I'm impressed by the new Dinesh D'Souza book, The Roots of Obama's Rage, which traces Obama's thought back to his anti-colonialist father. The dad had many wives and boozed it up, blaming the Brits for the situation of Africa, and arguing much like Mugabe for a total destruction of all foreign elements within Kenya -- not just whites, but also Chinese and Indians had to be dispossessed of their land and holdings and thrown into the sea.
D'Souza is rather implacable in his pursuit of Obama through his father's writings, connecting them through Dreams From My Father, and from the points at which Obama's public outbursts become particularly passionate and we can see through the smokescreen to see a strong parallel with the father's thinking to posit a common trajectory.
In essence, D'Souza is arguing that Obama is a kind of Ahab, but he is on the side of the whales, who has somehow managed to become the captain of the Ship of State (Pequod), with the ultimate intention of sinking the ship and all on it, by any means necessary.
Secondary implications arise that the healthcare bill is really just another torpedo designed to sink the ship, and render the American business community dead in its wake. The size of the bill and its opacity could be merely a means to make the business community unable to function, and to simply surrender all of our jobs to China and India and Africa rather than to attempt to remain in business. (Perhaps a better metaphor than a torpedo is a giant spiky mine that he's set in the water, and now orders us to go full speed ahead toward the device. You'll find out what's in it after you've hit it, Pelosi adds.)
Some of D'Souza's writing could be compared to Glenn Beck -- he jumps about and connects dots -- in the Michael Moore or Ann Coulter fashion -- but in this book he seems very calm. He paints Obama quite distinctly as a traitor who is somehow in charge of the very ship he's planning to scuttle and kill us all in the process.
You get the feeling that D'Souza and others on the prow are like Cassandra at the rails of Troy, or like someone back from the future on the prow of the Titanic, asking the captain to slow down a minute.
The book's thesis is carefully thought through, and could be accurate. It could be a bit alarmist, too. There were some who tried to speak up on the Pequod, to wake up and smell the coffee (Starbuck), and probably a small number on the Titanic. It was thought that that mighty ship was unsinkable. But where there's a will there's a way.
51 comments:
Sounds fishy.
Coulter claimed Clinton committed murder.
blahblahblah, I don't get why you listen to conspiracy theory and nonsensical implicationful BS.
It's silly.
I don't buy that Bush wanted to destroy America.
I know you're ludic, but don't be a lud-head.
I asked around at church what people thought of D'Souza.
An arch-Republican told me that he reads him and likes him, but that he's "way out there, a radical."
Could he still be right?
I listen to Beck and to others.
I'm drawn to fringe types. They represent worst case scenarios often, and it's fun to think -- how bad could this president be? A president who was deliberately trying to destroy American business would be just as bad as a president could be.
A president who did it accidentally would be just as bad in some sense, but if it were done intentionally it would be worse, I think, because of the implication that we (the voters) were responsible for not understanding the man's animus against the nation.
One of the most interesting details D'Souza goes over is the removal of a bust of Winston Churchill from the White House. He ordered it removed.
D'Souza does a lot with that.
The deportation of American jobs is a Republican thing. Coprorate people love to rip off peasants--and they'd like nothing better than to turn America into a Third World nation, with a huge struggling underclass, and a little fluff of super-rich at the top. Do away with the middle class, which is the enemy of capital. A strong middle class, educated and empowered, prevents the truncation of society. If we keep going the way we've been headed, we could be like Mexico eventually. Hell, California is well down that road already.
The dispossessed in Haiti live on the median strips of the highways, in makeshift tents. Now there's a practical suggestion for all those welfare queens. Instead of Vietnam Vets with cardboard begging signs, let's put the welfare cheats in tents on our median strips! We've got hundreds of thousands of miles of unused interstate median, why not put it to some good use?
Obama never strikes me as raging. He's always quiet and measured. He got dissed by China and South Korea.
What ingrates! We saved their sorry asses in World War II, and from Communism (South Korea), and this is how we're rewarded.
China's a fucking outlaw nation. Ripping everyone else off, and thumbing their noses at us. North Korea is a joke. China's smart. They'll get stronger and stronger, but they won't try the imperialist route the way we did. Little countries torn apart by internecine strife?--no problem, let'em burn. Who needs'em? Markets, man, markets are where it's at. And raw materials.
I say, raise the barriers. If China doesn't play ball, what're they going to do? Call in our debt? Like that's going to make us shiver and quake? Nuke the bastards!
Does this sound familiar?
Curtis, He's not ALWAYS quiet and measured. He blew up over the Crowley incident in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for instance, when he said that the Cambridge police were acting stupidly.
He does blow up.
D'Souza thinks he's very very angry, but has to pretend to be measured in order to disguise his rage -- which he thinks is very similar to Reverend Wright's rage, but that it also comes through his reading of Frantz Fanon, who D'Souza thinks is central to Obama's understanding of the world.
In order to become president he had to have a burning desire of SOME KIND to put up with all the nonsense of the hoops that candidates must go through. To do this, there must be some kind of burning ambition.
I would never go through with that. You would never go through with that. It takes some extraordinary and compelling vision that you want to see enacted.
I think you make a good point about the middle classes being central to America.
The left claims that the right wants to turn everyone into an automaton.
The right claims that the left wants to make everybody into a welfare queen so that noone works.
We do still have a giant middle class in this country, and they're the ones that determine who gets in.
Last time around they largely sided with the right. This is partially because the left wants open borders with Mexico, it's partially because of the huge bailouts that Obama's group gave out (not all of which seemed to be strictly linked to economic growth), and finally, there's the enormous and complicated blockage of the healthcare legislation that no one understands, and few have read (I read five pages of it, and thought -- what a mess).
If the healthcare bill is not meant to destroy American business, that is nevertheless it's effect. So it's stupid if it's not willful.
There is one part of this that I think Stu brought up months and months ago, which is the uninsured have the right to use the emergency rooms.
But I don't know if the cost of their use of the rooms equals the cost of this gigantic bill, and how it will drive so many doctors out of the profession with its Byzantine regulation.
Obama's intentions remain obscure to us.
D'Souza is a paranoid, like Beck. I will grant that.
But paranoids sometimes see things that the rest of us don't.
Beck saw the Marxist Czar of the environment in Obama's government, and got him out.
D'Souza sees a continuity between Obama's father, and the son, a bridge which Obama Jr. seems to emphasize in the title of his first autobiography, Dreams FROM My Father.
