I mean, present company excepted, I basically despise all white male heterosexuals, and so the 50% of the Republican Party that doesn't spend its weekends sucking cock behind a tree in Rock Creek Park or slipping its dick under the stall wall in some Midwestern commuter airport is in general an object of distaste to me, but Jesus Christ, I fucking despise Democrats and soi-disant progressives most of fucking all. I mean, yea, let us cast our minds back to the early aughts, when Digby and the Gang were practically sobbing at the Unfairness every time some Republican derided a liberal's milquetoast plea that we all explore the roots of terrorism. After all, aside from their generally pathetic aspect, the Progs--those few who dared, anyway--were right on this point. It is possible to condemn murderous political violence even while admitting and seeking to identify its origins in legitimate grievance. So like, it sucks that Osama bin Laden blew up America, but at the same time, America should probably stop fucking up so many other countries, especially in the Muslim world.
But now the shoe is on the other foot and the usual suspects are caterwauling that Republicans Support Terror! because a few GOP types were all like, "Well, the dude who flew the plane into the building was nuts and murder is bad, but obviously if our system of government is sending nuts over edge like this, we should, you know, maybe like, do something differently."
Look. I am dismissive of White-Guy Rage. I am sorry that the fags and the blacks and hot, thick, uncut Latinos are taking over your country, guys, really, I am, but what can you do? Demography is destiny. Somehow--and I admit that this is a bit of a paradox--the queers have figured out how to out-reproduce you fellas as surely as the Palestinians have figured out how to out-reproduce the Jews and the banlieux have figured out how to out-reproduce Paris. That having been said, I do not think you can really deny that the IRS and the government as a whole is "an organization entirely devoted to strongarm robbery, top to bottom, soup to nuts, boss to janitor." And whether you, like Good Professor Sartwell, object to the use of your money in funding the world's preeminent wardeath machine or you object to the use of your money to feed imaginary inner city crack faggot Kenyanites, a fundamental truth remains: our government is a huge, implacable, rapacious, imovable death god into whose insatiable maw we are damned to make perpetual sacrifice. It is not unusual that this is going to raise some hackles. And perhaps Digby and the Gang, instead of screaming "Terrorist!" at every whacko with a gun or a pilot's license, might instead seek to understand what it is about America today that would impel a man to murder.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Anatomy of Liberal Outrage
Labels:
America,
Digs,
Netrootsia,
Terror War,
the Donkle,
The Oliphant
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
126 comments:
That would indeed be a nice thing if they did that. Especially since parts of his suicide note/manifesto make points about the buying up of our government by the corporotacracy that are perfectly understandable to liberals like me. I'm not into flying planes into buildings tec. yadda yadda yadda, but demonizing the critique the guy makes and not hearing it because he's a murderous whackjob who happened to make it is pretty stupid.
Also, who's the beagle in the pic on the front of this blog, and who does he belong to? I heart beagles.
the "present company excepted" line is much appreciated.
Somebody's in a cranky mood today.
Honestly, I think you're being unfair here. I can sympathize with Digby and the Gang for not being able to resist pointing out that Republicans are insanely shameless hypocrites after having been told for eight years that calling Bush a liar was treason and a capital crime. She's not screaming "terrorist!" in the hopes of locking up every pasty-white potbellied asshole with a flag decal on his jalopy, she's sarcastically noting that Republicans have suddenly discovered moral relativism. Yes, it's a banal truth, but we live in a nation of fucking childish retards, so we have to make our truths soft and bite-sized.
I mean, I agree with most of your criticisms of her, but she has indeed spent the last several months noting that ordinary people have every right to be pissed at being screwed by corporate and government leaders alike. She may still bizarrely find a way to make that mean we should all vote for Democrats, but that's hardly the same thing as her calling for Republicans to be rounded up under the Patriot Act and tortured.
You know, I think the reason I still can stand Michael Moore is because he asked just that about Timothy McVeigh.
I also think that, while war is more destructive than terror committed by individual or NGO, domestic terror is at least within the state's purview (and vice-versa). Or do you think we're living under the equivalent of occupation?
Long time readers know the Beagle is Ioz's pet, Nony. He eats his own poo.
As a hetero man who loves IOZ, I hope I am in the present company excluded qualifier. The demographic thing is something I've never connected with. I can't give a shit if the Mexicans or blacks take over, I don't feel threatened by that, I don't feel like I am losing some redeemable part of whatever it is that I am supposed to feel a part of if there are more Spanish-speakers within my immediate vicinity.
