanctions and restrictions on Germany resulted in the country wallowing in abject poverty with seemingly no way out.  That enabled a Hitler, who flashed onto the world scene promising peace and prosperity for Germany, He preached that all the German citizenry had to do was trust in Him and his Party.  He preached that God was on their side and therefore their future was guaranteed for the next thousands of years.  More than 90% of the nation lined up and adopted what he promised - peace and prosperity.  Recall that all Hitler initially asked from the German People was a surrender of a few minor civil liberties so that he could better protect Germany from its enemies.  In 1934 the average German citizen was fully confident that what liberties they had given up would be used judiciously and only against troublemakers.  The first liberty they ceded to the Hitler regime was an agreement by the people to allow some laws to be neglected by the Government, where national security was involved.  Is this beginning to sound familiar?

The German people thought that its enemies were external; never did they consider that Hitler would declare German citizens also as a potential enemy.  So Hitler got laws passed that would allow him to ignore German rules of law.  Now you’re going to argue – “What happened in Germany could never happen in America”.  And of course you would be appalled to even consider that any rational American would even think such drivel as the possibility that it could happen here.  Right?  But that would be an almost identical reaction that the German public took about Hitler back in the early thirties.  Yes the German people had wished for a strong leader who would lead them out of the dire poverty they were in and unfortunately they got their wish.  But with the granting of the wish they also got something they didn’t wish for – a monster.

And at first the Third Reich delivered on their promises. The country was pulled up from the bottomless poverty pit where they had been and the future looked great and as Hitler said “ God was on their side”.  Who could argue with God?  At the time, the average German was intensely proud of Hitler and their Government.  But then Hitler began to nibble away at individual liberties and Civil Rights of the citizenry-just a little here, a little there, until one morning Germany woke up and found themselves living in a Fascist state. 

It is now time to examine some of the actions the Third Reich took and the individual liberties they removed from German Law during this period, and then compare them to our “War against Terrorism Law” Remember our Constitution bans the practice of these eight items listed below:

Denial and Restriction of Habeas Corpus
Un Authorized Rampant militarism without Congress Approval
Warrant less Spying on all citizens
Arrest and indefinite imprisonment without trial
Secret detention
Secret Prisons
Torture
Unfair Trial Practices

Today in America every last one of these denials of human rights guaranteed by our constitution have been adopted by the Last two Administrations

Nothing ever gets too big to fail. 

And nothing ever is too small to succeed.

Time is the leveler.

The one for sure thing is that “Things Change”.

If you don’t believe that you don’t have understanding.

The American people bought into the lie that certain Financial Institutions and Corporations were too big to fail.  So we propped them up with Billions and look what they did to you and me.

The most evil thing on Earth is the World Financial Cabal.  Their business is “Blood Profiteering”.  They own enough of the wealth of the world to cause conflict and as the Rothschild Group said “The time to make money is when there is blood in the streets”.  They stir the pot to cause conflict and when the blood begins to flow, you will find them profiting from the blood letting.  They move mountains with the help of their enablers - large and small - Intelligent and Stupid - Powerful and powerless, and bring about conditions where the common man is forced to re-distribute their wealth to the richest and most powerful.

If you think this is not a fact do some research about the Libya plan to get free of the International World Bank and its subsidiary the IMF. There you will find the REAL cause of the invasion, and just about every war of choice.

This incident with censorship reminds me of why I have quit commenting and submitting on another site.

On that site a question had been asked why there were no borders Israel had ever agreed to.

I answered that the Zionist movement in the 1800’s had developed a plan to retake the Biblical Israel.  I further mentioned that Ben Gurion, the recognized “Father of Israel” stated that when they Zionists got control of Palestine that they would have to purge the land of the Palestinian Arabs.  He said this in 1937 before the Holocaust or WWII.  He said that they would start with the plan that no agreement on the confines of the New Nation Israel would be agreed to until the final borders were established at the Lataini River in Lebanon, the Euphrates in Iraq, The Nile in Egypt, and the empty quarter in Arabia.  This war to expel the Palestinians has been going on since before WWI.  It is now about 100 years ongoing.  And for many years before the rise of Hitler the Palestinians were suffering terrorist attacks by the Zionist Movement.
I asked the readers to read Benny Morris, a Jewish Historian as one my sources.

That site’s Administrators told me I should not use the words Zionist or Zionism because it was a hateful word to use in the negative.  Notice in the Negative only.

That is an example of censorship to protect an agenda.  And it is why I said earlier that censorship and spin is never the truth.  Does Truthdig discourage the use of these words?  All I’m asking for is a yes or no.

I find Chomsky s article and his views interesting and find they provide a slightly differing view from the norm.

Chomsky seems to suggest as I also feel a decline in human rights has motivated two movements in two different societies. Chomps parallels between what happened in both Wisconsin and Egypt. I see clearly the people of Wisconsin attempting to keep some basic rights from being striped from them and the people of Egypt demanding

A slight difference from my perspective is in Egypt had 40 years of despotism and here in the USA we have had a slow, deliberate, choreographed song and dance routine to remove peoples rights by what seems to me very similar if not actually, .....Fascism!

The blatant moves by the Republicans of late show a similarity of boldness to the brown shirts in Nazi Germany.

Does one need to have a list to see the jack boot being placed up their arse?  Me deluded observations of What seems to be happening and has been happening for some time now?

Chomsky mentions fascism in this article, but seems to have have only mentioned it in passing, I see it more than passing.

What seems amusing to me, the people of Egypt are asking for Democracy, otherwise the right to decided their own futures and how their they want to live their lives, instead of being told what they can do and not do, by one person. While back the the ranch, here in the good old USA our alleged Democracy (actually a limited Republic) seems to be sliding into Nazi Germany, where a minority, the self empowered few seem to be emulating what could be construed as collective despots?

14 points of Fascism seem to be evolving with robust acceleration or am I totally deluded, the ever widening gap between the government and the people, for it was thought in Germany they were free too! FYI:

14 points of Fascism, slightly more comprehensive from Britts condensed points!

http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html

By JDmysticDJ, April 23 at 7:21 am Link to this comment

“It is the fundamental duty of the citizen to resist and to restrain the violence of the state. Those who choose to disregard this responsibility can justly be accused of complicity in war crimes…” Noam Chomsky

================================================

Very nice sentiment. Good luck finding a lawyer who will prosecute.