The father was a very special case: he could be two peas in a pod with Patrick Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
If that's what Obama wants to do with this country, we're really in trouble.
However, it's not clear to me that that's what Obama wants. Maybe he did want that, but is going to change tack.
No one knows. Probably even he doesn't know.
But D'Souza's book is worth reading, and worth considering.
Indians are quite interesting: they are "people of color," too, but often come from a highly stratified sensibility, and fit more neatly into the Republican mindset.
You do get a few African Americans who share that mindset -- Thomas Sowell at Harvard comes to mind. There is a a senator from South Carolina named Scott Tims (I think is his name).
But Indians are much more likely to go for the notion that the middle class should earn its own bread, and are entitled to keep the bread that they've made, rather than have it redistributed.
The Little Red Hen is a Republican text, but it is also the text of the middle class.
Kirby, D'Souza's not really a "fringe" conservative or conspiracy theorist, though many mainstream conservatives take issue with his central thesis on Obama's allegedly patriarchally-inspired anti-colonialism. I've only read of it in a couple of his essays, so I can't say how he develops it a in full treatment. It's clear Obama was exposed to a number of radical and leftist influences in his life up to his election, but I'm not sure how directly those influences bear upon his decisions as president.
It's amusing to read Curtis Faville's defence of the middle class. From the sixties on leftists couldn't outdo each other enough in disparaging those greedy, patriotic, bellicose, bourgeois, mauvaise foi philistines, but now we hear from the same protest soapboxes plangent appeals about the newly-anointed middle class in danger of destruction, albeit by the usual suspects--rich, even greedier capitalists, rich imperialists or economic or military colonialists, etc.
CF, on those "Vietnam Vets with cardboard begging signs": check out copies of their DD 214s before believing their stories; many are just run-of-the-mill fakes and lying scroungers. Real vets usually know how to sort these spongers out after a short dialogue.
Kirby, I think it's Tim Scott of South Carolina; another Black conservative Republican elected this year is war-vet Allen West of Florida.
James, I think there was a pseudo-war-vet elected in Connecticut on the Democratic side. I can't recall his name.
When I was in Finland a young Finnish man told me that a joke among Finns is that if you talked to an American long enough they would eventually go into a self-pity comi-tragedy about their time in North Vietnamese prisons.
It was something that many Finnish tourists to America encountered, apparently because Americans longed to enact that tragedy, and to imagine how they'd been treated to the Hanoi Hilton's hospitality along with John McCain and other authentic martyrs.
This was in the early 90s, but already the time-lapse seemed like a joke to Finns, and their leading newspapers had had articles about how this was an experience of travelling in the US -- the false war stories of ordinary Americans and how they had been caught and tortured by the North Vietnamese. What's with that, anyhoo?
I found it very funny to hear it from this Finnish guy -- whose name I can't recall, but he used to walk around in winter in shoes but without socks. He said he wanted to pretend he was in Florida.
I wore triple layers of socks and still frozen.
Americans: homo thespianus.
I don't know who's responsible for the deportation of jobs. We've lost about 3 million in the last ten years.
But in terms of the border with Mexico it is clearly the Democrats who don't want a wall. Republicans have tried tirelessly to pass laws (Arizona) and to get a wall built, but the Democrats block this at every opportunity.
Obama clearly wants the Hispanic vote, and he wants the wall and laws to be his tool. He has said to the Hispanics you should hate the Republicans and vote against them because I'm letting you live here illegally.
Floridians have said that in the election of 2000 many of the voters were illegals -- sometimes as many as 25 people living in an apartment or house.
Meanwhile, the uninsured (a great percentage of which are Hispanic illegals) continue to cost us all trillions of dollars (about 2 trillion a year):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States
I think this is a Democratic problem. Most Americans think it is a Democratic problem.
The Tea Party, which is a middle-class group, is largely Republican.
I think Curtis is confused about which group he should belong to. He's actually a Republican, but his sense of demographics hasn't changed since 1965.
He probably still thinks the left is the party of free speech, in spite of his own experience with his friend Ron Silliman.
Half the things he says he couldn't even say on a campus these days whether he was a student or a faculty member.
That's changing on some campuses thanks to FIRE (which is largely run by Democrats).
Kirby: You were referring to the Connecticut senator-elect Richard "Con-you" Blumenthal. How a supposedly smart lawyer (and the top state legal officer) could lie so easily about "his" (non-existent) Vietnam military service is beyond me. This guy avoided combat duty after his basic training (strings were pulled) with a few months' active duty in Washington, DC. When caught out as liar, he said he just, um, "mis-spoke," and didn't even publicly slap his own shameless face for it.
Tocqueville had it right about Americans tending to be braggarts--hence the faux war stories. These days all the vets of the Finns' gallant defence against the Soviet hordes in the 1939-40 war must be getting pretty scarce by natural attrition, but perhaps you heard a few stories when you lived and taught there.
Yes, the Dems are counting on their dependent minorities to ensure future election victories. Californians )no surprise there) elected a useless loon as governor, though other border states with Mexico now all have Repub governors (including an Hispanic conservative Repub in New Mexico). I hope they have some success in controlling their borders, but with the Obama administration dragging its feet on enforcing federal law, it's an uphill fight.
Curtis has a split personality when it comes to the Repubs. I suspect most of us have splits of some kind, though his is especially salient.
He wants stronger borders (it's his strongest issue, and he's written letters to the editor about it in SF Chronicle which you can find online), but he insists that the Democrats are his party.
Makes no sense.
You'd think the Connecticut Senator would have gotten Savag'ed for his fake credentials. I'm not sure that Americans (in Finnish eyes) are braggarts. They just want the attention and pity of being party to a psychodrama.
That is, they want to present themselves as victims rather than victors.
I'm not talking about Blumenthal, but in general.
I can understand wanting to break down and get sympathy from strangers. Yes, I spent a decade in Vietnamese prisons. I had to eat ants to survive. They hammered nails into my skull just for fun! And so on.
And then the inevitable flood of tears.
Perhaps this is akin to survivor's guilt, in that our lives are so ridiculously easy compared to those of most of the world, especially those of Finland havnig to confront the psychotic hordes of Stalinist commies to the one side, and the weird laxadaisical quality of the Swedes on the other side, bouncing on trampolines while trying to continue to sip cocktails without dropping a drip.
