Sunday, July 09, 2006

Here's Johnny

One of the most interesting things about the menacing comments by academic Deborah Frisch towards blogger Jeff Goldstein's two-year old child is how it underscores that the War is here. Intellectually at least. Anyone who doubts that can ask "Rape Gurney Joe" Lieberman, which is what some left-wing blogs are calling the Senator from Connecticut for refusing to support measures that would force Catholic hospitals to hand out contraceptives to rape victims. Jess Goldstein's site is still under Denial of Service attack. Glenn Reynolds says, "this is really getting out of hand". At some point hostility becomes an end in itself. 

When a vital debate is declared over yet left purposely unresolved -- or acknowledged to be unresolvable -- it becomes an entirely different thing: an invisible curtain which parts the air. John Calhoun's final speech in 1850 is a tragic example. "If you are unwilling we should part in peace, tell us so; and we shall know what to do when you reduce the question to submission or resistance. If you remain silent, you will compel us to infer by your acts what you intend." What do you intend? Damned if anyone knows what anyone intends. One of the horrifying things about the extreme stages of culture wars is that they begin to resemble Johnathan Swift's famous account of the Endian Wars, which story it was probably intended to parody.

The Animositys between these two Parties run so high, that they will neither eat nor drink, nor talk with each other. ... Which two mighty Powers have, as I was going to tell you, been engaged in a most obstinate War for six and thirty Moons past. It began upon the following Occasion. It is allowed on all Hands, that the primitive way of breaking Eggs, before we eat them, was upon the larger End: But his present Majesty's Grand-father, while he was a Boy, going to eat an Egg, and breaking it according to the ancient Practice, happened to cut one of his Fingers. Whereupon the Emperor his Father published an Edict, commanding all his Subjects, upon great Penaltys, to break the smaller End of their Eggs. The People so highly resented this Law, that our Histories tell us there have been six Rebellions raised on that account; wherein one Emperor lost his Life, and another his Crown. ... It is computed, that eleven thousand Persons have, at several times, suffered Death, rather than submit to break their Eggs at the smaller End. Many hundred large Volumes have been published upon this Controversy: But the books of the Big-Endians have been long forbidden ...

Time was when the intellectual champions of different ideologies would post propositions on Cathedral doors or print manifestos and hold Congresses to debate subtle points of dogma. But I doubt anything so ostensibly coherent could take place today. Consider Iraq. Who is debating Iraq? No one debates Iraq. You either have one attitude toward it or another. Operational maps, casualty trends, numbers of Iraqi police and army raised, yada, yada, have nothing to do with any positions one might have toward it. The characteristic of Endian Wars is that nothing is admissible as evidence. Only the ends of eggs matter. But the absurdity coloring its fiercest edges doesn't mean it is ineffectual or harmless. On the contrary, the more irrational the grievance the deeper it runs. It may begin with Goldstein and "Rape Gurney Joe" Lieberman but it is unlikely to end there. As Jack Torrance famously said:

All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. ...

Heeere's Johnny.


Blogger Doug said...

That's why we GOTTA have govt control of the net.
...and bring back the Fairness Doctrine on talk radio.
Just ask John McCain and Teddy K.

7/09/2006 05:34:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

John "carpetbag" McCain, Teddy "swimmer" Kennedy.

Along with that Mr Feingold and both Houses of Congress, under Republican control, pass McCain Feingold.

Which is signed by George"all hat" Bush and ratified by the Supremes.

The Goal of the Law, limit political speach about an elected office holder, within 60 days or so of an Election.

Mr Bush has signed around 750 Laws which he believes are unConstitutional, and says he will not enforce.
What is up with that, why would he sign Bills into Law that he thought violated his Oath?

7/09/2006 06:02:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

And from the disloyal opposition..

McGovern Praises Canada on Vietnam Draft Dodgers
Sat Jul 8, 2006 7:23pm ET

By Allan Dowd

CASTLEGAR, British Columbia (Reuters) - George McGovern, who ran for the U.S. presidency on an anti-Vietnam War platform, said on Saturday history will show Canada was right to have sheltered that era's war resisters.

McGovern, who was in Canada to speak to a reunion of Vietnam War draft dodgers, said the Iraq war was also "needless and mistaken," but he said it would be presumptuous of him to say Canada should again provide haven for U.S. deserters.

7/09/2006 06:10:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

By the way Wretchard, we are always nailing things on your door. DR uses a bayonet.

7/09/2006 06:13:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

Doug uses post-it notes

7/09/2006 06:14:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Another item to be added to that door appears in "Foreign Affairs", which is published by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Written by VALI NASR, who is a Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, it's quite informative.

When the Shiites Rise

Sounds like your old line of work, doug.

7/09/2006 06:32:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Raising Shiite?

7/09/2006 07:09:00 PM  
Blogger Alexis said...

Are we condemned to civil war because politicians from the "Vietnam generation" cannot behave themselves? Is America that culturally demoralized?

If our domestic political animosities become bad enough, we run the risk of becoming the victims of another Fourth Crusade. (And I think our next "Alexius IV Angelus" could come from the Left or the Right...) The Fourth Crusade's sacking of Constantinople may not have happened if the Byzantine Empire weren't so riven with treachery and civil war.

What's really saddening about the war against al-Qaeda is that our society seems to be repeating the mistakes of the Byzantine Empire. Our very past successes in war have not only made America complacent, but they have blinded many Americans to the strategic significance of the outside world altogether to the point where some people can only see enemies in their fellow Americans. It feels like the Iconoclasm all over again.

As much as the Hard Left is disliked, I think it is probably the antics of Fred Phelps Sr. and his "Westboro Baptist Church" who are solidifying feelings at a grassroots level. The anti-war Left may have some strange bedfellows in the Westboro Baptist Church, for their desires to prophesy doom for America are amazingly similar. The Left isn't alone in its calumnies of America. The anti-abortion movement also has a faction that regards America as damned because it "allows the murder of unborn children".

How would Howard Dean, George Soros, Ned Lamont, and the rest of the 21st century Left feel if their every move were dogged by the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church...?

7/09/2006 07:13:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

6:02 PM
Keep them Federal Doggies Churnin,
and those Tax Dollars Burnin!
Ride em out Cowboy!

7/09/2006 07:14:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Weakness is PROVOCATIVE.
Just ask Sandy Bergler.
Or Hormel Hams.
...or the NY Times,
Or Libby.
on and on.
Pathetic, and illegal.

7/09/2006 07:18:00 PM  
Blogger Dymphna said...


When you were finally outed from the computer room, didn't you feel a bit vulnerable?

