They are storied and iconic, America’s Numero Uno radical couple. In the ’60s, Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers were activists and leaders in Students for a Democratic Society and the Weathermen. Dohrn, now 64, and Ayers, 61, played starring roles as Vietnam War dissenters. When their protests turned violent, they became fugitives from the law. Forty years later, they are… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (64)Page 1 of 1 pagesAyers and Dohrn weren’t activists, they were criminals. Its unfortunate that they aren’t serving long prison sentences.
Posted by chopper on Aug 18, 2006 at 11:54 PM Dohrn and Ayers make a great deal of sense and they do offer some vital hope in extremely dark times. They may have been fugitives from the law, but the law, back then, was in great part being dispensed by criminals. The war in Vietnam was criminal, we had a criminal running the country, for example. We have the same situation today, only far more accute, because we simply haven’t really done our work on the Vietnam and Watergate disasters. As a society, I mean.
So amen to those two, who put their finger on the sore spots: No opposition, a failed anti-war movement, and the elite powers treating everyone like dumbbells. I admire their optimism. I don’t have it, not when I see kids running of to demonstrate against the G8 and globalization and then sitting around McD’s and BK discussing the ringtones on their mobile phones or the value of Gap cargo pants.
Posted by Talleyrand on Aug 19, 2006 at 11:41 PM Thank God for decent people like Dohrn and Ayers. Unfortunately America is not blessed by many more people like them. But unfortunately Fascism is on the rise still though --- it has meet with a bump on the road. In some respects we on the left also have to be thankful to Bush and Chavez. Bush is an easy person to attack because he is inept and repulsive and Chavez gives us hope that change in possible
Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 20, 2006 at 3:37 AM “Thank God for decent people like Dohrn and Ayers. Unfortunately America is not blessed by many more people like them. But unfortunately Fascism is on the rise still though --- it has meet with a bump on the road. In some respects we on the left also have to be thankful to Bush and Chavez. Bush is an easy person to attack because he is inept and repulsive and Chavez gives us hope that change in possible”
No, Dohrn and Ayers are criminals. They were part of the Weather Underground, an organization responsible for a series of bombings in the early 70’s. Ayers then girlfriend, Diana Oughton, along with two other Weathermen, were killed when a bomb they were working on to set off at a dance at Fort Dix (which would have killed privates and their dates, not high ranking officers) accidently blew up.
If one can justify their actions, one can end up justifying any violence at all carried out for political ends. It is instructive to note that Ayers once made a statement praising the actions of Charles Manson and his followers in murdering Sharon Tate.
Posted by chopper on Aug 21, 2006 at 2:02 AM I agree with Chopper about the disturbing love of violence once embraced by Bernadine Dohm.
I just finished reading “Hippie”, a detailed description of the musical and social scene of the 60’s, by Barry Miles. On page 312, he describes the formation of the Weather Underground. “They held a National War Council in Flint, Michigan, where a huge cardboard machine gun hung from the ceiling and the speeches were about “organizing a city-wide anti-pig movement...”. Participants romanticized Manson’s killing spree. Speaking of the LaBianca murders, Bernadine Dohrn, who became the organization’s spokesperson, said, “Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room as them. Then they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach. Wild!”
Those victims were Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, a middle-aged couple who were not cops or FBI or otherwise obvious oppressors. Leno was stabbed 12 times with a knife, and 14 times with a carving fork. Rosemary was stabbed 41 times. Then there were the heartless murders of Sharon Tate (8 months pregnant) and her friends.
Has Bernadine Dohrn renounced that view of violence? I certainly hope so---especially since she now directs a Child and Family Justice Center. I think I will look elsewhere (like to the American Friends Service Committee) for my light and candle in the dark.
Posted by TeachPeace on Aug 21, 2006 at 8:10 PM Well, regarding those are comments that are obviously made for the shock effect and somewhere in the nether regions of tasteless, I couldn’t agree more. I don’t know much about either D or A (in fact I only read the article originally because I thought it might be about Kevin Ayers, one of the only pop singers I every liked)…
I personally have another 12-14 years before I get up there into that age range. I certainly hope that people will not start judging me for the things I did or said when I was in my early 20s. We are all supposed to change along the way, at least in some of our fundamental precepts. I think one has to be a little careful when using someone’s fairly distant past against them.
On the other hand, it does make you want to know more about how these two poeple changed, how they think of their own path in life.