I suspect with Curtis' viewpoint that Obama is always measured he isn't picking up on the impoliteness that Obama uses to prick the skin of his opponents. He's extremely clever about his use of impoliteness, but his impoliteness has been deeply felt on the other side.
He lies and says he's been open, for instance, to ideas from the other side, and implies that there aren't any.
He can be openly impolite, too, as when he said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" in its approach to HL Gates. Moreover, he NEVER apologizes. EVER.
Politeness is a strange thing. Obama can be murderous while never quite crossing the line into raw rage. He doesn't have to do this.
He's a master of the sententious put-down, and can use humor to bitch slap Hillary, for instance, while never seeming out of line, but still reducing her face to a mish mash.
He's quite a deadly opponent.
The left probably doesn't fear him because he's on their side. That is, they don't hear his implications.
When he went after Governor Brewer, for instance, his language is measured, but it cuts with a million slices. Brewer is tough and didn't show how deeply those slices cut.
Bush 2 is another master of not showing how the slices against him and his father hurt him. He called it "psycho-babble" in a recent talk to discuss why he did or didn't do things, such as take us into a war.
Bush 2 would have made an amazing opponent for Obama, because he could cut you down with a homely metaphor, as he cut Kerry in half with his reference to wood in one of their last debates.
It was the most vicious jab imaginable and it took Kerry apart.
I suspect that McCain and Kerry -- both actual veterans -- weren't used to this kind of catty cutting procedure. The left is extremely catty, and can cut you a million ways -- with silence, even with praise that you are suddenly sounding like them (one of Brett's favorite maneuvers).
Rage is probably always there. I suspect it's going to get worse in the next two years because Obama is now hated by most of the country, and he's going to have to slice his opponents with his trickiest epithets so that he doesn't appear to leave a mark.
One of the best slicers on this blog is Stu. He can cut you to ribbons while quoting Jesus.
One person who never cuts me, and forgive me JH, because sometimes I must speak against your denomination, is you. I think it's partially because you are so openly outrageous when you do cut, that it never cuts. It's more of a simulated cut.
It's fascinating to watch the give and take, and to try to understand how people are accomplishing what they are accomplishing only with verbal effects.
Openly aggravated impoliteness -- such as that employed by J back in the day -- is more or less forbidden here -- the f. word slipped in here or there is even denounced, but there is still death by a thousand cuts.
In its own way this little comments box is as active as an NHL hockey ring, but then so is most everyday conversation, especially when it comes to politics and religion among true believers.
Kirby,
Obama's mother divorced his father very early in his life. IIRC, Obama met his father only once, post-infancy, and that when he was about 10 years old.
It is not surprising the Obama thought a great deal about his missing father, but the notion that the man himself (as opposed to an entirely disconnected juvenile idealization of him) had much of an influence given the paucity of the connection beggars belief. D'Souza isn't building his case on sand so much as on hot air. Admit it: you're drawn to that.
You've really drunk the kool-aid now, kirb.
Were Bill & Hill trying to sink the nation with their attempt at Health Care reform? Was Harry Truman trying to do so with his plan, which included what today we'd call a public option? Are the countries with single payer systems totally sunk?
But I admit I could never win a political argument with you, Mr. Olson. As Mark Twain said more than once, you can't win an argument with someone who won't acknowledge when s/he's beaten.
Still, let me also express my wonderment that you're so obsessed with the Crowley/Gates case (this time in the comments section). Obama may or may not have been feeling angry at the time, it's OK with me either way, but his judgment that while he couldn't judge the minute particulars of the confrontation, it would be "stupid" in the aftermath to put Gates in jail, is not bizarre, and in my opinion, is quite correct. I don't know why it so much upsets you.
JA:
You place me as a canonical liberal, but that was probably never true. The more people know about me, the more contradictory my "positions" become.
Did I ever criticize the middle class? Why would I do that? I was never one of the "elites"--so why would I need to demonize them? It's the shock radio jocks who keep attacking "coasters" for dissing middle America. But it's the middle Americans who have the most to lose when capital jerks workers around. Why would I disrespect the Midwest? All my people were from Wisconsin, and proud of it.
I think Obama goes out of his way to be polite to everybody. Unlike Bush II, who sneered and jeered at his opponents. Old Smirk the Jerk.
I'm an independent. I wasn't in favor of invading Iraq and Afghanistan. I wasn't in favor of loosening banking regulations. I wasn't in favor of giving the rich a tax holiday. I wasn't in favor of the drug bill. I wasn't in favor of the Obama Health Initiative, primarily because it was a tissue of compromises and sell-outs to the insurance and medical supply industries, which happened because the opponents demanded quid pro quos for their votes.
I am a fiscal conservative. I don't believe in deficit spending. I believe in smaller government, which is what, for instance, Social Security is. All the money in the Trust Fund belongs to the people, instead of the bankers and industrialists and corporate interests. The "cost" of administering it is less than 3% of annual program distributions. What do you think the cost differential would be if it were privatized--probably 50%!!
K:
I think the supposition is that in America, we can diss each other gently, because we have a tradition of civilized disagreement which trumps violence.
But censorship is a big issue on the web, too. I was livid when Silliman deleted a couple of my posts, for political reasons, I thought that was unethical.
My theory is that if you let people say what they want, eventually they will reveal their own contradictions and shortcomings. Trying to control debate by censoring people is just self-defeating. But on blogs, what you don't see can and often is used against you. Like telling stories out of school. "I deleted a troll post by X, because it was obscene," or rude, or stupid, etc., which is impossible to verify because it's been effaced. I think there should be a "trash" file to which "deleted" posts are put; if you wanted to read what had been "excluded" from the discussion stream, you could click on that and see what had been tossed. If you wanted to argue about that, you could only do so to the blog administrator, but at least you could see what was going on "behind the scenes."
The internet is a wonderful forum for discussion. Trying to treat it as a one-sided discussion is futile, in my view. All this "politeness" stuff is mostly just politically correct mincing. I probably dislike DeLater, but I'd rather have his passionate barbs, than the milquetoast pap most people post. If you believe in what you believe, you should have the courage and emotion to say it with force. Get angry. What you think DOES matter in life. It isn't just all idle talk.
Stephen, Crowley is not a literary scholar, and didn't know Gates. He was just a police officer protecting a residence on the basis of a phone call that regarded the man trying to break into the house as a potential burglary suspect.
