[FoRK] Playing Hangman w/ Greg
jbone at place.org
jbone at place.org
Wed Mar 17 11:28:38 PST 2004
BTW, Greg, what is post hoc uncertain about the truth value of the
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons
of mass destruction." - Dick the Veep, 8/2002.
Perhaps you remember the phrase "pattern of deceit" from a certain
historical tempest in a teapot?
As for my "partisanship", Greg, even though that conclusion is
non-sequiter from the existing context, it also happens coincidentally
to be true --- if by "partisan" you strictly mean "anti-Bush" rather
than pro-any given recognizable "party" in the literal sense of
"partisanship." I admit it. No deception or spin there. I have
clearly gone on the record before, but I'll do so again: I have
significant misgivings about our administration and its own partisans.
I believe the persons in power in the GOP elite today (NB meaning party
leadership and authorities, not the rank-and-file) are collectively are
the most criminal, irrational, untrustworthy, dangerous gang of thugs
and oligarchs to ever dominate the national politics; and the partisan
human shield of denial around our "president" is the most astounding
cult of willful confusion and self-deception that's ever existed in
But then, your assertion isn't suprising. In the spirit of the Big
Lie, it's specifically the most partisan forces that most often cry
"partisan." It's de rigeur (in e.g. AM talk radio, etc.) to refer to
anyone critical or antagonistic of the President and his peeps as
partisans; indeed, no distinction is made between Libertarians,
Democrats, socialists, liberals, homosexuals, fundamentalist extremists
like Roy Moore, fiscal conservatives, moderate Republicans, Spaniards,
terrorists, hippies, peaceniks, folks that are generally not anti-war
but were against Babylon '03-04, secularists, scientists, futurehists,
humanists, New Age flakes, etc. No distinction beyond "blindly
uncritical of Bush, Inc." (or not) makes any difference to the true
partisans. "You're either for us or against us." And consequently as
a result of that divisiveness and its attendant frothy rhetoric
invented and perfected over a decade on AM talk radio, political
discourse concerning the most powerful leadership position in the free
world has become as rational, calm, and civilized as an Arsenal-Chelsea
game. (At least previously it was, let's say, no more contentious than
the mutual heckling and occasional fan skirmishes at a Dallas-Redskins
And in principle in that context, yes: spin, double standards,
half-truths, distortions, exaggerations, jingo, fabrications,
hypocrisy, small lies, big lies, and so on are all fair game.
"We" didn't make the rules.
Rather infuriating, isn't it?
All I can say is: trust the raw data, but scrub it carefully.
More information about the FoRK