Posted by Talleyrand on Aug 21, 2006 at 11:20 PM If you want to understand more of their motivations and poltical attitudes then spend an hour or so examining the entries and links in Wikipedia under the initial heading of “Weatherman”. I think we can safely conclude that most of them renounce the violence which they believe they were provoked into by the atrocities of the the Vietnam war and the political polarization which that war produced. Many of the charges against them were dropped due to lack of evidence or the illegal activities of the government which produced biased evidence (Cointelpro). They operated in an environment in which, especially in Chicago, torture was routinely applied in order to coerce false confessions and testimony against the innocent. Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were murdered by officials of the Chicago State’s Attorney. Death row executions in Illinois were suspended and many of the capital sentences of the inmates were commuted or overturned because of the contrived evidence used to convict them. The bombings attributed to the Weather Underground were notable for the absence of fatalities encountered during their execution, unlike the indiscriminate violence which the military and the police routinely inflict upon the targets fo their repression.
Chipper’s sophmoric attempts to establish a moral equivalence between the institutional terrorism of federal, state and local government and the reactive terrorism of the people who opposed it and therefore bore the brunt of its repressive brutality is one the reasons why we are currently forced to endure the same experience today.
Posted by Major Major on Aug 22, 2006 at 4:23 PM We don’t live in a nonviolent world and most all violence is in the purview of the state and the far right.
If you read the commentary on right wing sites like Free Republic or Little Green Apples (or something like that) they are forever advocating violence against groups and persons they consider their enemies. It seems to me that the left should be for fair play. If it is OK in general discourse for right wingers to advocate policies that will kill Arabs or Mexicans or who ever the rights’s latest enemy is, then it should be equally justified for someone on the left to advocate the killing of right wingers. The most disgusting people of all are the so called liberals who always apologize for the right wingers and attack leftists.
The Weather Underground didn’t kill anyone but accidentally their own members. The USA government probably killed directly or indirectly 30 million people in the so called cold war. Certainly the number in Indo China alone was close to 6 million people. Now what was the political effect of the Weather Underground and their once a week bombings? It can be argued that it did hasten the end of the war because there was the threat of great instability. More than likely the Weather Underground saved thousands of Asians lives.
There was also a bad effect because they caused many people to turn from the left, especially because they were associated with the Black Power movement. But whose fault is that? It is in my belated opinion ---our fault for having a misguided ethics.
It is a shame that Chopper is not serving a very very long prison term.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 23, 2006 at 8:16 PM It seems that Mr. Teach Peace accepts government/right wing stories at face value.
Hint: every story that is probably improbable is probably improbable. Take them with a large grain of salt or you will be one of those people who will believe that the Serbs had set up rape camps or that Saddam used industrial sized shredders to dispatch his victims.
Be very very suspicious of anything said about a leftest by a so called liberal or someone from an opposition group.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 23, 2006 at 8:35 PM By the way.... Why are we really discussing these people’s past… In the article they make points about the present and its youth movement if I recall correctly. For whatever reason, A and D may or may not have said some silly things when they were barely out of adolescence, they turned to violence (and we may all dislike violence, but there comes a frustration point, when violence does become the only apparent way out, especially in a Kafkaesque system, be it democratic or otherwise) because there seemed to be no other way out in extremely violent times. And for whatever reason, when they resurfaced, they were not pounced upon by 1000 pin-striped Feebees and ushered to the hoosegow for 30 years, but somehow made it into respectful positions.
And now they are saying: It is possible to build a progressive movement, and they are saying that young people should take heart and not loose faith in their own ability to be instruments of change, because corporations are spreading the despair.... or something like that (sorry folks, it’s 5 am here, I’m suffering from insomnia and a little woozy).
Is that the case? Can a progressive movement actually break through all the spin and soundbites and the out and out lies and the fearmongering by a leadership class (here please both the asses and the ‘phants) intent exclusively in maintaining power and lying in one bed with the moneyed class?
Posted by Talleyrand on Aug 23, 2006 at 9:04 PM Why does Spinoza assume that Teach Peace is MALE? I am female, I was in college during the late 60’s, and had an FBI file on me and my friends for our anti-war activities (which have always been non-violent).
The arguments of some respondents seem to be focussed on what seems to work---a “pragmatic” approach. (If violence is what it takes, then let’s use violence.) Or a revenge attitude (If the government and the extreme right can get away with using violence, then we deserve to use it too.).
My objection to violence is primarily moral. As a Quaker, I do not believe we are meant to kill other people, especially for motives of crass greed and illusions of imperial power. But also, as one PeaceAction bumper sticker says “War isn’t working”. And as Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
Spinoza might want to consider asking questions, rather than making assumptions about other people that are unfounded. I do not take government or right wing stories at face value. Far from it.
Just because I expressed concern about an alarming statement that Ms. Dohrn is alleged to have made about mass murders of innocent people, does not mean I am from an opposition group.
I do want to thank Tallyrand for his/her thoughtful response. I appreciated the reminder that we all are meant to change and grow, and the observation that it would be interesting to know how D.and A. changed.
.
Posted by TeachPeace on Aug 23, 2006 at 9:31 PM “Let us not look back to the past with anger, nor towards the future with fear, but look around with awareness.”