Does that make what he did "acting stupidly"?
Although he never actually apologized, Obama did invite the two to his house, and Gates and Crowley ended up as friendly with one another as two people could get.
But Obama's initial suspicion of the police -- his calling it for his friend -- was the tip-off as to how he reacts toward the police.
That's not my reaction.
I almost always see them as reasonable.
We have to remember that they are not familiar with all the facts of the case as we are afterward.
I think the main problem with healthcare is that the bill is unreadable, untested, and too long for anyone to deal with unless they were somehow able to put everything else aside. I mean, EVERYTHING, else.
Because it would take a hundred lifetimes to understand a 2000 page document that was such a thorough job of obfuscation. Even Obama admits that there are wrinkles in it that have to be ironed out. Like, millions.
Would you want to be the business stuck in the courts for five years ironing out a wrinkle, while you pay three or four lawyers at 1000 dollars an hour?
Businesses are instead shying away, thinking of the bill as a giant precipice.
Far better to just send the jobs overseas.
This is what D'Souza claims is Obama's intention all along. Is he wrong? D'Souza may be a paranoid maniac, as leftists claim. But even paranoid maniacs sometimes make perfectly good points.
Stu claims Obama can't have been influenced by his father because they never met.
But Obama Sr.'s Writing Exists, and it's quite likely that the son read those writings, perhaps even when he was quite young, and even more idealistic.
Not many people today have met Marx, but there are many who are still influenced by him.
Kirby,
I believe that the basic thing Obama said about the Crowley/Gates affair was that it was Stupid to try to jail Gates for "disturbing the peace". By the end of the shouting match it was clear that it was Gates' house and Crowley might, and I think, should, have concluded that there was no point in putting the man in jail for stridently reacting to being accused of being a trespasser. "Disturbing the peace", like "loitering" is a rather subjective sort of offense, and here was a case where I think the officer should have just left the scene and cursed a little under his breath.
To understand minority attitudes about the police, including what the fairly moderate Professor Gates must have been thinking, you might think about differential enforcement of laws about drugs. It is believed that Whites and Blacks use illegal drugs at about the same rate. However Blacks are jailed for possession more often. In New York, there are a lot of Blacks put in jail for simple marijuana possession, this in a city presided over by Mike Bloomberg, who apropos the Clinton "didn't inhale" affair, commented that in earlier days he had inhaled and enjoyed it.
I think the Healthcare Law was so complicated because of the political complications of passing it.
Decriminalizing marijuana, prostitution and other crimes would allow for government oversight, and perhaps allow for taxing them, and thus reduce the NY deficit, plus release police officers to work on other more pressing crimes. Kristin Davis, one of the gubernatorial candidates for NY state, ran on such a plank this autumn. She didn't get a lot of votes, but her argument should appeal to the libertarians on board this bus. she was herself briefly imprisoned for supplying NY governor Eliot Spitzer with whores:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/04/marijuana-the-victimless-crime-that-costs-new-york-state-15-billion-a-year/
Faville had a response to James which ended up in spam for some reason, and just got posted a few minutes ago. Sometimes posts end up in spam and I forget to check there. He's arguing that people should argue as violently as they possibly can. I don't agree with this, but as long as he puts it politely, I'll put it through.
I still hold that J's posts went too far.
He's calmed down some on Curtis' blog, lately.
Maybe Curtis is right, but then he and J agree on most things, I suppose.
I don't think being violent is a good thing because it's an attempt to efface or erase other viewpoints, and, like a bullfrog, to drown it out.
I believe in the idea of sharing viewpoints, and in the notion of the Blind Men and the Elephant. No one really knows what they are talking about completely.
Violent speech is too often an insistence not only that one does know what one is talking about, but that no one else does, and they should all just shut up.
I hate that.
CF, I've noted before your independence from lib-left stances on immigration with some approval.
I don't think I'd refer to the radical and socialist anti-war factions of the sixties as "elites."
Some this "elitist" fervour seems now to take the shape of agitating for a socialist economy, to which you seem favourably inclined. This seems to accord with your opposition to the HRC bill in favour of a single-payer government-controlled health system favoured by the left. I'm not a defender of "crony capitalism" (from which Democrats have profited at least as much as Republicans), but you seem to have a visceral animosity towards the idea of capitalism itself as well as to the very existence of the "rich" (including physicians) whom you often disparage as greedy hoarders indifferent to human suffering or want.
That visceral animosity peaks in your attitude towards former President Bush that you share with the left. Whatever may be said of his terms in office, it's hard to argue he's do anything but kept a dignified presence upon leaving office. And especially in the wake of endless Bush blame-game ploys by the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership. How thinly that seems to have worn with voters was reflected in the Democrats' election losses. More to come in 2012 I hope.
Stephen Baraban's view is apparently that Obama and Gates could do no wrong because of the centuries of racism toward blacks.
However, Obama is president of this country, and Gates is a highly distinguished professor at the most elite college in the world.
Crowley was only doing his job.
Gates' misuse of Crowley is an instance of reverse discrimination, in which he not only pulled rank on the officer, but abused the officer's mother in the bargain.
That Obama jumped on the dogpile without thinking of the seriousness of the offense to the law itself, made me question Obama's judgment.
There was a delight that the two men found in abusing the officer, which I found repugnant.
I think the whole country did.
Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.
This is a problem in many liberal areas where gays, or other minorities, feel that they can launch challenges at others who used to be their "superiors" as a way of "getting back" but two wrongs don't make a right.
If you're a gay professor and you decide to abuse a straight student for centuries of oppression that that particular student isn't responsible for, you are harassing the student.
Few understood this distinction within the left, because they are not used to thinking about the problem from a universal viewpoint, but only from a sectarian viewpoint.
Racism and sexism are bad things. But they don't allow classism.
In this case, the president and the Harvard professor dogpiled on a Cambridge officer who was only doing his job.
But you can see the rage of the president in that instance.
It showed that he had a disrespect of law itself, and didn't trust it, especially when it was applied by anyone but himself. Gates, too, felt clearly that he was above the law, since he was an elite professor at an elite institution.
These reversals of discrimination are increasingly common among the left. It's something that they can't sort out because there isn't enough difference accepted among them (they would never allow a Republican on campus to argue with them). But, off campus, in the real world, their elite stance strikes most of the rest of us as bizarre and arrogant, and repulsive to an extreme.