Me, I'm glad I'm just an old plaster saint from the 6th century. Nothing to see here but a flakes of gilt falling offa my crown.

Definitely, this angry and perhaps unhinged woman has made anonymous blogging look very good. From now on, I can just say that I don't want to get "frisched" by revealing my fascinating secret identity.

Long live blogger nics.

--Betty Blueshoes

7/09/2006 07:23:00 PM  
Blogger The Machinist said...

I don't think the danger is as much what such creatures say or do as that ultimately, well-meaning people with the power or ability to do so will perceive that it is necessary or at least desirable to suppress such folk.

At this point is where the Civil War begins. And to think I used to have trouble understanding why the ANC would necklace people and why the Palestinians, Afghans and other, er, Southwest Asians seem to like to tear people apart with their bare hands.

(I once asked my cousin, a neurosurgeon, if that incident in Ramallah where the reservists got lynched shows that the Pals were insane. He said no, people do that when they're really, really angry.)

I don;t see how the Left could be any angrier. Well, wait till the Right loses its collective patience, then you'll see something. If there were any leadership left in the Democratic Party, it would realize that the hate has got to be 'dialed down to ten.'

7/09/2006 07:25:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...


Thank you very much for writing. I always knew that security almost always had to be measured agaisnt a threat standard. No one stays secure unless he is willing to expend a great deal of effort and only then against a weak threat. Blogging anonymity only protects you from amateurs. Against the pros we are all vulnerable unless we want to expend a lot of time and effort bobbing and weavings.

So we all make tradeoffs between our ability to function and safety. You can have perfect safety only at the cost of keeping your head down permanently. Jeff Goldstein was hit by someone who was essentially an amateur who had lost it. The problem is that those once rare birds are getting to be more and more common.

7/09/2006 07:35:00 PM  
Blogger Dymphna said...

The machinist is right: it's hard to see how the Left could get any angrier...their reactions have moved beyond "edgy" to over the edge...

We visited a Friday night festival in Lil Kumquat, a nearby university town. There was the usual music, art, jugglers, etc., and in the midst of this some people wearing *humungous* papier maché masks of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Condi were being led by others (they couldn't see in the bobbing, heavy masks) to their usual spot in front of the Federal Bldg where they spend their Fridays passing out increasingly flaming material and "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers.

I didn't have my camera, but I will next Friday. And lots of innocent questions for these people. Rummy, by the way, had blood on his mouth...

The very uncivil war has been declared. The leftwing zealots don't scare me, but the converted angry American-born Muslim compounds do...

You're right, Wretch: one has only to worry about the professional terrorists, and not the amateur haters. The cameras lining my driveway look for all the world like oak leaves...

IOW I'll photograph the kamikaze left, but not the ones who really hate all of us.

7/09/2006 08:03:00 PM  
Blogger trangbang68 said...

Frisch is so beyond the realms of even uncivil discourse that's its frightening.This is a really twisted psyche.Maybe its anger spawned by her orientation that makes her loathe men and traditional marriage.At any rate I hope someone has her under surveillance.I hope she's out of Tucson before I get there.Enough nutcases without her loco-ness.
Alexis,I would question your analysis.Phelps and his family of ghouls are a blip on the radar screen as are your doom and gloom anti-abortionists.
The left,particularly the flotsom and jetsom of 60's bilge are quite capable of despising America on their own,especially as they reflect on their failed ,miserable lives and the ridiculous philosophies they've embraced for 40 years.Keep your powder dry.

7/09/2006 08:18:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

David Brooks makes the rather interesting argument that the Netroots crowd, now that we're talking about Frisch, are the Left's equivalent of Joe McCarthy, with apologies to the shades of McCarthy.

He might be right. But to some extent I think it's irrelevant. While I hope I'm wrong, I regard the Frisch incident in the same way that a person who long suspects he is starting to have cancer finds the first definite symptoms of the disease. How you got it is interesting, but academic. The past is one thing, but it's the future you really care about.

To my mind the real problem is whether we're going to see more of this type of behavior or whether there is some way back from the brink. Why not? After all if we can hope for the Sunnis and Shi'as to bury the hatchet after centuries of enmity, why is kiss-'n-make-up so impossible between liberal and conservative America. But my guess is that like most diseases, you have to feel a whole lot worse before you start to feel better.

7/09/2006 08:56:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Lady ~D,
Pack up!
I got you married off to my Afghan Cousin!

7/09/2006 09:07:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Wretch volunteers to be the first one here to kiss Hillary!

7/09/2006 09:09:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

The other association that springs from Brooks' comments is that it would be ironical if the Left, one of whose strengths has always been the power to vilify, now felt the stab of its own blades. That would hardly be surprising. Anything with its sort of structure and character will sooner or later experience a purge.

The one true thing about purges -- I loved Emmanuel Litvinov's Blood on the Snow trilogy, which is largely about that -- is that it always consumes the best men of the Left. It burns away the dross; casts away the Camus, the Koestlers, the revolutionary saints. It leaves only the apparatchiks. Until finally the process transforms the Party into the very image of what lay beneath the artful padding. Itself.

7/09/2006 09:10:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Somehow a few dozen righties get mixed in with the MILLIONS of lefty Moonbats.
The fact that "right wing hate crimes" are few and far between does not stop some from fretting, nor the MSM for portraying as a bigger threat than the Wahhabist Mosques in our Midst.

7/09/2006 09:24:00 PM  
Blogger Karridine said...

Doug, the Wahhabist mosques in our midst live in constant FEAR of people learning about the (Muslim) prophecies concerning Baha'u'llah, or the recent history of His treatment at the hands of "Muslims", either of which can, ANY DAY NOW, trigger mass conversions and leave the mosques virtually empty, as people turn TOWARD the Glory of God, and away from hatred, racism, sexism, materialism and nationalism!

7/09/2006 09:56:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Avoiding "Comprehensive Reform," can we keep Nationalism until all the others go up in smoke?

7/09/2006 10:12:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Immigration — and the Pathetic Multicultural Illogic of the New York Times
Immigration — and the Curse of the Black Legend

7/09/2006 10:13:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

I agree with "the machinist":

don;t see how the Left could be any angrier. Well, wait till the Right loses its collective patience, then you'll see something....

The right has been pretty patient. There are times when the rightie kooks come out, but nothing like the Left's sustained "Stolen elections, Chimpy McHitlerBurton, you're a sexist bigot if you disagree with us, and racist to boot!"

Supposedly this is a tried and true extremist/activist tactic to "energize" the disengaged, moderate middle....worked to good effect by abolitionists, temperence people, communists, national socialists.