I read this guy's manifesto last night that the NYT linked to, I didn't pick up any racial animus - maybe IOZ is making a broader point about white guy rage, but this particular man seemed crushed at having lost a long fight with the IRS and ending up with nothing. Beyond that, I didn't get how his rage connected with typical white guy rage at the fags, women, Mexicans and niggers who make him feel less than superior.
It's difficult to read these fuckers and not be.
Justin - it's not the dude so much as the lib commenters who raised the specter of terrible white-guy impotence. Personally, I thought the fella sounded a little left in the loafers.
It's not a commuter airport! Its a vital hub!
I feel your pain. Felt I was duty bound to register my presence so as to gain the benefit of your opening caveat.
Well, IOZ. One thing that interests me in your hatred of white male heteros, is your unabashed affection for the Stillers. I guess that white heter hate and fatball-love may not be totally incongruent, but they are pretty damn close.
--had a rough night, and I hate the fucking Eagles, man--
Oh, different Iggles. I want to be part of the excepted present company, too, but I hates the Stealers.
Being an unrepentant hetero with a bit of a masochistic streak (I sure don't mind a little rough-housing from my significant other) you can rage at me all you want. I won't eat shit for you, but I can takes me some punishment. :)
What I don't understand is when someone like Digby makes the statement, "These innocent Gubmint workers." Why isn't someone there to ask the important question, "Of what exactly are these workers innocent of?" If it's murder then yeah she's probably right, the IRS isn't necessarily killing people in the streets for their milk money, but they are stealing that milk money, and that theft is reinforced by a big scary gun. So people like Digby shouldn't be surprised when a pale-faced mammal with not many brains-cells to rub together gets a little pissy and decides to fly a plane into a building.
Assuming a lot about the Steelers. diff between their outfits and Johnny Weir's vanishingsly small.
"left in the loafers"
IOZ, your compound metaphor skills remain intact!
--another hetero monkey
Unfortunately I'm not genius enough to understand why this post doesn't imply that I am supposed to look sympathetically on Timothy McVeigh's grievances. Perhaps this should be because McVeigh's gross lack of talent for lethal political theatre caused him to include a gauche finale wherein he forces the object of his ire to kill him? As though on the cross?
As opposed to this much cleverer fellow Stack's superior stagecraft, tying up all the loose ends at once. Kaboom! Instant motivations respectability! That man knew how to get results.
But seriously!
"might instead seek to understand what it is about America today that would impel a man to murder"
Back when 'Merka was a libertarian paradise, before socialism, the draft, cocked up imperialism, federal revenewers services, and all the rest of dat metastasizin' tumoristic evil nowaday libercontrarians love to hate on, they had some bigger problems with some structural impellers makin' merderers out of good common folk. Remember that? 'member why? A little contemplation, and we arrive at the conclusion that your post is really, really stupid, today.
Beagles rule. That is all.
IOZ: We're totally fucked now.
Nereus: We've always been fucked.
Not really all that different, is it?
There must be a Lebowski quote to satirize nereus' mental block. You gotta dig a little deeper - and still even deeper - to sympathize with those you despise. Your problem, nereus, is you are only capable of "a little comtemplation".
Jesus fuck, you're retarded sometimes. You can't see the difference between a single fucking nut and a group of people so pissed of they've organized large segments of their population?
Fuck, militias are one thing but there's a few more members in All Qweeda.
Sweet baby Jeebus. I wrote *my* diatribe without having read the moron's manifesto. If anybody here thinks that that screed is something more than a lengthy inadvertent confession of serial gross stupidity spanning decades, you really should have been the copilot.
Here's a link:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html
The entire thing is a hoot, but let me provide some expertise in the area that seemed to be the tipping point. I've been an independent software contractor for the last ten years. In good years, I pay up to several tens of thousands of bucks, in a single check, to the mean ol gubmint. (Even with quarterly payments). In bad years, I pay very little.
The poor dumbfuck's problem seems to have been that income *he* considered undocumented wasn't actually, uh, undocumented. In fact any legitimate biz, no matter how small, will generally report the (software) contract expense to the evil gubmint, complete with the contractor's SSN. Hard to play "bucks in the ol hidey spidey hole".
(There's a bunch more meat in the screed I could dissect, but you might get the point already...)
If this is what IOZ means by "might instead seek to understand what it is about America today that would impel a man to murder", well the answer stares us all right in the face: the man was too stupid to live in our techno-complexified age. Shed a tear for the moron, but think hard about why a misfit moron needed to kill some other people on the way out. (How's my empathizing, folks? Dat good 'nuff?)
So IOZ, this may well have been the dumbest post you've ever made... clearly you'll do better. Maybe a recipe? Something communal, maybe stone soup?