Oh for a while we were having a reasonable discussion, but now you want to pigeon hole me as to what I "apparently" believe. We'll discuss it some other time, I'm working up a presentation on the late Blakean/Olsonian poet/professor John (Jack) Clarke for the Soul in Buffalo conference this weekend.
Stephen, I think it is a legitimate second-order implication as to how you must have arrived at thinking that neither Gates nor Obama were out of line.
They both apologized to Officer Crowley, so they must have both thought they went too far.
If you don't think they did, then you must think that it's because of centuries of oppression (which Officer Crowley is not responsible for, didn't participate in, and woiuld have condemned) legitimates their behavior even though neither Obama nor Gates experienced that oppression themselves.
(Since Obama's lineage is via Kenya, even his ancestors didn't experience that oppression.)
Gates has said he has some white ancestors, too, I think?
At any rate, I was trying to understand the roots of your thinking, and came to my conclusions thereby. Of course, there is no such as a rational discussion here.
Everything at LS is a hop from the abyss.
Good luck on your Clarke presentation which I can understand might take precedence, at least in your own mind, to your continuing contributions to this colloquial colloquium's colloquy...
JD:
Let me reply to separate points from your last post:
"CF, I've noted before your independence from lib-left stances on immigration with some approval."
My opinions are not to be measured by the degree to which I hew to some imaginary profile you set up for my position along a spectrum. Each issue must be judged on the merits, not on how closely one sticks to the predictable (and approved) party line. And, of course, I don't shape my opinions to please you, or anyone else.
"I don't think I'd refer to the radical and socialist anti-war factions of the sixties as 'elites'."
Did I say this, or even imply it? I think you're imagining something I might have said, or which you think I must believe, based on how you interpret my speech.
"Some this 'elitist' fervour seems now to take the shape of agitating for a socialist economy, to which you seem favourably inclined."
I don't think it does any of us a favor to talk about "socialist economies" or similar cliché'd terms. Let's leave "socialistic" on the scrap heap with "fascistic".
"This seems to accord with your opposition to the HRC bill in favour of a single-payer government-controlled health system favoured by the left."
First, I didn't (have never said in print) say I thought we ought to have a single-payer system. I've heard arguments on both sides, but haven't made up my mind. Second, what is this "health system favoured by the left." I don't give a damn who favors something. The point is: Will is work, is it good legislation? Do you always define every issue in terms of where you think advocates are "located" along a political spectrum?
"I'm not a defender of "crony capitalism" (from which Democrats have profited at least as much as Republicans), but you seem to have a visceral animosity towards the idea of capitalism itself"
Capitalism has brought us immeasurable riches in terms of our standard of living, and the advance of technology and research and development. But most of those riches have been concentrated in the hands of a very few individuals. Some of them have enlightened views of society, others are simply selfish people who could give a good god damn about whether society works or is general prosperous. I'm in favor of the enlightened kind, who "give back" to the world some part of what they've taken from it.
"...as well as to the very existence of the "rich" (including physicians) whom you often disparage as greedy hoarders indifferent to human suffering or want."
I don't think there is any question that physicians are overpaid. And I don't think there is any question that most physicians enter that profession for other reasons than the hippocratic oath. I've known a number of them, and they all freely admit their greed.
There's nothing wrong with greed, but it must be moderated, for the good of society. There's nothing communistic or "socialistic" about this. We have, for instance, a graduated income tax. The trend over the last 50 years has been to tax corporations and businesses less and less, and to levy more burden on the rest of us. Compare the rates since 1960.
"That visceral animosity peaks in your attitude towards former President Bush that you share with the left. Whatever may be said of his terms in office, it's hard to argue he's do anything but kept a dignified presence upon leaving office."
This simply makes me smile. Bush II was unquestionably the stupidest President we've ever had, with the possible exception of Calvin Coolidge. He was a tongue-tied, pathetic momma's boy who decided to "get religion" and "play ball" in early middle age. Without his handlers, I doubt whether he could have found the bathroom. An absolute embarrassment as a man, and as a "statesman." (Note that I say nothing about his policies, or the effects of his administrations. That's a separate question.) I merely describe the man.
"And especially in the wake of endless Bush blame-game ploys by the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership."
In my opinion, the current economic woes have nothing whatsoever to do with any Obama policies. They're the result of 30 years of fiscal and foreign policy mismanagement. Both parties contributed to the problem. The debt, for instance, was a bi-partisan collaboration of monumental proportions.
"How thinly that seems to have worn with voters was reflected in the Democrats' election losses. More to come in 2012 I hope."
I suspect that most of those who may have voted for him, probably became disillusioned at many of his compromises. Rather than the arch-liberal whom many thought he was, he's turned out to be a "deal-maker" who compromises. He didn't withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan, and he compromised his health bill by capitulating to the medical and medical insurance industries. That's why he "lost his base". It had little or nothing to do with people's perception of him as a "socialist". He's lost voters not because he was too socialist, but because he wasn't socialist enough!
Coolidge was by far my favorite president.
Then, Bush 2.
I admire Lincoln unreservedly, as well.
Coolidge was simply stark-raving genius. If we could have had one dictator for life out of our presidents, I'd take Coolidge in a twinkling.
Actually, I don't know if Crowley or Obama apologized. I don't think either one ever said, "I apologize."
They were willing to sit with the man and have a beer and peanuts (why not an actual dinner, and a show?), so maybe that's an implicit apology, but I would have liked an explicit one on national television.
so now obama comes out with a book and i hear he's dedicating it to dubbya in hopes that dubbya can read it maybe put it in the new dubbya library down in dubbya texas
d'souza is no slouch and i've enjoyed more than once his take on the US from his native indian perspective...i liked it when he debated hitchens
i think brett's been slicin things with a pretty sharp edge these past few months...remember the days when stu and jadl went at it like pro wrestlers i mean they're like ole drinkin pals now
the value of a considerate sustained discussion is nothing to scoff at in these days of c-o-g-n-i-t-i-v-e fracuring
i've noticed kirby that you're working real hard to say the right things when the word mincing begins
could it be that warrior chief in chief oabama warlord of ten thousand valorous battles royal african muslim knight of the benighted land once known as USA now more popularly referred to as
brokedownestan emperor of a million starstudded knights sheik of the african bank to him all honor is due let allah's will be done is about as american as they get and his tendencies are as others have stated midddle of the road concessionist more than anything i mean he went with a watered down health plan simply as a way to bring the pubbys on board but they stood there with crossed arms and said no no no we won't play we don't want this to be about social issues it's about taxes and money and wha wha wha wha wha...well give the guy a chance...i mean govt was never meant to be run as a business and now it has to more or less and in business things can take a long long time
i propose a constitutional amendment that the next presidential election will be for a term of 10 yrs with a 4yr yeah ney approval vote and if it's ney he has to step down
i have to go to bed now
tmrrwz nthr dy
these are some really fine colloquial rhetorical exchanges here
kein sheize
jh
CF, since you wrote a reply, I'll make a few points in response.