The problem is that while the vilest taunts become regular business and have no effect, the tendency is to escalate into direct threats - not just on the people in a position of power, but their supporters, in an effort to cow or intimidate.

Sometimes it works. Sometimes the other side just gets as nasty, and before you know it threats have escalated into blows, molotov cocktails, even killings. The loss of comity and norms in debate are dangerous because it is a moving away from democracy and the civility that gives order and stability into a place where the breakdown in polite dicourse is looked on with historians using 20-20 hindsight as the 1st stage in this or that civil war or purge.
Or sometimes historians will note movement or party self-corrected after they became so constantly angry and strident about their "victimization" from the smallest slight that they lost influence and had to shift course. Or didn't and became extinct.

7/09/2006 10:42:00 PM  
Blogger Peter said...

There is a reason that I keep loaded firearms in several rooms in my house. I do not go to town without at least my little five shot revolver in a concealment holster.
I have already reconciled myself to the coming fight. I would rather we all fought Johnny Jihad together, it would make things a bit easier. However, if the Left wants to get in the way, okay. I have plenty of ammo. Much of it is in cartridges that will shoot through a Lefty and still take down a Jihadi.

7/09/2006 11:04:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Holy Lefties Ahmad!
We're gonna be dried Raisins!
Where Democrats Star in 'The Party of the Living Dead'

The bad news for New Jersey Democrats is that they have now written the script for the world's cheesiest political horror movie.

To continue reading this article, you must be a subscriber to TimesSelect.

7/09/2006 11:16:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Don't take Peter serious: He don't even carry Ammo!
...figures that's what the wheel was invented for.
Is that a California Range, Pistol Pete?

7/10/2006 12:46:00 AM  
Blogger Alexis said...


It depends on where you live. A tempest in a teapot is a big deal when you live in that teapot.

The Westboro ghouls and the extremist fringe of anti-abortionists may be a blip on your radar screen, but they are closer to home in some rural areas. The Westboro ghouls are part of the scenery for any dead soldier's funeral now (and you will notice that Doonesbury doesn't make any mention of them...). Biker honor guards for soldiers' funerals are routine now. They weren't necessary in the past.

As for the nutty fringe of the anti-abortion movement, they tend to converge on state legislatures with abortion laws on the agenda. I remember seeing them testify in legislative committee. Whatever they lack in numbers, they more than make up for in the harshness of their language.

The Left's anti-Americanism has striking similarities with its counterparts on the Right. It is one of the curious universalities of anti-Americanism that it is based upon utopian imperialism instead of any desire for governance (and compromise).

Those were the days my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way.

Losing causes have a way of becoming their own religions, where the struggle is carried on not out of any hope of victory but through the demonization of those in power who don't partake in the "dream". And a bitter frustration against ordinary people who are thinking about their families instead of dedicating themselves to the "cause". One of the reasons why totalitarian movements are as harsh as they are is because their utopian imperialism is offended by the compromises necessary for good governance, to the extent that they would rather suffer defeat than accept an impure victory.

The counterculture Left has drunk heavily of "the cause", but it is not alone.

7/10/2006 12:49:00 AM  
Blogger wretchard said...

The Ace of Spades has a photograph of a person who is supposed to be Deborah Frisch. The comments are proof that black humor is alive and well in America. Some say it's the sunglasses; for others it's the teeth; for me it's the smile. The smile.

7/10/2006 02:22:00 AM  
Blogger ignacio said...

It's funny. I have two friends in the MSM (one is pretty well known at... ABC, or CBS, or NBC -- I really don't want to potentially "out" him or her). I forwarded Jeff Goldstein's "Interview with Zarqawi" (which took place just after he was dead) to them and they both laughed a great deal. The one at the big network blackberried to me, just before going on-air: "Made my day!"

But neither of them follow blogs, or know what's happening, and both of them shrug off the influence of KOS on the Democrats even when it's written about by David Brooks.

I brought up the Deborah Frisch thing on the phone to one today, saying "This is all over the blogosphere," and in return the person said: "Isn't that all you bloggers do?"

Implication being this was nothing new. Moreover, because of where I have drifted politically they simply won't believe me, I'm not seen as credible when I assert that the Left is much uglier and angrier and prone to ad hominems than the Right.

They don't want to see it. One pointed out that the YearlyKOS was not that well-attended, as if this rendered it inconsequential, no matter if Harry Reid etc showed up.

I think we do have a cultural war pending... simmering, with no cooling down in sight.

(It's funny how in France also, after last year's riots with the burned cars and "youths," the French I know -- my in-laws and so on -- don't want to examine this or see it as a warm-up, as practice for something much worse. No dead bodies yet, so no problem.)

What I'm waiting for in America is what I've long thought as "the Little Drummer Girl" scenario. That is, a Rachel Corrie type who will carry out an assassination or blow people up at a mall, something like that.

And/or American blacks, who perhaps found Islam in prison. John Muhammad the Sequel, with a much bigger budget.

Either of these scenarios will illuminate the existing schism to great effect.

Ordinary Americans will have no "virtue" until we are victims, perhaps not until it seems likely we will lose.

7/10/2006 02:23:00 AM  
Blogger unaha-closp said...

would rather we all fought Johnny Jihad together, it would make things a bit easier. However, if the Left wants to get in the way, okay. I have plenty of ammo.

You've had a Rightist government for 4 years now and have increased social spending in every one of those years. You've had a Rightist Prez for 6 years conduct a foriegn policy that takes all religions to hold some truths and that the "Religion of Peace" is a religion of peace.

Much of it is in cartridges that will shoot through a Lefty and still take down a Jihadi.

You're gonna have to get just a touch more powerful again there sir. You gotta be shooting all the way through the Republican right, Democrat left and still have enough gun to hurt Mohammed.

7/10/2006 02:57:00 AM  
Blogger rhhardin said...

They're moral arguments, and the point of moral arguments isn't understood.

A moral argument is not trying to persuade but to take a position, and see if it's one that the other guy can respect. Most of them end with each side determining that the other side is morally incompetent. This is also typical of online moral arguments, and it's important to realize that these are successful moral arguments. That's what they're supposed to do. You wind up with our position intact, and either find support or don't, and adjust the social arrangements accordingly. Usually this amounts to finding out what not to bring up with that particular friend.

Online, though, the argument does not die - it continues with no prospect of anything but reaffirming what has been determined - that the other guy is morally incompetent. There's no friendship to fall back on, and no way not to bring the matter up again and again.

So it's the effect of an online interest community preserving a nonlinear growth of topic that would otherwise dissipate in other social relations.