(I would love to hear a libertarian give a theory on the Marx bit in the screed...)
Goddamit, where's my FOODIE FRIDAY? I say that, of course, in the most respectful hetero sort of way.
Obviously nereus missed the legendary Naomi KleinWolf post.
Yes, we'll be near the In-and-Out Burger.
The In-and-Out Burger is on Camrose.
Near the In-and-Out Burger.
those are good burgers.
So "America is a goddamn fucking foreign fucking invading" - *fucking Texas* - "fucking occupying fucking goddamn power. The problem isn't that we have bad tactics or bad strategy. The problem is that we're the bad guys."
On the one hand, IRS-hating guy owned and operated a private aircraft. On the other, nereus brags about the "tens of thousands of bucks" he hands over in taxes. The available evidence seems pretty clear about which one's smarter.
BDR,
Good point, good point indeed!
Well, anon 4:41, nereus is still alive. there's always that.
I shall remember the characterization of our country as a "wardeath machine" for a long time to come. It is scathingly accurate.
I find this Blog not at all to my liking. I shall not be returning.
Good Day.
I rather like this blog. I shall be returning periodically. Thanks IOZ!
They were Nazis, Dude?
Of course, to be fair, misdirected anger is like the story of the age. So IOZ is fair to ask the question, but this guy's rage might just be crazy bullshit given a veneer of rationality. You know, like most state violence itself.
IOZ, any thoughts on the terrorist academic who was denied tenure and shot up her department? Or does that one just write itself?
Poking the true believer with the IOZ stick over at digby's place.
Seriously, we are doomed. Still.
Honestly, I think you're being unfair here. I can sympathize with Digby and the Gang for not being able to resist pointing out that Republicans are insanely shameless hypocrites after having been told for eight years that calling Bush a liar was treason and a capital crime.
She could have actually SAID that instead of leaving it to the imagination. She didn't in the post IOZ linked to, and I can only read so much Digby at a time, so if she said that elsewhere, I missed it.
As for Steve Benen:
And while I have no real interest in the "debate" over the killer's bizarre ideology, I couldn't help but notice that Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) seems to think he can relate to the deranged suicide bomber at some level... Brown almost seems to be rationalizing the actions of a domestic terrorist, as if Stack's murders can be understood if we just appreciate how "frustrated" people are.
Fuck, man, that's literally exactly what the Republicans said whenever people brought up root causes of Islamic terrorism, word for fucking word.
If it's legitimate to bring up the root causes of an Islamic terrorist being a murderous shithead, it's just as valid to bring up the root causes of Joe Stack being a murderous shithead, and vice versa.
Roll over Chuck Whitman , and tell Chai-kofsky the news.
She could have actually SAID that instead of leaving it to the imagination. She didn't in the post IOZ linked to, and I can only read so much Digby at a time, so if she said that elsewhere, I missed it.
Oh for the love of fuck. Let me apologize on her behalf for not spelling it out and drawing a picture in fucking crayon for some TOTAL FUCKING INBRED RETARD like you, you goddamn stupid shitcaked asshole. Seriously, you can't draw your own conclusions without having someone grab you by the back of your pimply neck and shove your fucking stupid face in them?
Here, let me try, then: IOZ is lazily implying that Digby and the Gang are just acting like the mirror image of Republicans circa 2001-2008, using the word "terrorism" as a cudgel to silence opposition. In reality, it's fairly obvious to anyone who doesn't have their big fucking nose nestled snugly in IOZ's lower intestine that Digby, at least, is sarcastically mocking the shamelessness with which the Republicans can suddenly find nuance in someone flying a plane into a government building to kill civilians. If the stupid asshole had lived, I most seriously doubt Digby would have been calling for him and anyone defending him to be shipped to Gitmo, as her Republican counterparts used to do. And like I said, a casual reader, even one as shockingly stupid as you, should have been able to notice that Digby has said quite a lot in recent months about how hopeless things look for normal people who are getting screwed any way they turn. What the fuck do you want from her, moron, some Ayn Rand bullshit about how blowing up a few average Joes is the act of some square-jawed, heroic freedom fighter?
I mean, I hate to break it to you starstruck fucking fanboys in the echo chamber here, but IOZ sometimes exaggerates for effect, and sometimes he relies on lazy strawman targets as much as any other blogger. This is one of those times. Now go fuck yourself, and don't make me have to explain things to your stupid fucking ass again.
ChristopherIsTooStupid: an obvious IOZ sock puppet.
It's true! IOZ is so wise, so honest, so pure, that he is assaulting himself in order to find the truth!
