[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 
following assertion?

"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 
this country.

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 
game.)

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.

jb



More information about the FoRK mailing list