Reform, though, is going to have to deal with the way normal moral arguments actually work. The new problem is reenforcement of the sore topic, not that the discussion is irrational.

7/10/2006 03:26:00 AM  
Blogger ledger said...

The Ace of Spades has a photograph of a person who is supposed to be Deborah Frisch. –Wretchard.

I think it’s a real picture of Dr. Deb. There is another of her on the web with light brown to blonde hair but the same facial structure (it's in her younger days).

Here is a humorous, yet truthful, depiction of this whole affair (John takes a clip the film Silence Of The Lambs,1991):

A Sincere And Heartfelt Apology From A Highly Educated Psycho Cyber-Stalker

[Picture of Hannibal Lecter with Deb Frisch’s hair strapped in straight jacket and muzzle]

"How about I eat your kid's liver with some fava beans and a nice Chiati?"

[Picture of Hannibal Lecter strapped in straight jacket and muzzle]

"Oh, come on! I'm joking. Let's just forget the whole thing and I'll buy you a drink."

[Picture of Hannibal Lecter strapped in straight jacket and muzzle]

"A cyanide-laced drink."

[Picture of Hannibal Lecter strapped in straight jacket and muzzle]

"I kid, I kid! I don't even have any cyanide on me."

[Picture of Hannibal Lecter strapped in straight jacket and muzzle]

"Look, let's just have that drink, then I'll drop you with a crowbar and burn your house down, OK?"

[Picture of Hannibal strapped in straight jacket and muzzle]

"I swear, you rightwingnuts have no sense of humor."

[Picture of Hannibal Lecter strapped in straight jacket and muzzle]

It's all about nuance.

See: A Sincere And Heartfelt Apology

7/10/2006 05:00:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Rocketboom Goes Bang!
and bust.
Congdon, now regrouping in Connecticut, says her next step, whatever it is, will include video blogging.

"It's not about being the biggest, the most famous person," she says. "Video blogging is so much a part of who I am. It's where my heart is. It would be weird to just leave it."

7/10/2006 05:45:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

-- "The Internet is like a smoothly paved road," Amanda Congdon told viewers the last time she appeared on her popular video blog, Rocketboom.
"I can go anywhere I want."

7/10/2006 05:51:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

doug, the money line of that CNN link,
"... Of the estimated 300,000 people that downloaded Rocketboom daily -- an audience larger, for example, than Connie Chung's latest cable TV show -- ..."

That is what we decided, the reach of google and tube is really greater than "cable" networks. It has grown beyond "potential audience" to real audience.

It is an early indicator of the morphing of the MSM into something more akin to Deborah Frisch's methods than to civility, as regards politics at least.

Though the Fair Housing attack upon craigslist is a fore taste of things to come.
Is the INet a conduit or a medium, only the Supremes can decide for sure.

Remember Hamandan if rational behaviour is expected from the Supremes.

7/10/2006 06:18:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Take a pinch of the National Journal article about the rise of the Cossacks, add a bit of this NYTimes piece by GARRY KASPAROV
"What's Bad for Putin Is Best for Russians".

Then take another pinch from this article from "Foreign Affairs" posted at RCP.
"Russia Leaves the West"
by Dmitri Trenin.

Interesting times, indeed.

7/10/2006 06:47:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/10/2006 06:59:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Kirk H. Sowell has an excellent piece at ThreatsWatch

"Sadr Plans Million Militant March in Response to US-Iraqi Operation"

Really interesting news from Iraq via Mr Sowell, he links directly to Arabic documents which I assume he's had translated accurately. Or perhaps he did it himself.
"At Least 15 Insurgent Groups Seek Amnesty Terms; SCIRI Accuses 'Moderate' Sunni Scholars Group of al-Qaeda Ties"

7/10/2006 07:02:00 AM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

One of the things the MSM rarely mentions is that Sunnis don't even comdemn the car bombings of Shiite mosques and civilians.

Iraq Shi'ites see reasons for death squad killings - Reuters

While condemning in public the sectarian death squads that gunned down 40 people on Sunday in a Sunni part of Baghdad, some Iraqi Shi'ite leaders say in private retaliation for Sunni insurgent bomb attacks is understandable...

"It is very, very difficult for us to justify why we are not taking revenge," said a senior Shi'ite figure linked to one of the most powerful militia groups, saying that his movement was not carrying out killings but could understand those who were.

"With every car bomb and every attack on a Shi'ite mosque our people are calling us and accusing us of being cowards," said the official, who like others interviewed asked not to be identified...

"It is natural now that there are some Shi'ite fighters who think they are doing what they believe in to defend their families," said the politician, who is from one of the main parties in Maliki's national unity coalition. "I personally can't blame them, since the government cannot protect them."

As part of a plan for national reconciliation, Maliki has vowed to disband militias, mostly armed wings of Shi'ite Islamist parties formed to fight Saddam's Sunni-led government.

There have been a number of operations, involving U.S. and Iraqi forces, this month against Shi'ite guerrilla leaders. The targets, however, have mostly been rogue elements, Shi'ite sources say, who have alienated their own leaders.

Another official in one of the main Shi'ite political groups said Sunni leaders should shoulder some blame for events like Sunday's rampage in Baghdad because they had failed to clearly condemn Sunni violence since the fall of Saddam three years ago:

"The reaction is completely understandable," the official said of the Shi'ite gunmen.

"What do they expect the Shi'ites to do when they bomb them every day and Sunni leaders do not even condemn the attacks?"

7/10/2006 08:26:00 AM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

I think the question has to be asked "Does the Sunni leadership want a civil war?"

It's hard to imagine why else they would target violence against Iraqi civilians and mosques. If their motive was only to use the resistance movement as a bargaining chip in negotiations, they could keep the pressure on by directing their attacks solely against foreigners and those in the government. Instead they choose the path of civil war.

7/10/2006 08:49:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

The NorKs are not alone in rocket failures during boost.

Jul 10 9:18 AM US/Eastern

A rocket carrying India's heaviest satellite has disintegrated in a ball of smoke and flame seconds after lift-off, dealing a crippling blow to the country's ambitious space programme.

The 49-metre (161-foot) rocket was launched at 1205 GMT from an island off the coast of the southeastern state of Andhra Pradesh, but veered off course and disintegrated about 30 seconds later, live television pictures showed.

Wonder if any "black" 747's were in the AO.

India's space rocket disintegrates after blast-off

HT to Mr Drudge.

7/10/2006 09:00:00 AM  
Blogger bobalharb said...