I'm going to print out this post in large print and staple it to my wall. Just like the others.
Burn after reading.
Shorter IOZ: Oh, the irony!
Shorter Christopheristoostupidtolive: You see, Digby was being ironic!
ChristopherIsTooStupidToLive, were you paying attention to IOZ's story?
-- What's ironic?
-- well, you see, when Digby says that the republicans have nuance now and didn't before
-- no
-- and now they say things
-- no, no
-- that they wouldn't, what, what is it?
-- what does ironic mean?
So all that self flagellation in the left-to-sphere epitomized by Frank's "What's The Matter With Kansas?" and Amy Goodman exhorting us to get religion is all a waste of time?
As a good pwoggie, I'd shoot myself, but undoubtedly I would miss.
Sometimes the sou-eee cynicism here is simply over the top.
Why is it "impel a man to murder" and not "propel a man to murder" ?
Just asking.
Also, when did Bin Laden blow up America? We're still here, man.
where'd my post about he 51 cows go?
The airplane guy is a terrorist under any and all accepted definition of the term. As for the "roots" of his terrorism, you are all over the map. On the one hand, you don't like hetero white guys complaining (wow, how original and "alternative" that makes you!), but on the other hand, the IRS is really, really bad. Um, it's not as bad as having the US or Israeli military up your ass, and that is the "root" of Islamic terrorism that the Republicans didn't want to hear about before. And I guess that just might be what Digby et al are getting at too. Not that it is illegitimate to talk about the "roots" of Joe Stack's terrorism per se, but that it is illegitmate and inconsistent for the GOP to talk about the roots of his terrorism when, just a few short years ago, the Republicans demonized anyone who tried to talk about the roots of Islamic terrorism. Get it?
You are a tiresome, repetitive, useless blogger. Your sole response to every event, your sole take on every issue, is that liberals (or "pwogs" as you so cleverly call them) and Democrats are BAAAAAAAD!
OK, we get it. You're not a conservative or a Republican, but liberals and Democrats are the "root" of all evil. Can we move on now?
I basically despise all white male heterosexuals
Oh, preach it, my brother. Y'know, I hear they keep all the quality human beings here:
http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-3-of-8
We should, like, totally GO!
Re: RTS
Wasn't there someone whining about "bored cynical pose", like less than 2 days ago?
Capt'n Obvious
@ RTS
At basis it is the first rule of holes.
However, to see that you're in one, and that you're actually digging, that can be difficult, given decades of societal conditioning and state propaganda.
Good luck!
Capt'n Obvious
You are a ... useless blogger.
I sense some redundancy here.
"At basis it is the first rule of holes. However, to see that you're in one, and that you're actually digging.. ."
Cliche much?
Anyway, just how many times does the blogger here thinks he needs to point out what he considers to be this partcular hole? OK. He thinks liberals and Democrats suck. How many different ways are there to say that?
"...that can be difficult, given decades of societal conditioning and state propaganda..."
Oh, if only I had the clarity of vision and insight to see past decades of social conditioning and state propaganda....just like you, this blogger and the other ten million big talking, do nothing libertarian blow hards on the internet!
What's next, Cap'n Obvious? Are you going to tell me that the government doesn't create wealth, only steal it? That all taxation is illegitmately coercive? That I should read some Austrian school economics? Hayek? Rand?
Were you listening to the Dude's story, Donny?
RTS, perhaps this is a foolish question, but if you find this blog so tiresome, etc., why the fuck are you here? Have you been assigned the role of token outraged pwoggle?
CruddyTurdStone wrote: "And I guess that just might be what Digby et al are getting at too. Not that it is illegitimate to talk about the "roots" of Joe Stack's terrorism per se, but that it is illegitmate and inconsistent for the GOP to talk about the roots of his terrorism when, just a few short years ago, the Republicans demonized anyone who tried to talk about the roots of Islamic terrorism. Get it?"
I guess you get it, but you apparently didn't read Diggy's bit any better than those making the "irony" argument about a mile up this page.
You are a tiresome, repetitive, useless blogger.
You see, Mom. You see! I found someone who doesn't want to change me, who appreciates me for who I am!
I don't know, dear, should you be so quick to embrace someone who just looks at you as an asshole?
Ohhhh, M-A, that is so . . . pregnant with meaning.
My god, M-A, do you know how scarce on the ground tops are these days? It may have been so long since IOZ's 30% itch was relieved that even a willful idiot like RTS might be just the thing to scratch it.
RTS' basic point about this not being Karbala or Gaza is completely valid. We might say that root causes of both events are important to understand, but then IOZ seems to elide the differences (conjectural or actual) between the two.