I merely noted that some of your remarks here on illegal immigration accord with my own views, and these are exceptions to our quite different views on most subjects like, e.g., most political issues, or more specifically, population control, where your views seem to accord with those of the entomologist turned overpopulation prophet of doom, Paul Ehrlich.
As you know, "socialist" refers to an economic system of public ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution. Thus I think it fair to apply this useful adjective, e.g., to the government takeover of GM as well as to a number of other misguided measures adopted or proposed by the Obama administration. Accordingly, I prefer the more value-neutral "capitalistic" to just "greedy." I agree that the wealthy and successful contribute to the general welfare, as they do by creating wealth for themselves and others for whom they provide employment, but I also prefer private charity and philanthropy to government confiscations in the name of "social justice."
I've also known a number of physicians, but I can't say any of them felt compelled to confess their greed or indifference to their Hippocratic Oath to me. Perhaps my interrogative techniques in querying my physician friends or acquaintances differ from yours.
I did have to chuckle a bit at your cantankerous vociferations about "Bush the man," and as for Coolidge the man, one who can't read Homer, Sophocles, Vergil, Cicero, and Dante in the original languages (as Coolidge did with facility) must be dumber than even "Silent Cal."
Sorry to disappoint the more strident radicals and socialists among us, but I'm afraid President Obama's politics are about as far left as the majority of American voters are willing to go. Perhaps the mass euphoria for his vague promises and his persona that swept him into office in 2008 was something other than a ecstatic anticipation of "socialism, socialism, at last!" Aside from the Democrats' usually dependable constituencies like minorities, students, and union members, it's delusional to think other large groups of voters were disappointed the President "wasn't socialist enough" (note that you do find the term useful after all), so--they voted Republican!
JA:
More interlinear responses--
"I merely noted that some of your remarks here on illegal immigration accord with my own views, and these are exceptions to our quite different views on most subjects like, e.g., most political issues, or more specifically, population control, where your views seem to accord with those of the entomologist turned overpopulation prophet of doom, Paul Ehrlich."
Yes, Ehrlich raises pertinent issues. Don't you think Haiti, for instance, would be a lot better off if its population were 1/3rd of what it presently is? Alas, growth advocates always can excuse exploding numbers, believing them, for reasons that remain obscure to me, to be the harbinger of economic prosperity.
"As you know, "socialist" refers to an economic system of public ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution. Thus I think it fair to apply this useful adjective, e.g., to the government takeover of GM as well as to a number of other misguided measures adopted or proposed by the Obama administration."
The automotive industry infusions had bi-partisan support, just as the financial bail-outs did. America has been losing market share on automobiles for three decades. Would you advocate letting them disappear altogether? The auto bail-outs were an example of what China has done consistently in recent years, designing ways to achieve international trade victories over her "trading partners." Rather than sending economic stimulus money, for instance, to India, I've advocated sending "foreign aid" to Michigan and Illinois and Ohio. I think that's something Red Staters ought to be able to get behind. Maybe start up a little automobile parts manufacturing operation!
"Accordingly, I prefer the more value-neutral "capitalistic" to just "greedy." I agree that the wealthy and successful contribute to the general welfare, as they do by creating wealth for themselves and others for whom they provide employment, but I also prefer private charity and philanthropy to government confiscations in the name of "social justice."
The disconnect between the concentration of wealth and the creation of jobs, is a well-documented fact, since the advent of rapid capital movement, and "globalization" since 1990. There's no reason any longer to buy into that old saw about "job creation." The rich had a decade of "tax holidays" but there was no appreciable growth in employment as a result. The rich actually KILL jobs, at least in America, by sending their investment dollars abroad, and by "streamlining" and "downsizing"--trends that have been going on for about three decades here at home. I don't know what part of the economy you work in, but this has been a commonplace.
"I've also known a number of physicians, but I can't say any of them felt compelled to confess their greed or indifference to their Hippocratic Oath to me. Perhaps my interrogative techniques in querying my physician friends or acquaintances differ from yours."
Maybe you don't know them well enough for them to confide in you
Part II
"I did have to chuckle a bit at your cantankerous vociferations about "Bush the man," and as for Coolidge the man, one who can't read Homer, Sophocles, Vergil, Cicero, and Dante in the original languages (as Coolidge did with facility) must be dumber than even "Silent Cal."
Oh, sorry, the Latin thing. Those Latin quotations really are cool, aren't they? It shows a real command of issues and history.
"Sorry to disappoint the more strident radicals and socialists among us, but I'm afraid President Obama's politics are about as far left as the majority of American voters are willing to go."
I too was suspicious of Obama during his Presidential campaign. All vague promises and no specifics. He was like the choir boy working on his God & Country merit badge. The kind the pastor got so tired of he gave the kid a quarter for the local double-bill at the movie emporium just to get him out of his hair. Is Obama a radical liberal? Puh-leeese....
"Perhaps the mass euphoria for his vague promises and his persona that swept him into office in 2008 was something other than a ecstatic anticipation of "socialism, socialism, at last!"
Most of the political pundits interpreted Obama's election as a repudiation of Bush. Certainly there were those who voted for him simply because he was half African, but given, as you note, the vagueness of his "platform" it's hard to see how anyone could have voted FOR anything he STOOD FOR, yes? Bush II, of course, was equally vague in his campaigns--"Ahh bee-leeve in Jezuz Chrize!"
"Aside from the Democrats' usually dependable constituencies like minorities, students, and union members, it's delusional to think other large groups of voters were disappointed the President "wasn't socialist enough" (note that you do find the term useful after all), so--they voted Republican!"