Sometimes I think the Moslem world is trapped--and we are also to a lesser degree--in language. They do not seem able to escape the language and metaphors handed down to them from times past. O for the poet with a new way of seeing. It's always the same kind of words--revolution--fire, combustion--started in the west with Masaniello, Naples. I sometimes think the real fight is a matter of words--or maybe how to think without words--if that is possible.

7/10/2006 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger Habu_1 said...

"Let a hundred flowers bloom: let a hundred schools of thought contend." Mao

To the Right..keep your list up to date with the blooming flowers. The day will come for implimentation.
To the Quisling socialist Left...enjoy the end of your days.

7/10/2006 11:04:00 AM  
Blogger Aristides said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/10/2006 11:47:00 AM  
Blogger Aristides said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/10/2006 11:51:00 AM  
Blogger Aristides said...

The problem is that those once rare birds are getting to be more and more common.

More common. More linked. We are witnessing the accumulation of Notes from the Underground:

"There, in its disgusting, stinking underground, our offended, crushed, and ridiculed mouse immediately plunges into cold, malicious, and, above all, everlasting spitefulness." [...]

"However, do you know what? I am convinced that fellows like me who live in dark cellars must be kept under restraint. They may be able to live in their dark cellars for forty years and never open their mouths, but the moment they get into the light of day and break out they may talk and talk and talk."

Perhaps it is to be expected -- this pulsing ressentiment we see -- now that our very own Crystal Palace is near. I just hope we have the fates fooled this time.

The Russians may have found their answer to the sickness in Ivan Ilyin, though down that road lies other troubles. I have an inkling, a mere suspicion, that we have ours too. The Hero Founders, if it's to be anybody, may just be enough to find our way out of the morass of the godless society.

"One’s very own free, unfettered desire, one’s own whim, no matter how wild, one’s own fantasy, even though sometimes roused to the point of madness—all this constitutes precisely that previously omitted, most advantageous advantage which isn’t included under any classification and because of which all systems and theories are constantly smashed to smithereens."

And so it goes?

7/10/2006 11:53:00 AM  
Blogger Whitehall said...

The core issue is whether the US Left will continue its ratching up of hostilities against their countrymen.

They seem to have withdrawn from conscious debate on policy issues and now focus on 1) internal purity and 2) moral superiority. Personal merit for both are demonstrated to fellow Leftists by becoming more hostile and more vocal.

Back in the '60s, it was cool to be a demonstrator. To show MORE cool, you had to out-demonstrate the other guys. The culmination were groups like the Weather Underground and the SLA. However, getting your house blown up or burned down around you soon became UNCOOL and the "revolution" died down as people went back to their lives and took up disco dancing to sustain their sex lives in the absence of orgasmic antiwar demonstrations. (Not a joke!)

Today, the vanguard has been PETA and the Ecoterrorists. The left is losing voter support but drawing Democratic PArty support due to their "energy." That's playing with fire.

I'd make a first cut prediction that the Left in the US will continue to tighten into a harder but smaller faction. They'll start doing really stupid things that will require a reaction from the body politic and ultimately complete rejection. I suspect that foreign money is playing a role here too - destablizing a democratic system is tempting and can produce results.

No Civil War but disorder and soon minor violence.

I'd welcome further discussion of these issues.

7/10/2006 12:46:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

I suspect that foreign money is playing a role here too - destablizing a democratic system is tempting and can produce results.

We know George Soros funds a lot of this insanity -- born in Hungary, educated in England, currently living in the United States but certainly not an "American" in outlook.

7/10/2006 12:56:00 PM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

The Left has really ceased to exist as a movement. They are now just the anti-Right, the anti-Republicans. They know that they can't possibly win on the issues, so they don't dare talk about them. Instead they just criticize the Right, and hope that some election there is a big enough backlash to sweep them into power.

7/10/2006 01:04:00 PM  
Blogger cjr said...

Wrechard: You almost got it right. You just stopped a little short:

"At some point hostility becomes an end in itself."

"Hostility as an end in itself" is not some byproduct of a disfunctional discourse. It is, in fact, the ultimate goal. It is the ultimate goal of both the Democratic and Republican parties.

This "Hostilifying" is a deliberate strategy of both paties. It is the next step after gerrymandering electral districts. The goal is now to gerrymander the voters themselves.

If, for example, you can get someone to believe that all Republicans are Evil Devils, then, no matter how bad a job the Democrat is doing (no matter how corrupt/stupid/lazy they are) that voter will always vote Democratic, because, "well, the Repubican as worse. They're evil devils!"
Works the same way for the other side. "Democrates are brain damaged morons. No matter how bad the Republican is, you'd never vote for a brain damaged moron, would you?"

This is all just a way for political parties to entrench their positions. Its a way of making sure actual issues dont matter anymore.

7/10/2006 01:07:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Cecile McKee, left, a UA faculty member, has started looking for work where she can get benefits for partner Deborah Frisch.

"UA and Arizona State University officials say Arizona's university system is at a growing disadvantage in trying to recruit and retain faculty members who can now find domestic partner benefits at several hundred campuses across the United States -

UA President Peter Likins said Arizona's universities need to extend those benefits, but the decision rests with state leaders. He said he believes it will happen "as a natural evolution of American society."
Republicans and Democrats understand economic forces, he said.
"In some sense, we're at a time when the marketplace is driving the diversity agenda, not government," he said.
"It has become economically advantageous to diversify your work force."

But he said university leaders have an overdue responsibility to bring the issue before lawmakers.
"You're arguing about domestic partner benefits when the rest of the country is arguing for gay marriage," Foster said.

7/10/2006 02:43:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Hewitt Interview:
Hewitt Credits Jonathan Chait of The National Review and LA Times with coining Bush Hatred by coming out with his feelings in 2003.
Cheney and Mother Teresa escape his wrath.

7/10/2006 03:14:00 PM  
Blogger enscout said...

Some historians give no concrete reason that the English Civil War took place. It was not part of our history lessons growing up. But out of it came many of the ideals that the Founing Fathers took to heart when fighting for their liberties.

Could be that 400 years from now, it we make it that far, histrians will look at our current culture and ask, what was it all about.

Pride is a insideous thing.

7/10/2006 03:32:00 PM  
Blogger Boghie said...


This post makes it kinda sound as if our (American, sorry) death struggle is internal and heading in the same direction as the external struggle between Israel and Palestine...

Hope not, but it looks as if there is an intrangiant vision of reality.

Odd, very odd...

I hope one side or the other (but I do have a side, ahem) wins without bloodshed...