Or I might be projecting, given that I asked something similar: "Or do you think we're living under the equivalent of occupation?"
IOZ compares our elections as feuds between a ruling house. And he's right. So what are we to make of this recent attack? A strike against the man, a blow for liberation? Or is it one more member of the imperial citizenship angry about the diminution of his sense of privilege or prestige? (Don't think that I'm saying I know, of course.)
But yes, the state is awful. I'm not quite sure that connects to one more act of clumsy, misplaced rage, and I don't think I'm being an imperialist to say that, and I don't think I'm being a hypocrite to say that we're living in an unfree environment completely unlike a foreign occupation, and equivalency between the two is not to be found outside of a confused thought experiment.
Unless, of course, you feel that alienation and mystification by the state creates that nervous, restless anger with no clear target available. There is that option.
I am one of the Tasty 50% of all Republicans, so I believe my input on Stack is of some value here. I for one do not feel uncomfortable about this particular exercise in dot-connection. Linking specific ideological adherence and groupthink mentalities with violent acts yesterday, today, and potentially tomorrow, seems appropriate and prudent at this juncture, especially in view of the sheer numbers of like-minded angry folks out there, who will stoop even to cheering on murderers like Stack, and whom are whipped up anew every day by rabble-rousing, hate-filled true believers in the print and news media and online.
Most important of all, there should be no concern whatsoever that this exercise in guilt-by-association is paranoid or otherwise factually unfounded by dint of being patently racist. Stack was white. Nor does this blame-game constitute invidious stereotyping or impermissible cultural/religious bigotry. Stack was an otherwise nondescript, moderate to conservative, Christian-raised businessman. Finally, no matter what that hunky Scott Brown suggests, neither America the ideal nor America the reality can really be considered to be "deserving" of Stack's violent revenge on some level.
To the extent that the United States Is Under Occupation, it's not an occupation that's especially hard on middle-aged straight white dudes in the tech sector. When blacks and Latinos start flying planes into buildings, I'll believe that the American Counterinsurgency is on. Until then, it bears repeating that not every mass-killing is motivated by a coherent political rationalization; crackpots and loons can get guns, bombs and pilot's licenses, too.
i just feel so guilty bubeleh. Aborted my beautiful program in the third trimester and a bloody asshole, I mean, critique, was what came out. talk about a partial birth, no wonder those berubes fetishize you so. everyone loves a rump party!
well, cherchez le internet
OT to Cuneyt: I assume from the umlaut over the "u" that you're of Turkish extraction. (If I'm wrong, I don't mind having made a fool of myself.)
But if I'm correct, just wanted to let you know I find the story here fascinating:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233844
Just think of what M'sieur could do with the hypothesis "first the temple, then the city", were he inclined to tune his antennae in the direction of the above link.
That is seriously off-topic, but interesting nonetheless. I've read a little bit about the site.
Oh, and by the way, you assume correctly, though the C-as-J is the dead giveaway.
I'm not surprised by the temple first, city second style of development. People made shrines long before they settled; the idea of pilgrimage is very, very old. And if you bring in the theory that a short agricultural collapse sent us back to subsistence rather than supplemental gathering, it's quite possible that formerly settled places, especially involving burial grounds, became holy sites to those who, for a while anyway, returned to wild life. This tension between the price of civilization and its benefits is incredibly ancient.
Again OT to Cuneyt.
You wrote:
"it's quite possible that formerly settled places, especially involving burial grounds, became holy sites to those who, for a while anyway, returned to wild life".
Damn, that is a cool cyclic notion ... reminds me of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz
in an odd sort of way. (If you've never read the novel, it's still worth a read, though dated by post-ColdWar retargetings of warheads.
I see you and raise you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_the_Waters_of_Babylon
Hey RTS, government doesn't create wealth. You should read some Austrian school economics. Try hazlitt:
http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf
Hayek? Pffff....
"Hey, RTS, this is so. You should read some people who say that this is so."
There is no essential difference between the state and for-profit enterprise save the degree of power. And business has benefited from state action all the time, from policies protecting property (and defining it in the first place) to upping infrastructure. If the state doesn't create wealth, it sure does create means of producing wealth. But hey, some economists say something.
Let me guess: you'd also say, P. J. O'Rourke style, that business infiltration of regulation agencies is actually indicative of the flaws of state regulation rather than man's tendency to gain any advantage. Get back to Reason if you want to preach the Gospel.
-- what does ironic mean?
It's like rain on a summer's day.
“There is no essential difference between the state and for-profit enterprise save the degree of power.”