Most of the commentators, of course, have said that Obama lost the independents exactly for the reasons I stated. They are pissed off about the deficit, and about our continuing lack of success in the wars. Most people don't understand the new health legislation, but they know they don't like it, because they've been told a number of half-truths about its actual effects. Unfortunately, the real problem is we can't afford it now, but that's not why the Conservatives dislike it. They dislike it because it's "socialism". Tsk, tsk. But the money to attack it is coming from the medical industry and the medical insurance industry. Surprise! Mr. DeLater, I have no doubt that you (will) benefit from Medicare and other socialistic programs, and that you will have no hesitation about using them. The steep appreciation in the medical care industry affects all of us. Perhaps if you could be a bit more "market-driven" in your choices, you could bring those costs down. All of us must do our part in the larger struggle against socialism.
you'd be hard pressed to find a credible economist ( i know that sounds oxymoronic - but hey) dubiosity becomes them you'd be hard pressed to find one who thinnks that the stimulus package plan was not a good thing even george will has wondered what might've been had something not been done and i still maintain that a government must be judged by the standard of how it serves the least fortunate - to offer accessible health care to people that can't afford it for what ever reason is a good thing it keeps people on the streets more healthy maybe even gets them to a healthy place and it focuses in on the whys and wherefors of social dysfunction...we have to admit that there are too many meth kids and they are "victims " of american pharmeceuticals-- crazy ass kids Odeeyan on cold medicines -- i don't know maybe gov't can help them by saying hey you pharmeceutical people qwit sellin that shit let's try to find something different or better for colds and flu i think that would be a good thing for govt to do even better if the pharmeceutical companies saw the problem for what it is and said hey i guess this is our problem to some extent
if obama is a socialist then i'm a prespbyterian raspberry horticulturalist street person
adn if he is a socialist i woud ay he's the socialist we need america needs a good injection of socialism
opulence in this country has taken on a very sleezy greasy decadent quality it's as if all dignity has gone out of life and the culture is more content to portray the images and mechanisms of death over those of life all around a mascara shined face is speaking through the mind of that guy who wrote 1984 orson bean orville riddenbacher no orville wright reverend righty righty righty get the words righty right wrighty the word wright no orson wells thats it talk like orson wells
ii
gotta
go
ciao!
CF: Sure, Ehrlich "raises pertinent issues," and sure, most of his "prophetic" pronouncements on mass starvations (even in developed nations) have proved false and his advocacy of such, um, indelicate measures for population control like forced abortions and widespread release of sterilants into water supplies are subject to "some" small objections.
On the auto industry question, bankruptcy does not necessarily mean dissolution; the Obama administration's bailout merely saved GM and Chrysler from necessary restructuring and serious modification of union contracts. Accordingly, both companies continue to lose big money--like the government-run postal service. In China the Communist Party has a controlling interest every company--that's not a "red-state" solution I'd support. Do you?
Private industry provides at present the majority of jobs in the US; lowering taxes on individuals and corporations are the best way to stimulate the economy, not government spending or devaluation of the currency. Unemployment ranged between 4.6-6.0% during most of the Bush administrations--not optimal, but acceptable compared to the past two years. During the Clinton years from 1995-2001 it ranged between 5.6 to 4.0%.
We agree on candidate Obama's "pie-in-the-sky" vagueness and vacuity, but as I said, Obama's left politics had to be disguised by promises of centrist bipartisanship and such to avoid defeat--the kind of defeat his party just suffered when his and his party's actions were revealed. True, to the crowd at "The Nation" or "Daily Kos" he's a sell-out, but try running candidates on their writers' demands and see how fast Democrats are relegated to third-party status. And on socialism, conservatives don't object so much to invocation of the name, but the thing. In this Hayek certainly had it right.
James, I think in general a problem with the left is that they've only read their own writers, whereas almost everyone on the right is familiar with leftist thought. Conservatives have read Marx, and probably many postmodernists, as well.
Very few socialists have read the bible, or have read Hayek.
They consider it an imposition to have to do so, and wonder why you don't just read Marx again and this time "get it."
Anyone who isn't thinking like them gets put down as either a racist, a sexist, or a homophobe.
I think if we could get Curtis to actually read Hayek he'd realize he's on the same page with Hayek.
But getting him to do it is probably impossible.
It's a little like trying to get an American to learn another language.
They think it's all right here in English, so why should anyone bother?
Unemployment for young people is much much higher -- people under 25 have more like a 25% unemployment rate, I think I've read, and African Americans it's more like 50%?
I think this means that crucial parts of Obama's group didn't turn out this year.
Also, there are 17 million people in this country who were hungry this year. That's a huge new high that hasn't happened in 50 years or more.
Obama's threatening the very economy with his absurdly printing too much money, forcing businesses to accept unacceptably high costs of hiring people with the stealthcare racket, and so on.
In England the unemployment rate for the young is also quite high: about 20% and this is true even among reasonably well-behaved well-educated youth.
The jobs are going elsewhere as outsourcing more and more becomes the norm.
Meanwhile, in India (they have one big resource over China which is they speak a kind of English), the economy is looking up.
Obama is over there dancing it up with the Indians and saying they should be on the UN Security Council. D'Souza should be happy about this (he's Indian, at least originally). But I think his loyalty is to America.
Not sure about Obama.
D'Souza says Obama's greatest loyalty is to formerly colonized countries like Kenya and India, and he wants to see them prosper at American and British expense.
"I think if we could get Curtis to actually read Hayek he'd realize he's on the same page with Hayek.
But getting him to do it is probably impossible.
It's a little like trying to get an American to learn another language.
They think it's all right here in English, so why should anyone bother?"
Kirb:
I think what makes this so objectionable, is the implication that what you're conducting here is some kind of indoctrination exercise.
Political blogs may have various purposes. They may, for instance, be places where discussions about various subjects can be conducted openly, or they may be sites designed to stimulate interest in something, or they may have the somewhat more insidious purpose of trying to create "converts"--this last strategy has a clear missionary ring, resembling a religious program intended to expand the rolls.
Your site will be successful to the degree that you preserve the egalitarian spirit of debate. Many of your assertions, when not simply amusing, are outrageous, and often are clearly intended as tongue-in-cheek provocations to instigate responses. Offered in that spirit, they're an effective way to get the ball rolling.
But conferring publicly about an attempt to "convert" someone to a radical ideology, as if the only real point of these discussions were some proselytizing venture is really offensive, and I take it as such.