7/10/2006 03:42:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Long straight cartridge.
While both the M-14 and the AK-47 both utilized a 7.62mm barrel, the chambers and the rounds that filled them are distinctly different.
"... The Soviet 7.62 × 39 mm rifle cartridge was designed during World War II for the SKS carbine. The cartridge was influenced by the late-war German 7.92 mm Kurz ("Kurz" meaning "short" in German). Shortly after the war the world's most recognized assault rifle was designed for this cartridge: the AK-47. The cartridge remained the standard Soviet load until the 1970s, and is still by far the most common intermediate rifle cartridge used around the world ... "
All you need to know about AK-47 ammo

Then there is the 7.62x51 the NATO round that tour M14 was chambered for. More than you should need to know

While both rounds fired a 7.62mm wide round, the cartridge shape and sizes as well as the loading levels of powder vary a bunch.

The NATO round being both larger more powerful than the Soviet.

7/10/2006 04:06:00 PM  
Blogger enscout said...

The neocons have taken away all the Left's talking points with their monumental slide to unbridled spending & fiscal irresponsibility. As they move left, so does their opposition.

Where does it all end?

7/10/2006 04:09:00 PM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

Maliki will ask the UN to take US soldiers' immunity away.

Iraq will ask the United Nations to end immunity from local law for U.S. troops, the human rights minister said on Monday, as the military named five soldiers charged in a rape-murder case that has outraged Iraqis.

In an interview a week after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki demanded a review of foreign troops' immunity, Wigdan Michael said work on it was now under way and a request could be ready by next month to go to the U.N. Security Council, under whose mandate U.S.-led forces are in control of Iraq.

"We're very serious about this," she said, blaming a lack of enforcement of U.S. military law in the past for encouraging soldiers to commit crimes against Iraqi civilians, such as the alleged rape and murder of a teenager and killing of her family.

"We formed a committee last week to prepare reports and put it before the cabinet in three weeks. After that, Maliki will present it to the Security Council. We will ask them to lift the immunity," Michael said. "If we don't get that, then we'll ask for an effective role in the investigations that are going on.

"The Iraqi government must have a role."

Analysts say it is improbable the United States would ever make its troops answerable to Iraq's chaotic judicial system.

The day before handing formal sovereignty back to Iraqis in June 2004, the U.S. occupation authority issued a decree giving its troops immunity from Iraqi law. That remains in force and is confirmed in an annexe to Resolution 1546, the Security Council document that established the U.S.-led force's mandate in Iraq.

7/10/2006 04:37:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

From the Iraqi perspective, seperate but equal, is not.

"Trust US" does not cut it any more, either.

The Iraqi "know" US ever better, more now than before.

Familiarity breeds contempt.
So goes the "Long War"

7/10/2006 05:00:00 PM  
Blogger rich said...

We have always had a culture war in America. And it has always been vicious.

What the blogosphere does is make it easier to participate. It also serves to memorialize the battles and expand their visibility.

More people are able to see what is right and what is wrong because of this.

The practice of lying about what happened is harder to get away with.

As messy as this is, and as hurtful to the participants, (both those shown to be fools or evil and those who are victems) it is progress.

7/10/2006 06:08:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Thanks, Rat.
The 14 clip seemed a LOT shorter than the Ak's, as I recall.

7/10/2006 06:29:00 PM  
Blogger Voltimand said...

"Deborah Frisch" has been around in academe for over a quarter or a century. Go to the (LOC Code) HQ section of any academic library--which is the designated alphanumetric classification number of books on feminism--and start reading any book you pick up off the shelf.

The fact of the matter in my academic experience is that hate literature and expressions of hatred for political groups--in this case, white heterosexual males--was first made respectable beginning c. 1975, when Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Ti-Grace Atkinson, Lenore Walker, and Gloria Steinem began a collective public tirade that asserted that all heterosexual males were by nature, i.e., instrinically because they were heterosexual, all rapists and murderers.

Nothing was said about all this, mainly because no one in academe believed anyone in their right minds could say such a thing and that no one in their right minds could take them seriously.

Wrong, oh were they wrong, and I watched as a member of an English Department which like most others in the country proved the most vulnerable to the inroads of these poisonous vermin, while these women were hired, and started teaching courses that were nothing other than hate speech.

No one said anything. Academic males, who are astoundingly cowardly both physically and intellectually, who were going to be the only people with the professional clout to resist this sort of thing in public, were uniformly silent. Except for the politically-oriented of them who became that utter piece of contemptible wretchedness, the "feminized male" and started writing book attacking heterosexual males who were not declared "feminists" for being--you guessed it--rapists and murderers.

So the kind of thing that this Frisch person is saying is not at all unfamiliar to me. These women present themselves to others as perpetaully angry, self-righteous, overtly insulting and have never, ever been publicly confronted.

The reason why, I came to understand, was that you couldn't deal with them "reasonably" and with controlled seriousness. They demanded, and never got, people shouting them down in their faces, pushing them around, hitting them, because only that kind of behavior could they understand.

I began to seen female students coming into my classes in the late 1980s--and I could recognize them the moment they came in the door (yeah, "being a feminsist" shows, and it aint pretty), and I knew that the moment they took exception to anyting I said, they could complain to the university "compliance office," usually staffed by a feminist, who was under orders from the Dept. of Education to bring up any male professor on charges of hostile environment sexual harassment.

At that point I began researching the federal regulations and legal angles underlying this threat, and discovered that in fact the U. S. federal government encourages this kind of behavior, at least indirectly, by declaring in the various "Sexual Harassment Guidances" put forth out by the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education (they're all on-line) that such behavior warranted cutting off of federal funds if the university administration did not forthwith do whatever was necesary to stop these males from harassing females.

This is very old history for those like myself who've been researching and writing on these issues.

I advert to it anent the present case to give some hisorical perspective to the belief current among these present posts that "in-your-gut" hatred and animosity is something new among lefties in academe. On the contrary, Patricia Frisch is nothing more than "business as usual."

7/10/2006 07:15:00 PM  
Blogger 3Case said...

I believe rich's 6:08 pm post is correct. The difference now, IMO, is that the right is finding it's voice, which the left does not like at all. Hence, Frisch....

Today I saw one of those over-stickered Japanese compacts with a "Dissent is Patriotic" sticker. A few years back (Clinton era), there was a car with the "Challenge the Dominant Paradigm" among the stickers...driver wholly unaware that she (representative of her caste) was the dominant paradigm. If only these people would read their own stickers....

7/10/2006 07:55:00 PM  
Blogger snowonpine said...