Really? A for-profit business usually requires the production of something that people are willing to pay for, whereas the state’s “services” are forced down your throat. And just because some businesses benefit from state action doesn’t change this basic difference. It’s even a stretch to say that the state creates the means of producing wealth. I don’t see how creating a lot of regulatory hoops benefits anyone, other than the regulators themselves and the politicians and those businesses that succeed in gaming the system to their advantage.
Also, I’d say P.J. O’Rourke is right. Who are you going to get to regulate, for example, the banking industry? Somebody with a bachelor’s degree in Victorian Literature, or somebody who actually understands banking—i.e., a banker? It sort of naturally follows that they would then use their position of authority to protect their self-interest.
well then, these comments meandered just about everywhere.
does prog rage like displayed above/below/wherethefuckever in these comments get categorized under "white-guy-rage"? or can W-G-R only be associated with the vast malleable "right-of-center"?
Oh, I could tell you some stories.
Re: Cuneyt, Libertarianism
Allegedly one of the Central Asia uber-conquerors had engraved on a ring "Rosti Rosti" or somesuch. Of course, westerners translated this as "might is right". However, by symmetry one can plainly see it could stand for "right is might" as well. The ambiguity was reason the manbeast had it engraved, I presume.
I hear what you say, but to me it's about the reasons of strength vs. the reasons for strength. And libertarianism gives a good account of that.
Capt'n (not so) Obvious
I mean, present company excepted, I basically despise all white male heterosexuals
Holy shit, there's a newsflash to rival "Tiger Woods: I Love to Fuck."
"Haughty Asshole: My Disdain for All Yinz Knows No Bounds."
Shit, I know that guy. He's a nihilist.
It's raining and it's not even summer. People are quoting PJ O'Rourke on why only bankers can guard banks.
Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one here who gives a shit about the rules?
"If dey don't like da wuuules, let dem stay at da yout hostel!"
Ursela nach Amsterdam
Dear Dense Internet Anarchists, Nihilists, and other Assorted Rebellious Tuff Guys:
We pwogs spent years saying that one needed to understand that the Islamic terrorism that had everyone wetting their pants could not be simply dismissed as mindless actions of evildoers, for the sake of doing evil. This was often followed by pointing out the obvious; namely, that we still didn't accept violence aimed at civilians as legitimate, even as we argued that it didn't necessitate invading other nations or violating civil liberties.
Nowadays, we point out that while it is certainly understandable for people to feel hopeless and desperate as it becomes ever-more-clear that the system is rigged, it still doesn't excuse killing civilians under the guise of making a political statement. It also does not follow that we should invade Texas or throw anyone critical of the president into a concentration camp. Moreover, one can point out that prominent voices screeching about socialist-fascist takeovers and the need for armed rebellion are not helping without it meaning that we hate free speech and have become just like the Bushies, oh noes!
Nothing has changed here, those positions are perfectly consistent. The only thing that has changed is the behavior of the right wing, which is too shameless to even bother trying to explain away their glaring inconsistency.
But I know, I know, you jizzmops are too invested in your "everything sucks equally" worldview to accept that you can sometimes point out truisms like "Jebus, Republicans are fucking insane," without having to immediately follow that with an example of something bad about Democrats for balance.
Not everything sucks equally. Look at my LP's. Under 'Autobahn.' Asshole. Or is that, look at my LP's, asshole, under 'Autobahn.' Or maybe, look at myLP's under asshole, asshole. Not everything sucks equally, asshole. Some things blow.
An interesting post, Mr. IOZ.
I, on the other hand detest libertarian snot nosed punks and their soi-disant "free market" absolutism and disabling property fetish who, if they ever took the reigns of power, would put to shame the wildest sovereign outrages perpetrated by any Italian Prince, the Counter-Reformation, and the "vanguard of the Proletariat" way more than any hard feelings I could conceivably come up with to despise your terrible and apparently hapless "pwoggies".
SEE! that HAS to count as white-guy-rage. i'm marking it zero.
"Not everything sucks equally."
In the long run, entropy argues otherwise. How's that for fucking wisdom, eh?
All right! There it is! It's fucking zero!
It's a league game Smokey.
It's a league game Smokey.
Do I repeat myself? Very well I repeat myself.
"It still doesn't excuse killing civilians under the guise of making a political statement." Tell that to your Emperor, yo.
Oh, look, white guys on the internet pissing themselves over small differences. Take a picture before this threatened species disappears!
@Anon 4:55 "Dem Redeemer"
Our chief weapon is sarcasm... sarcasm and laziness... laziness and sarcasm .... Our two weapons are laziness and sarcasm... and ruthless incredulity.... Our *three* weapons are sarcasm, laziness, and ruthless incredulity... and an almost fanatical devotion to being left alone.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as sarcasm, laziness....