James Thurber
Why try to paraphrase this…
Talleyrand (Y chromosome)
Posted by Talleyrand on Aug 24, 2006 at 3:07 AM A. J. Muste
[Our task] is to denounce the violence on which the present system is based, and all the evil, material and spiritual, this entails for the masses of men throughout the world....So long as we are not dealing honestly and adequately with this ninety percent of our problem, there is something ludicrous, and perhaps hypocritical, about our concern over the ten percent of violence employed by the rebels against oppression.
:
A. J. Muste
In a world built on violence, one must be a revolutionary before one can be a pacifist.
A J Muste was a pacifist but he recognized that it was hypocrisy to tell the oppressed to be non-violent. when the oppressors have no compunctions about using violence.
The overwhelming amount of violence in the world comes from states and various right wing elements. Very little comes from the left and usually in a defensive mode but pacifists and liberals most always damn the left rather than the right. Why is that?
Why did teachpeace, who I am sure is a sincere and honest person, feel a need to agree with chopper who usually takes right wing points of view and is not likely to be a pacifist of any sort?
With regards to Dohrn and Ayers, they have both stated that they are opposed to violence but that they still support the oppressed.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 25, 2006 at 12:28 AM I think there may be a difference between approving violence and understanding it, either as Muste did, or in general. One cannot pretend there is no violence or see it as simply being a human error. It is definitely a part of our experience, and especially of the male experience on this planet, lest we forget..... By that I mean: Have a look at the last 100 years of history, you will see men running about with the bit of power clenched between their jaws parading some of the most farfetched ideas as if these were --quite literally—the gospel. Most of these hallucinations have failed miserably, but no one is really looking at the source: the male of our species, with a very limited view of life on earth, with quick and easy solutions, with a complete devotion to accumulating wealth for its own sake and no sense of the human family (mirrored in the dereliction of dads)… The path of least resistance, exhausting the planet’s resources, exhausting its human resources… even our religions in the West are male dominated and expres a male—and sory to say entirely bankrupt—world view… As if everything is out there and can be controled. The energy behind controlling is fear.
Has the female of the species ever, ever produced a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, to name but a few ( I am sure one of our readers will find someone, the wife of some monster, for example… but nothing on that scale)… I am digressing here, but I have a heavy cold and I am really tired… this has nothing to do with D and A, except given a few leaps of faith and imagination…
SO who really cares who sides with whom. That is not going to put an end to the cycle of fear and depair and alienation of the human race. You see, in summer all the windows are open around where I live. I hear people arguing. And I seldom, if ever, hear men LISTENING. They vent, become verbally violent, occasionally physically, they act like complete Neanderthalers. I then look at the news and see the sme thing in BIG, in NATIONAL in INTERNATIONAL…
I wonder if we haven’t reached a situation in which a Lysistrata solution should be applied.
Sorry about the rnt, just had to get this out… I just get a little keyed up when we start niggling away at irrelevancies when the main issues are being spread out. D & A are discussing young people today, i.e. the “leaders” of tomorrow,. That is really important. The rest less so. Like whether or not Pluto is a planet or just some rock wandering about in a weird orbit a gazillion miles from here.
Posted by Talleyrand on Aug 25, 2006 at 4:01 AM I agree with Talleyrand that war is a male problem and that woman should take a bigger role in politics. The trouble is that if and when a woman comes to power she will feel a lot of pressure to show that she has balls.
Cindy Sheehan for President.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 25, 2006 at 1:57 PM For a chilling and sad essay on rape and murder in the military, during the currrent war on Iraq and throughout history, go to alternet’s page---http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/40481/
“Rape, Murder, and the American GI”
By Robin Morgan, Women’s Media Center. Posted August 17, 2006.She writes’ “We must not forget the death of Abeer, who was allegedly stalked, raped and killed by American soldiers. Abeer was 14 years old; her name means ‘fragrance of flowers.’ Her birthday is August 19, her death day March 12. We cannot let this crime, too, pass into oblivion.”
I am heartened to read postings by men who recognize the harm of violence to individuals, groups, countries, and the earth, and who recognize the role of male dominance and patriarchy in creating this violence.
I agree with Tallyrand that there is a difference between approving violence and understanding it.
As for his saying that one cannot pretend there is no violence, or see it as simply being a human error, that reminds me of a lecture I heard in June at a Health Psychology Seminar, on Vengeance vs. Forgiveness. The speaker does research on the brain and these 2 responses. He says both are responses that developed to meet different social needs of humans. But people oriented strongly toward the Revenge view of life have greater health risks for themselves. (Not to mention the risks posed to others, when such people have political power.)
I disagree with Spinoza’s statement: “In a world built on violence, one must be a revolutionary before one can be a pacifist.” When I read words like “must”, I wonder “Says who? On what rationale?” And in a totally different perspective,Jesus was a revolutionary whose one act of aggression was turning over the tables of the money-changers in the temple.