Hatred of men, which I think is the underlying theme of Frisch's rant, is all over and spreading. I well remember a manditory--and few things were manditory--"sexual harassment" class given at my government agency. Taught by a woman who was Torquemada-like in her glee at finding transgressors everywhere that she could figuratively burn at the stake, it was a very creepy illustration of obsession run amok. She delighted in telling us how she heard that a supervisor at our agency, which was not known for it macho males, had Playboy centerfolds on the wall of his private office, which, since he was a supervisor had a door that was usually closed. She positively glowed as she told how she burst into his office and forced him to take down the centerfolds.

Then we were all forced to watch a film about sexual harrassment in the office in which a clueless male clerk asked a female clerk for a date when they met at the Xerox machine, she said no, he aked her again and she moved away--this, according to our Torquemada was sexual harrasment incarnate. This kind of feral rage-filled attitude is what I see fueling Frisch's comments.

7/10/2006 09:04:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Surely you exaggerate the Xerox story?
(hopes, crossing fingers)
What are the looks on peoples faces?
Do folks just sit there and wait for it to end, knowing no-one escapes the tar baby if they are foolish enough to interact with it?

7/11/2006 02:29:00 AM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

> I began to seen female students coming into my classes in the late 1980s ... I knew that the moment they took exception to anyting I said, they could complain to the university "compliance office," usually staffed by a feminist, who was under orders from the Dept. of Education to bring up any male professor on charges of hostile environment sexual harassment.

Yes, men generally don't realize how bad it is until it comes to their workplace. Freedom of speech is long gone, as is an equal chance to present an alternative (normal or right wing) opinion. Looking at a woman cross-eyed, or saying anything she disagrees with, is "hostile environment sexual harassment". The comment doesn't even have to be sexual, but any disagreement with feminism and female political correctness. Everyone gets forced into "sensitivity training". Since the standard is that saying anything that makes one woman "uncomfortable" is illegal, there can be no defense.

It is even worse in the court room for a man accused of rape. Basic rights the accused have had since the Magna Carta have been taken away. The woman's attorney is allowed to bring up unproven allogations of harassment from other women. They don't really need to prove the cases, just throw enough mud that some of it sticks.

7/11/2006 04:26:00 AM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

> Surely you exaggerate the Xerox story?

Sadly, no. Two strikes and the man is out. The only "safe" thing the man can do is politely ask her out once. "Leering" can be a crime too.

The man can also be trapped. The woman could start conversation as a friend, including discussing details of her life, who she is dating, her hobbies, etc. But if the man responds with anything that the woman feels "uncomfortable" with, like something in his love life, she might go directly to his boss or the compliance officer. The story they would hear is that "John talked to me about personal details of his love life".

John's boss MIGHT give him a chance to defend himself. On the other hand no matter what John says it might be one of those things that sticks in the bosses mind that puts John first in line to be laid off the next time there is a work force reduction.

There are unlimited financial damages plus bad publicity for sexual harassment cases, so companies are better off severely punishing or firing any man accused of SH. There is no reason to take the man's side, because the woman is protected against filing a complaint anyway, even if it is over sensitive or false.

Big Sister is here in 2006, not 1984.

7/11/2006 04:36:00 AM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

I meant to say "The woman is protected against retaliation, being punished for filing a complaint, even if is overly sensitive or false."

Some men are responding by avoiding all private conversation, even work related, with women who might be a danger. If they do need to discuss something for work, the man copies additional people in the e-mail or has at least three people in the conversation.

7/11/2006 04:40:00 AM  
Blogger Voltimand said...

To: Wu Wei

I see you've been around in circles where SH is a real threat. I might add another ring to this circle of hell: insurance companies have for some years now been selling insurance packages to business offices which include "sexual harassment insurance." The point of the coverage lies in the fact that court cases involving SH charges can be extremely expensive to fight, not to mention the damages. This means that companies have no choice: they must not hire people with SH charges on their records, and they must get rid of people who have the slightest taint of a charge. Otherwise they lose their insurance or their premiums go up.

I know of one case where an academic doctor was fired after an SH charge, and couldn't get a job at a medical clinic because the charge was on his record and the clinic's medical insurance wouldn't allow his being hired.

I myself have been researching SH law for ten years with a book and/or articles as the outcome. My immediate goal is the creation of a complaint sequence which puts Women's Studies Progams at universities and colleges directly under the gun as creating hostile environments for male students and male faculty. First, the university itself, which is a state institution and therefore governed by both state and federal laws forbidding SH. Then to the OCR of the DOE, which is filled with feminist lawyers, and probably won't process my complaint, though they are required by their own regulations to do so.

It's a win-win situation once you get to know how SH law can be used against such people as for instance the "Torquemada" leader of the sensitivity training sessions mentioned in this thread. Simple: an SH complaint should have been filed with whatever compliance officer that was relevant. SH law explicitly includes "discrimination against anyone by reason of sex."

The great secret about SH jurisprudence is that it has demonstrably created regimes that are themselves violations of SH law.

But you have to know where and how to look for the relevant statutes and regulations. A former professor or Renaissance Literature, I have spent 10 years re-educationg myself as a legal-eagle in SH law. Lawyers and law professors know little or nothing about the politics of feminist orgs in academe, business, and the law. Conversely, these later appear to know little or nothing about the enormous legal ax they live under constructed of SH procedures that their own people have lobbied and put into place at both federal and local levels.

The SH environment is, as they say, enormously target-rich.

7/11/2006 08:35:00 AM  
Blogger snowonpine said...

Doug--Unfortunately, there wasn't anything else involved. The male clerk, not exactly a Lothario, made his clumsy attempt to ask the female clerk for a date, was rebuffed, then asked again. It was a long time ago, so its possible that the female clerk said no again as she moved awy, but that was it.

After this movie was shown In our little class, I pointed out to Ms. Torquemada that Mr. Clueless did not stalk the female clerk, didn't touch her at all, and there was no indication of any other contact between the two--no phone calls, no hanging around her desk and no leering from this whimp of a male clerk. The answer was, "didn't matter, what he did qualified as sexual harassment." I didn't want to interact with this odious specimin any more but, I gathered that what she meant was that by merely asking for a date the second time, whimp-boy had crossed the line.

A final note; Our agency, which had many more men then women, with women occupying many of the top administrative and supervisory positions, had an ever increasing list of "Protected Classes"--if you were a member of such a class you could get away with almost anything because, if challenged, and they rarely challenged these bozos, the person challenged would scream "discrimination." Needless to say, the only group not on this list was white male herterosexuals.

7/11/2006 09:32:00 AM  
Blogger snowonpine said...

Sorry--should have been heterosexuals. Just had my eye exam, they dialated my eyes and not seeing or typing very well just yet.

7/11/2006 10:44:00 AM  
Blogger Voltimand said...