I'll come in again.
Capt'n Obvious
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!
lololol internetz 4eva!!!11!
I like how IOZ is called a libertarian, and then all the stereotypes against libertarians are used to assault him.
Go team.
wait IOZ is a libertarian? if he isn't an anarchist i'm leaving.
I always thought he referred to himself as an onanist.
It is my sad duty to convey the news that IOZ's prolonged absence is actually due to a potentially fatal injury which he incurred while being fisted by Captain Hook.
All those who believe in IOZ, clap your hands !
I think the correct term is "libertine" but that's an easy mistake to make, right?
Amazing all this wattle-quivering pwoggle outrage over a fucking blog post. Well done, IOZ.
Capt'n Obvious, this is not obvious: which libertarianism? You mean the general tendency, or are we talking lib. socialism, such as my faves Mr. Chomsky, or are we talking market liberals like the Chicago School, the economic equivalent of political reactionaries and, dare I sound like an anti-Semite, the counterpart to Kissinger's Metternichian diplomacy?
Which libertarianism? Rand is now seen as a libertarian, even though the love was more one-sided (and now she's dead and can't upset anyone with her dreadful personality and love of schism). Is this the pop libertarianism of Republican celebrities, of Drew Carey, or of slightly more reputable folks like Bill Maher and Penn Jillette? And you know, then there's Dennis Miller and John Stossel. They've claimed to be libertarians, but for the sake of my libertarian friends, I forget when I can.
Or is it the libertarianism of our friend Joe here, who seems to see an essential difference between "public" and "private," which is like believing something out of civics class about the three branches naturally balancing each other. Public and private are simplifications of tendencies. Both, however, see political maneuver and domination of the individual, and sadly some libertarians reify the distinction and see it as immutable and eternal. Fuck; power is power. Just talk to someone whose country was made into a United Fruit plantation if you think private enterprise is somehow morally distinct. Or ask yourself what Chicago School economists were doing when they advised Pinochet.
Libertarians are my allies. They are also, however, my opponents. Some of them are able to see enemies in some business (I'm a fan of much business myself, if you'd believe it), and some religious figures, and much of the state. But then, some of them reify the state into something essentially dangerous and I say that if anything becomes more powerful than the state then it shall be the threat. And were citizens most powerful of all, I would be happy and approving, but make no mistake: we would become threats to each other's power soon enough, and there's no mistake about that.
And as far as "they make things people want to buy," and "they shove things down your throat," that is adorable. Talk to me about banking and insurance and credit and oil. They have become as much necessary services and commodities as they are things people "want" to buy. They need to buy them. And never mind that people need employment. But many libertarians* forget all about labor. They focus on the purchasing of goods because that's all the market must be to them: free, rational choice. That's quaint. But it's also blind, because they ignore or plainly deny the manipulation and devaluation of our labor.
* Of a given sort.
And that leaves us with this rank technocratic notion, that bankers are the only ones who understand banking. Well, McNamara had the same idea about the military: let the bombers do the bombing, the generals do the fighting, and the administrators do the numbers. It smacks of pragmatism, and certainly skill is necessary; I'm no Stalinist. But at the same time, narrow dedication to one's field is not valuable in a position of oversight. That takes vision. So I reject Joe's, and O'Rourke's, and the modern Republican Party's ideology of "let bankers regulate bankers" and oil men regulate oil. (Yes, fairness gang: Democrats suck too) But then, I guess in my heart of hearts, I'm still fond of Montesquieu's, and Jefferson's, and Niebuhr's contention that one must divide powers. And what's more, I am comfortable saying that yes, the state is a terrible, terrible thing, a rapacious beast glutted with the bodies of its servants and squatting upon hoarded wealth. And the machine of industry is oiled with the blood of the worker. And yet I believe in business with conditions, and government with conditions.
And if the state dissolved tomorrow, it would re-emerge the next day. If we went to communes and local enclaves, we'd have a war within a week. And the modern form of corporate governance, boards of directors and stock control and all, constitutes the removal of individual control from the collective. And I don't like private forces that quash the individual any more than public ones that do. (Don't get me started on the rise of private surveillance and violation of privacy marching alongside expansions under the state, a point Billmon made long ago; how come some libertarians support one as "free choice," but not always the other [unless they're pro-war liberts]?)