I am trying to state what my beliefs about non-violence are, and whom I regard as legitimate heroes. For a glimpse of some of my heroes, and for inspiration, find a copy of Robert Shetterly’s book, “Americans Who Tell the Truth”.
As for Spinoza’s question of why i agreed with chopper, I was not aware of chopper’s total views, when I responded. His(?) reference to D & A’s endorsing Manson’s violence hooked me, especially as I had just finished the book “Hippie”, and been shocked by a similar set of statements. Scanning back more closely over the responses, I see some statements by chopper that I would not agree with.
But if we are to find a path forward, we may need to listen to each other more closely, and find areas we have in common, even if we don’t agree on everything. Hmmmm..I may need to re-read the interview with D and A.... Darn these growth opportunities!
Posted by TeachPeace on Aug 26, 2006 at 10:39 PM Teach Peace, Intellectually I agree with you, but as a male who was somewhat small I was beaten up by the bullies. It is no fun to be beaten up. I always cheer when the little guy gets the opportunity to beat the crap out of the big guy.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 27, 2006 at 12:32 PM Thinking About Violence in Our Schools
The violence in the schools, like conflict and violence everywhere, follows a model. The model presented here was developed by Stanford University Professor Rene Girard. It applies in general to conflicts at any level of intensity. It has 5 stages.
1. Mimetic Desire
One party identifies an object of desire and other parties imitate that desire. Examples of things children and adults desire: respect, attention, money, happiness, power, land, jobs, knowledge. Whatever the culture tells us is desirable, that’s what people adopt as worth having.2. Mimetic Rivalry
Now the parties begin competing for the object of desire. Whatever good competitive strategies emerge, others copy them. Since it’s a rivalry, it’s played as a win/lose game. To win, you only need to get more of the desirable object than the rival. If the object of desire is respect, you hit the rival with tokens of disrespect. This is done first with verbal violence, put downs, taunts, and escalates to rejection, alienation and shunning.3. Skandalon
Skandalon is a Greek word that means “trap”. It’s the root of “slander” and “scandal.” In the rivalry for respect, if one side is “dissed” they are caught in the temptation of Skandalon and feel compelled to retaliate. Thus begins a “dissing” war, fought on the battlefield of the psyche. Skandalon is what makes it so hard not to take the bait, so hard just to walk away. It’s so easy to retaliate. The give and take escalates into mutual and mimetic enthrallment.4. Alienation and Scapegoating
Eventually one side crosses some arbitrary threshold of concern where the supervising authorities feel compelled to intervene. It’s essentially random which side crosses first, but often it’s the weaker faction, which uses more venomous attacks to maintain parity. Whichever side goes over the arbitrary line becomes blameworthy, and the others who kept their violence below threshold are the victims. They gang up on and alienate the scapegoat, calling for the authorities to intervene and punish the blameworthy party.5. Authorized, Sanctioned and Sacred Violence
To appease the mob/majority, the authorities determine guilt and visit sanctions and punishment on the scapegoat. This escalates the violence to the next higher level of authority in our culture.The 5-stage pattern repeats at all levels of power and for all rivalries and competitions. The most virulent conflicts are over respect, attention, money, power, sex, land, or ideology. Ethnic conflicts and school “tribes” follow this model.
In the Balkans, centuries of low-grade ethnic conflicts bubble along until one side gets enough power to visit depredations on another. Thus we see genocide and ethnic cleansing. At every point in a conflict, the dynamic is somewhere in the 5-stage model, which repeats endlessly.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 27, 2006 at 1:17 PM The only way to stop the violence is to adopt the conscious goal of de-escalation and run the model backward. Giving up objects of rivalrous desire, avoiding the temptation of skandalon, avoiding alienation and scapegoating, avoiding authorized and sanctioned violence.
Two years ago NATO visited authorized and sanctioned violence upon the Serbs. Thus NATO ran the global violence model forward toward more future violence. In Kosovo, the mimetic object of rivalrous desire was the right to use state-sanctioned violence to maintain the social order desired by those in power. In Kosovo, the Albanians were the outcasts being shunned by the Serbs. In Littleton, the outcasts were the smart “nerdy” students, shunned by the “jocks” and “debs”.
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon demonstrate that not just military forces are capable of massive strikes. Now the country proposes to visit retribution on whomever can be identifed as blameworthy, thus renewing the cycle for the next round, which could take as long as 20 years to cycle through.
A common type of scapegoat is a person who bears witness and speaks the truth to power. Powerful figures in human history were martyred for bearing witness to brutality and oppression.
In Littleton, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold bore witness to the pervasive and horrific culture of violence that children wage with cruel verbal abuse, shunning, and other powerful tokens of disrespect.