In America we don't have to be black and white. We don't line up on opposite sides of the street with Uzzis and kill each other when things get heated. Let's agree to disagree without insulting each other on ideological grounds.
I'm not a "liberal" who's ripe for conversion. I'm an American who has independent political opinions. Sometimes you will find me in agreement, other times you won't. Let's leave it at that.
I'm not arguing that you should read and accept Hayek, but simply that you should see that there are other things on offer aside from radical Marxism.
Against Marx and Habermas and Foucault, there is another way of thought to be found in Adam Smith, John Locke, and Friedrich Hayek.
But many won't even try Locke Smith and Hayek because to do so would find them as racist or something.
It is as if there is an invisible fence around the thinking of the left, and they can't get out because they would be shocked at the repercussions of leaving the cave, and trying another mode of thinking.
I just think if you did, you wouldn't go back to the cave.
Try it you'll like it! is the implication of this blog. Try some green eggs and ham, Sam I am!
Kirby:
You have a choice. You can either run the site as propaganda, or as a place for casual discussion. The danger of the first kind is that you end up preaching to the choir. In order to be relevant, you need to tone down your rhetoric and sarcasm and present issues with more subtlety. If you become too heavily weighted with one extreme conviction, no one will visit and comment, because they know they won't be heard.
I really appreciate Brett's contributions, but I get the feeling you're just talking over his head most of the time.
Curtis, when I write incendiary comments against the left, I actually get more comments.
This thread for instance has 42 comments.
You seem to be on another planet of some kind. What's the name of that planet?
You are the one fighting the uphill battle, although from the perspective of San Francisco (which is the weirdest place I've ever been, and doesn't really belong in America except as an aberration!).
As D'Souza writes, "Moreover, Americans, almost uniquely, believe that the rest of the world would be much better off if it adopted the American way. Americans also think they are a providential nation, with God on their side. If this were not bad enough, from Obama's point of view, Lipset also remarks that Americans tend to agree with Calvin Coolidge when he said that, 'business of America is business.' In addition, Americans tend to look favorably on the rich because the rich are the ones who buy things and run companies and thus create jobs for the rest of society. Lipset says that while there have been vigorous socialist parties in Europe, socialism has never found a strong appeal in the United State. He observes that this may be because the ordinary guy has it pretty good in the United States. Lipset cites Werner Sombart's dictum that in America 'all socialist utopias have come to grief on roast beef and apple pie." (45).
Obama regards wealth as an abomination and wants to level it. He hates the US and doesn't believe we deserve our station in the world.
You seem to almost have two sides to you. You say you want the immigrants out, but yet you want Obama in, and he wants the immigrants in.
Do you realize that?
In addition, Obama is in precisely because it is only in America that the country is so generous to let a knucklehead with no track record and zero accomplishments have a shot at the presidency.
You're hard to understand.
On the other hand, I AM America.
I believe in the Market. I believe in Capitalism. I believe in hard work, and the Protestant work ethic.
I believe in the Ten Commandments.
What really do you believe in Curtis?
Secretly, you still continue to resent the rich.
You want their things.
But you don't want anyone behind you coming and taking your things.
Not just Mexicans, but you also resent Eastern Europeans.
I think if you want private property for yourself you have to leave it for those who are above you on the ladder, too.
at any rate, I think everyone with different viewpoints is welcome here, but I have to have my own viewpoints, too.
when I was about 12 I became enamored with the counterculture, but after actually meeting Ginsberg and studying with him in my teens I started to look for alternatives.
At this point, I think the big economic thinkers -- Smith and Hayek -- are arrayed against Mark and Frantz Fanon.
I think D'Souza really has it all right in his new book. I know you won't read it. It's not kosher in SF to read such a book.
To my mind, D'Souza is the first to really grasp Obama. He's finally becoming clearer in these pages. Anyone who doesn't read D'Souza will be left in the dark.
"In addition, Bush was in precisely because it is only in America that the country is so generous to let a knucklehead with no track record and zero accomplishments have a shot at the presidency."
FTFY
Bush Sr. had a track record and his brother ran Florida. That's not out of nowhere.
Obama Sr. did have a socialist profile in Kenya, but his faction lost out to Kenyatta's pro-capitalist mode (fortunately for Kenya).
FTFY
Paris Hilton's family ran a very successful business...
Therefore
Paris would make a great CEO.
And don't pretend that you used "That's not out of nowhere" in your first claim...
Subtly shifting the phrasing and therefore meaning of your claims...Sneaky Kirbster!
If Paris lives to see 35, she'll make a great president.
Kirby:
I think you vigorously invent ideas, rather in the manner of an ad writer. You'd probably make a great one, it may be your secret calling. You're more of salesman than a thinker.
Thinking is turning concepts slowly around in your mind, studying them from different points of view, confirming intuitions, altering, adjusting, forming opinions. In politics, it's about showcasing some ideas, while hiding others. If you can get other people to see things the way you want them to, you've won half the battle at the outset. This is called framing the issue. The Republicans have been using this tactic for quite a while, because it's a very effective strategy.
But "liberals" (if there is such a thing) tend to have faith in the free flow of information. We can make the right decisions, as long as we know all the facts. The more we know, the more intelligent our decisions. But "conservatives" have an uphill battle, because in order to "sell" the "values" of capital and privilege, the great mass of the people must be convinced to sell out their own interests in favor of other priorities. It isn't "jealousy" that drives social progressivism, but a belief in the perfectibility of man, and the greater good. It isn't how much money you have that determines your happiness (most rich people aren't really very happy, it turns out), but how you handle what you're given. We tend to admire those who devote themselves to an admirable social goal, rather than simply following their greed and selfish desires.
Would you admire yourself, Kirby, if you abandoned your family, in order to pursue more personal wealth or fame? That seems kind of crazy, but that's exactly what you advocate when you defend the pursuit of wealth and power.
What's the greatest institution ever invented? The institution of marriage. What's the most important tool for the advancement of mankind's welfare? Education. What is the best guide to social conduct? The Bill of Rights. What's the best guide to personal conduct? The golden rule.
Should the ultimate power of society be wielded by those who hold the most wealth, or by a simple majority of the total electorate?
Actually, Kirby, my comment wasn't about belief, but about how to run your blog.
A general interest cultural comment site should be a bit less politically "opportunistic" if you get me.
It was a "strategic" comment, but a questioning of basic principles.
Post a Comment