But seriously, only bankers understand banking? What a fucking retard. So much for the supermen.
it fucking figures. I go away for 4 fucking days to do a little shusching on the slopes of Maine and you take heterosectsual role call. roll call? here!
at any rate, it's kinda hard to get worked up over the IRS. my corporation takes out more than enough money for me every year and getting a little bonus in March or whenever is a pleasant little tradition. taxation is a painless, if not benign, process. for most of us. (see - the system works!) and leviathan is a fatherfucking eunuch - its prickless biweekly blood draws don't really bother me all that much. . . .just as every bum's lot in life is his own responsibility regardless of whom he chooses to blame.
however, every time the cable modem goes out at home I threaten to fly a plane into the Comcast Center, so there's that. I *guess* that qualifies as White Guy Rage, but whatever. it's healthy. `cats can criticize my frustration raps all they want.
IT DON'T MATTAH TO JESUS
Mr. Fun: yours isn't rage it's privilege. fucking tax paying, ski sloping elitist. where were you the last four days when we needed you here?
Cüneydin adaşin libertarianlarla iliskileri o kadar karisik oldugu icin belki fikrini renkliyor bu konuda!
@Cüneyt:
That 8:36er was from the lost stanza of Imagine.
"But seriously, only bankers understand banking? What a fucking retard. So much for the supermen."
really? so, a banker is not someone with knowledge of banking? its what? a boogeyman from your closet?
Nereus,
IOZ's post isn't stupid. You are. Reading you is a world of pain. Offhand I'd say you're a little loco in the loafers. Probably a pwog--they're funny that way.
Haha--closet. Good one. Also, "not only bankers understand banking" is not the same thing as "bankers don't know about banking," though the latter is often true. Nice try, though.
And sadly, I was never taught Turkish. The family's pretty well assimilated, aside from our unpronounceable names and sullen demeanor. So let me translate that and get back to you.
Hmm, genuinely curious to know how that machine translates.
Junaid was kind of a Sufist reactionary aligned with powerful state interests. I thought it might be skewing your point of view a little bit.
ha, i did not intend that closet thing to be what it turned out to be.
brother, something can be two things at once but it can not simultaneously be a thing and not a thing.
I demand you, IOZ, recognize our lesser-evilness! I demand it in the name of Pwoggie Bloggies everiwhare!!!1!!one!
Cuneyt,
I guess I could have saved you a few thousand words by making myself a bit clearer. I wasn’t endorsing the technocratic view that only bankers can regulate bankers.
What I meant to say was that, given the current arrangements, all we’re going to get is bankers regulating bankers—and to expect otherwise falls into the delusional realm of “if only we could get the right people in power, everything would be great.” Hence the tragicomic spectacle of progs clamoring for more regulation…by the same fucking people they want to regulate! I was just disagreeing with your suggestion that O’Rourke was wrong about this state of affairs being an indictment of the regulatory system. How could it not be? (Personally, I’d even go further, and say that the regulatory system would suck no matter who was doing the regulating; the whole notion of a centralized regulatory authority that is fair and competent is a technocratic delusion. There’s your civics class platitude. And since you brought up McNamara, I’d say he’s a perfect example—trying to apply the principles of running a car company to the Vietnam war and failing miserably.)
As for my quaint belief in a distinction between “public” and “private” enterprise, I never said that these categories were “immutable and eternal” or “morally distinct.” I readily admit that there’s plenty of overlap between the two. But what you’re talking about is a relatively small group of large, politically connected corporations. The vast majority of businesses don’t make their living by lobbying the government. They make their living by (as trite as this may sound) producing stuff and selling it to people on a more or less voluntary basis. If we’re talking about the former group, I’d agree, there’s not much difference; but if we’re talking about the latter, I’d say you’re oversimplifying quite a bit.
@ Cuneyt
I hail from a land once ruled by the good Kaiser Franz. Maybe one of the most civilized states in the history of mankind. So you can guess what branch of libertarianism I find most appealing. Definitely not the cowboy-style of UChicago (although I am a maroon - go figure).
There are things that can be accomplished only through people working together. So the need for surrender of individual freedom is an intrinsic fact of life.
The part of libertarianism I find appealing is that it argues that any surrender beyond what is strictly necessary is wasteful and bad (1). Now libertarianism also states that the best person to make that determination is the individual that actually surrenders his freedom (2).
While I wholeheartedly agree with 1, I'm not so sure about 2 being as universal a statement. Otherwise how could I spur my kids to study, when they would rather stick their heads into the computer screen?
Hence my interest in reasons "of" power vs. reasons "for" power. Rosti rosti that is.
Capt'n (not so) Obvious
hehe, anatomy.
Cuneyt I fear you do not have the horsepower for the load you are trying to pull.
Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat
Post a Comment