Treating those boys as if they were “scum of the earth” was a regrettable act of verbal violence, and—alienated and trapped in Skandalon—they felt compelled to retaliate, with tragic results. Conflict left to itself tends to escalate over time.
Now we will isolate, marginalize, alienate, and scapegoat a new blameworthy enemy, and their progeny will reciprocate in due time, with even more ingenious uses of our own technology turned back on us, as weapons against us.
We need to think our way out of violence by mindfully running the model backward, de-escalating violence and moving toward peace.
At every stage of the model, we need to be mindful of the dynamic we are caught up in, and consciously elect to run the model in reverse. Until now, the great theologians and peacemakers presented this as tenets of important religions or as tenets of ethics or morality.
With Girard’s Systems Theoretic Model of the dynamic structure of conflict and violence, we can discover the optimal strategy to drive the system in reverse toward non-violence and peace. Science and reason arrive at the same optimal solution as that proposed historicly by Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, King, Thich Nhat Hanh, John Dear, and thousands of other rational thinkers who thought deeply about the problems of violence, oppression, and injustice.
It’s pure science, pure reason, and pure theology. These methods of thought all reach the same insightful solution.
It’s time we learned it so that we can discontinue the mindless practice of killing ourselves off. It’s time we learned, reviewed, reflected, and meditated on this model. You can do that in the context of your faith, or in the context of a quiet meditation on a scientific model. It’s the same calming mindfulness.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 27, 2006 at 1:18 PM The above discussion is one type of analysis of the origins of violence.
I agree we have to be able to back off violence. But how, I can’t see how it could be done
Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 27, 2006 at 1:33 PM I am not sure I would really insist on “balls” in women, than a “uterus” in males to sort of symbolically at least get the feeling of recepotivity… But this digresses into areas that have little to do with the current discussion, I fear. Also, the male/female polarity goes deeper than a few inches of flesh. But certainly I would wish to see more of the female in the political arena, and not women with balls. Men generally do not set a terribly good example in the political field (I have met many who are a deep inspiration otherwise, but seldom the politicos, unfortunately)…
The issue of violence remains one of the toughest ones to resolve. In some way, the Good Book does have some solutions. Indeed, TeachPeace, Jesus never used violence except on that fateful day, and I would hesitate to call that gratuitous violence, since violence is often a conflict made visible. As in that particular event.
Religion has had the unfortunate tendency of introducing violence into societies, however. I wonder why that is? SOmetimes I think because religious leaders make false promises. They also build an image of god that is more accountant than divine being. They also make everything outside the human experience, and hence the wonderful teachings of Jesus are sort of out there, but they are not within each of us.
I read an interesting discussion on the “Love thy neighbor...” commandment, in which one of the speakers insisted that that was silly, because someone was going to take advantage of you, etc.... In other words, this man was telling us, that he would in fact do it. Here was a man who was telling the world: I love myself more first. SOme feel it is better to love thyself less than one’s neighbor. Bad news too, because there is a sort of arrogance there too. Why is this important, the equality? I think it is because in our co-earthlings, we find a confirmation of the existence of our own experience of this very, profoundly, beautiful life, this unique gift.
I discovered that one day after a brother in law died, a fellow I did not like at all. I sat in a church and meditated on why these people enter our lives—on the premise that everything in this universe happens in harmony. The answer came fast and clear: They are the mirrors through which we see ourselves, and vice-versa, they have something to teach you, and you are all the poorer if you fail to see that.
... Spare me for the moment the jurist’s arguments, extreme cases, etc… If we would teach our children well, if we would truly love the Child in each of us and our physical children, we would begin evolving into a peaceful and cooperative human race. We would no longer feel the need to amass huge wealth, to have power over others, to send start wars and send children off to those wars to learn to kill and thus propagate an ancient and arcane sport. There would no longer be any bullies on the playgrounds, or those there would feel the “heat of love” melting away their anger and their need for domination, i.e. power.
(I still think we would have violence, but not on the scale we have it now, things like what I just read in the local paper: 20% of adolescent girls 13-15 yrs old are sexually abused by males in schools, on the playgrounds, etc… this is in Geneva, Switzerland… It’s shocking!)
In the pool of solutions (and here I would join A and D), my contribution would be: Shut off the television and throw that silly box away. The 1% of programming that is worth watching maybe, is not worth the trouble… It’s a drumfire of poor taste, it creates envy, it promotes lifestyles that are impossible to achieve, it’s a channel for the most blatant propaganda, and finally, it puts people mentally to sleep… for the most part.
I have to sleep. If this is a little chaotic, please forgive, I have a rather severe cold!
Posted by Talleyrand on Aug 27, 2006 at 1:55 PM Spinoza....