To: Snowonpine

Read Catharine MacKinnon's "Sexual Harassment of Women in the Workplace: A Case of Sex Discrimination" (1979), which is the source text for EEOC and OCR regulations that identify SH as a form of "sex discrimination for sex."

There is no mention--repeat: no mention--of SH in the U. S. Code, i.e., there is no congressional statute that mentions it: it becomes "sex discrimination" by very tendentious feminist interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by which sexual advances made by heterosexual males to women are to be treated as acts of sexual aggression.

The basis of this major piece of anti-male hate rhetoric is the application of the plots of the novels of the Marquis De Sade to all heterosexual sex relations. The notion that heterosexual sex is a form of sadomasochism was very big in the 1970s in America and Britain. One British feminist writer derives all heterosexual relations from the novel "Justine." MacKinnon says that male employers employ females for no other purpose than to exploit them sexually, and that this "sexual exploitation" operates by degrading them sexually, because heterosexual males receive pleasure from heterosexual relations with women by inflicting pain on them. I.e., this is "sadomasochism," as said above.

These regulations came about in 1979-1980 and in 1997 (EEOC--Labor Dept. and OCR--Education Dept respectively, by way of identical coups engineered by two Democratic presidents, Carter and Clinton.

Eleanor Holms Norton, presently D. C. representative to Congress, was in the 1970s a feminist activist, whom Carter appointed to the chairmanship of the EEOC. MacKinnon's book came out in 1979, and by 1980 a federal regulation establishing SH as a form of "sex discrimination" was published in the Federal Register.

Norma Cantu, former member of the Mexican-American Defense League, a left-wing org devoted to developing hispanic political separatism in the U. S.--was appointed Asst. Sec'y for Civil Rights of the Dept. of Education in the middle 1990's, clearly a Hillary inspiration. in 1997 she published a "Sexual Harassment Guidance" modeled on the much shorther Holmes document of 1980.

Both feature rules and regulations that heavily indict males alone as the perps in possible SH complaints. Doing so arguably violates the attainder clause of the 1st Amendment, but that's another story.

All businesses, all schools, and all government agencies at all levels are subject to these rules. Sensivity sessions run by power-mongering, male-hating feminists are a commonplace in business, educational, and government offices.

What is needed is a great broadening of consciousness of (1) the RadFeminist origin of the ideas and values enforced under these regimes; (2) the fact that these ideas and values are themselves violation of various constitutional protections; and (3) that these protections can themselves provide ammunition for a counter-SH-regime political and legal strategy.

I am working toward articulating these ideas pubicly.

7/11/2006 01:16:00 PM  
Blogger snowonpine said...

Voltimand--Ah, you do bring up fond memories of my former employer--I'm now very happily retired. Along side of my cherished memories of "sexual harassment" training are equally fond memories of the several days I also spent at manditory "sensitivity training," this time not presented by quite such a glowing-eyed junior inquisitor but, just as pernicious nonetheless.

My recollection of this wonderful coercive experience is a lot more fuzzy because by this time I had wised up and adopted the tactics one uses when thrown into a Communist reeducation camp: parrot back what they want to hear and adopt the policy of "whatever occurs in this room stays in this room," on exit.

I seem to recall lots of lists full of ideas we were to generate--the trainer was kind enough to tell us what the "approved" thoughts we should spontaneously generate were-- that were fastened to the walls but I don't believe we had to sing Kumbaya and I do know our agency was too cheap to give us a tie-dye shirt as a momento as we completed our required indoctrination in groupthink.

The problem was and is that these people have a lot of power and the leaders of our agency believed this crap, or at least they pretended to. Violate one of these rules, in the thought police's opinion and a 30 year career and a retirement pension were in jeopardy; I saw this scenario play out in the case of one of my male co-workers who almost did lose it all over a very innocent incident.

7/11/2006 02:01:00 PM  
Blogger Voltimand said...


From your last comments I conclude that the job you retired from was either a government item, or a business that was running scared of SH and other discrimination lawsuits.

The people who do these things are quite pathological and have several symptoms in common: lots of anger, paranoid, hatemongers against specific political groups defined--in "civil-rights-speak"--in terms of the now-standard "protected classes," quite vicious but fundamentally cowardly and totally w/o honor (given their need to do their malevolent power trips within the framework of established political-legal structures that dictate such behavior and protects them from retaliation), and finally very, very childish and infantile. They are classic bullies when you get back to their life histories: often some sort of abuse early in life--with feminists it's always with a non-responsive father, which puts them on a collision course with any equally bullying male they meet up, which gets them into abusive situations, which primes them for membership in RadFem groups and orgs.

In an earlier time, these people would have occupied lower echelons of employment and life. What the civil rights movement and its statutory evolution toward punishing the successful and rewarding the whiners has done for all us is give them what these types have always wanted: a whip to bully others with and not have to face the risks of retaliation.

On the whole, simply the most despicable human beings I've ever laid eyes on (and deep-down, they know it, too, ergo the need to bully others), and in academe I spent a quarter of a century living professionally cheek-by-jowl with them.

What finally surprises is the absolute dearth of serious books by males laying it on the line to these people. But then, it is only with the advent of the blogs that a non-lefty and counter-lefty revolution has begun to be articulated.

This thread began with Deborah Frisch and her hate spew. She is such a type it's not funny any more.

7/11/2006 06:45:00 PM  
Blogger snowonpine said...

Voltimand--A final tidbit from my former life in PC land. My particular division, some 60 strong, consisted of mostly women with a few token men. These were very long term positions and most of us had worked together for almost 25 and, in some cases, 35 years. One day, one of my female coworkers came in and I commented that she had changed her hair style. Within an hour or two one of the women in my division took it upon herself to inform me, in earshot of quite a few other coworkers that I, as a man, should never comment on changes in a woman's hairstyle because that just wasn't permissable--I presume because it was sexist.

I stayed because the work was frequently interesting and often had an impact on national and international events, the pay was quite good and I had research resources at my fingertips unequalled anywhere in the world. However, there was a steep personal price to pay and this kind of creeping PC crap cropped up just often enough and with increasing frequency to make this job a source of frustration and unhappiness rather than happiness for me.

That I was almost the only conservative in the midst of liberals so convinced of the rightness of their position that they could not conceive of any other point of view having the least merit and routinely said so loudly and often did not help either; I increasingly felt like a lone scout in hostile territory.

7/11/2006 07:50:00 PM  
Blogger M. Simon said...

Hostility as an end in itself?

Just ask the Palestinians.

7/12/2006 11:27:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Powered by Blogger