I wrote my bit while you were on yours…
I find the scientific system certainly interesting, esp. the thought of working it all backwards, but again, the whole thing depends on so many people agreeing at once. Violence, as in visible conflict-- has some root causes that must be addressed. (Here the mimetic desire and rivalry are definitely on the nail, but there is something else here...)
I do think that we have many mechanisms already in place to prevent or stall the spread of violence. Only they are not being used properly. And the problem always goes back to interests (the money, sex, land, power, etc...). And to people not being heard, not being listened to. And that becomes frustrating; and other interests find a good use for that frustration. The Palestinian Question is a great example.
When we learn to listen, and listen carefully, and not just react quickly.... then a great step will have been made. I blame pols for their constant open-mouth reaction! I also blame them for their denigrating “emotion”.
But I am really off to sleep now… Thanks for the Girard thing though, it is definitely to be put in the bag of goodies.
Posted by Talleyrand on Aug 27, 2006 at 2:50 PM “It is a shame that Chopper is not serving a very very long prison term.”
This is a very good example of how much of the left now disdains concepts such as freedom of speech.
Posted by chopper on Aug 28, 2006 at 3:45 PM Unless chopper did something recently that was really naughty, no prison term for him/her!
Don’t use that silly argument, Chopper, we all know that the real master at clipping freedom of speech, assembly, etc… are the neocons.
Do you guys have a school where you all learn that this is the way to “debate”: Take the things that your party does and apply them to the “other” side? You all sound exactly the same, and its pretty, how should I say this… monotonous. It reminds me of a heavy-duty drinker I knew, who, when addressed on the subject, would accuse everyone around her of boozing.... And it was pretty stupid.
I am sure you have some more pertinaent thoughts than that, come on, man, use that head of yours, it’s there for that purpose!!
Posted by Talleyrand on Aug 28, 2006 at 5:38 PM Ayers and Dohrn weren’t activists, they were criminals. Its unfortunate that they aren’t serving long prison sentences.
Posted by chopper on Aug 18, 2006 at 11:54 PM
It is a shame that Chopper is not serving a very very long prison term.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 23, 2006 at 8:16 PM
This is a very good example of how much of the left now disdains concepts such as freedom of speech.
Posted by chopper on Aug 28, 2006 at 3:45 PM
You initiated the exchange, you dimwit. And after quoting the response completely beyond the context of the debate you pretend to be offended by the author’s presumably prototypical disregard for your hypocritical freedom of speech.
Dickhead.
Posted by Major Major on Aug 28, 2006 at 5:51 PM I apologize for the profanity. You’re not a dickhead.
You’re a sanctimious dickhead.
Posted by Major Major on Aug 28, 2006 at 5:59 PM Please be respectful in your comments and try to remain
on-topic
Posted by Talleyrand on Aug 29, 2006 at 12:42 AM Major, why do you choose to be rude? Is there any call or it? A little irony is OK, but simply using dickhead? And “dimwit”? Where is the evidence? Other than being hidden behind a screen, is there anything special in you that raises you above the station of common mortal? You are holier than anyone, Massa, ..
(Speaking of sanctimonious.... )
It actually took me about 5 minutes to find that comment by Spinoza, which I hadn’t read. SO I stand corrected. It is not a very appropriate comment, true, also because it’s off topic, and had I read it, I certainly would have noted that.
This I do now duly. It’s a silly comment that contibutes nothing of substance. But I would like to say that it says nothing about “the Left” as Chopper then goes on to say. So the rest of my comment stays put. The extreme right in this country has definitely been pushing back freedom of speech far more than the left ever has. Here is a typical example of their method of attack. One can feel the coordination ofKarl “Goebbels” Rove back there… Read carefully:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060829/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld
Mind you, this is sot of not the topic addressed by D and A… But close, very close. Because they mention despair, I think.
Posted by Talleyrand on Aug 29, 2006 at 4:36 AM “I apologize for the profanity. You’re not a dickhead.
You’re a sanctimious dickhead.”
Yeah, whatever. I’ve noticed that people usually start using profanity when their reasoning is weak or non-existent.
Posted by chopper on Aug 29, 2006 at 12:25 PM ““the Left” “
More accurately I said much of the left. I realize this is not a universal trait of everyone on the left, and there are many people on the left who I respect quite a bit for their integrity even if I disagree with many of their positions. Nat Hentoff comes to mind, for instance.
“The extreme right in this country has definitely been pushing back freedom of speech far more than the left ever has. Here is a typical example of their method of attack.”
If you don’t believe that much of the left is now anti-free speech try reading some of the speech codes on university campuses or some of the writings of critical race theorists.
Posted by chopper on Aug 29, 2006 at 12:34 PM Thanks for the response. You may be right that on a certain level the left does it as well, I have no way of either knowing or checking from abroad. I just follow the news from various sources, and over the years criticism of the extremists in government has been silenced using various truly ignoble methods, albeit smart rhetorical methods. And that is what the link I left shows. I am speaking of the rhetoric.
As for campuses, I had to think back a few decades.... to 85 when I was last on one… Well, to be frank with you: I was a TA and my office was right next to the student union building. Summer and spring days brought out the megaphonists of all color. The most obnoxious were the fendamentalists, so I finally bought a trumpet for 25$ and learned to play When The Saints Come Marching In over a weekend… But I digress.
Yes: There was an enormous amount of PC on campus that I found obnoxious. I also found many professors sold out to the industry (I was in Communications), which has nothing to do with free speech and yet it does—the stuff they would say was at times hair-raising!--- But I can’t say there was more right or more left. As for critical race theories, I must pass. I simply do not believe in race theories per se, and I can understand why they are extremely controversial and complex.
On a broader plane, however, I feel that that undefined “We” that makes up the political world as it were has gone beyond old concepts of Left and Right. They hardly mean anything anymore. Even originally, they were just convenience descriptions: The French National Assembly during the revolution there had the Jacobins and other “radicals” on the left, and the more conservative Girondins on the right. ... So left is generally associated with radical, etc… right with conservative values. But I really think that we have gone beyond those and that some rethinking needs to be done. In some ways, namely, the neocons ressemble the old Jacobins, especially in their horrendous demagogy. I believe they used Reagan as a test balloon, got surprised by Clinton, and then went for Bush Jr. and have been pushing the envelope ever since to see when Americans will actually react to their takeover. The MS press certainly hasn’t, not in any effective way. (That has given many the impression that the “left” has been pressed into silence: when Clinton was having marrital problems, his semen was smeared all over the place for months. GWB, I am sorry to say, has been a party to far more serious crimes, notably getting us into the war on false premises, a war that has caused untold harm and distress, death and destruction… He is getting away with it.... see link above)…
Sorry about the long ramble.
PS: Here’s an important link…
Is this “Supporting our troups?” Write to your congressman about it… It’s a disgrace… look at those sums. The Bush family could pay it in a second, that is about one third of what Cheney made on his Halliburton stock alone since the Iraq war began…
Posted by Talleyrand on Aug 29, 2006 at 2:27 PM The guy’s a dickhead, a sanctimonious dickhead and simply too stupid to understand why anyone would become angry after reading his idiotic posts. No one’s infringing on your freedom of expression, Floyd. But when you make provocative statements ("Its unfortunate that they aren’t serving long prison sentences."), you deliberately invite a provocative response ("It is a shame that Chopper is not serving a very very long prison term."). To pretend to be offended by your correspondent’s contempt, which you provoked to begin with, is the height of hypocrisy. To conclude therefore that “much of the left...disdains...freedom of speech” is an unmistakable indication of a “weak or non-existent” inference.
Asshole.
Posted by Major Major on Aug 29, 2006 at 3:48 PM “The guy’s a dickhead, a sanctimonious dickhead and simply too stupid to understand why anyone would become angry after reading his idiotic posts. No one’s infringing on your freedom of expression, Floyd. But when you make provocative statements ("Its unfortunate that they aren’t serving long prison sentences."), you deliberately invite a provocative response ("It is a shame that Chopper is not serving a very very long prison term."). To pretend to be offended by your correspondent’s contempt, which you provoked to begin with, is the height of hypocrisy. To conclude therefore that “much of the left...disdains...freedom of speech” is an unmistable indication of a “weak or non-existent” inference.
Asshole.”
Actually, I’m not offended at all, Major Major. I have very low expectations about the quality of your posts, and your repeated profanities just confirm my expectations. I always like it when my judgement is confirmed, so please, keep up the good work.
You’ve entirely missed my point. Dohrn and Ayers committed actual criminal acts. I’ve merely expressed an opinion, which Spinoza and you don’t like. Now I know that Spinoza doesn’t actually have the ability to put me into prison, but I took him at his word that he would do so if he could, so he would limit freedom of speech if he had the ability to do so. I merely want to limit the possibility of people being able to commit violent acts and get away with them. If Spinoza or you want to express the opinion that I should be jailed for expressing such views, I fully support your right to express such opinions. However, I reserve the right to zing you back for such views.
Hope this clears up any confusion you may be experiencing. Confusion seems to be your natural state, & I want to help you out of it to the best of my ability.
Best wishes.
Posted by chopper on Aug 30, 2006 at 11:03 AM “Thanks for the response. You may be right that on a certain level the left does it as well, I have no way of either knowing or checking from abroad. I just follow the news from various sources, and over the years criticism of the extremists in government has been silenced using various truly ignoble methods, albeit smart rhetorical methods. And that is what the link I left shows. I am speaking of the rhetoric.”
You’re welcome, and thank you for carrying on an elevated discusssion, even if we disagree with each other on many issues. I realize I was pretty sarcastic with Major Major but he made it easy.
I have limited time right now so I have to go.
Posted by chopper on Aug 30, 2006 at 11:25 AM “Major major is correct in his response.”
Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee.
Posted by chopper on Aug 31, 2006 at 6:40 AM it is difficult to understand where dohrn and ayers were coming from in the 60"s unless you were alive and able to get honest information about american genocide in vietnam. for many of us, the obscenity of the american genocide in vietnam, left us feeling powerless but outraged.
good for bill and bernadine that they have held onto their morals and values throughout their life. and in their lives they have made such tremendous contributions to the education and well being of our young people. i am in stark amazement that they are still hard at work trying to save american youth.bill and bernadine have lived their lives the fullest. both are leaders in their fields today. bill in education and bernadine in children’s defense.
these two icons of the 60’s deserve our admiration and respect.
Posted by pilib on Sep 29, 2006 at 8:59 AM Very true. And considering the terrible times we are living through now we still have much to learn.
Please send this around the net. It is very important to fight the Brown Shirts
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15156.htm
A Personal Declaration of Independence
I refuse to accept as my government actions by the current administration and its obsequious servants, the Republican Congress and the Republican Senate.
By William A. Cook
“If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic … It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.” (President George W. Bush, Sept. 15, 2006 report by AP’s Terence Hunt)
09/29/06 “Palestine Chronicle”—- -Citizens of the United States of America bear an awesome responsibility to maintain control of their government’s behavior since that government derives its powers from the consent granted it by the citizens. When the government ceases to act in accord with the dictates of the respective consciences of its citizens as determined by its foundational documents – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—, when it violates the established principles that give this nation legitimacy before the nations of the world through mutually accepted agreements, charters, and conventions, when it abrogates the inalienable rights granted the citizens by the Creator, when it declares unequivocally that the citizens cannot dissent with an action or actions taken by the government, then it is the right and the duty of the citizen to “alter or abolish” that government.
For the past five years, the present government of the United States, including the Executive branch, the Congress and the Senate, has committed a “long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object (that) evinces a design to reduce them (the citizens) under absolute despotism.” As a citizen of these United States for 70 years, I refuse to be ruled by a tyrant who imposes despotic, autocratic control on the citizens of these United States through a series of clandestine actions that usurp the rights of the people.
I refuse to accept as my government actions by the current administration and its obsequious servants, the Republican Congress and the Republican Senate, that include
spying on its citizens without their knowledge or consent, an action contrary to existing law;
elimination of personal privacy through the Patriot Act, an action that presumes culpability, not innocence until proven guilty;
preemptive invasion of other nations determined by the unilateral judgment of an all powerful executive that eviscerates the power of the peoples’ representatives;
acts of extrajudicial execution and the abandonment of rule by law thereby making the President, in effect, judge, jury and executioner;
acts of torture and the unilateral infliction of “acceptable” torture techniques thus casting America before the world as an amoral nation beholden to no international agreement and placing at risk the soldiers who defend it;
imposition of illegal actions of war instituted through an orchestrated control of lies communicated to the citizenry thereby negating their democratic right to know that they might vote in accord with their conscience;
levying an incredible tax burden on the citizens to pay for the consequences of these lies that will cost them and their children dearly for decades to come while corporations reap a windfall of profit from closed bids and corruption;
read rest of article
Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 29, 2006 at 6:22 PM “it is difficult to understand where dohrn and ayers were coming from in the 60"s unless you were alive and able to get honest information about american genocide in vietnam. for many of us, the obscenity of the american genocide in vietnam, left us feeling powerless but outraged.”
Dohrn and Ayers put themselves above any law or morality except for what they decided they were personally going to follow. Their excuse was certain government officials were violating laws or moral norms. Since in any age it would not be too difficult to find evidence of corruption in some government agents this is a receipe for nilhism. We don’t need such examples for our children to follow.
And btw, whatever you think of the rights or wrongs of our involvement in the Vietnam war, the US was not committing genocide. Some of our units did commit atrocities, but it was not government policy, in either intention or fact, to wipe out the Vietnamese people.
Posted by chopper on Oct 11, 2006 at 4:24 PM Every time right wingers lie and/or say killing peasants (or anyone else) is OK because it is in the national interest those people should be loudly and vociferously attacked. William Blum estimates that right wingers are responsible for killing some 30 million people in the “Cold War”. People have to understand that right wingers are murderers even if they killed no one personally. There advocacy makes those murders possible.
For example: The students at Columbia University were correct to storm the stage on which the minutemen were talking and unfold their banners. Further it it is not an argument that the speech was sponsored by the College Republicans and therefor was protected and sancrosanct political speech. The Republican Party is a Fascist criminal organization and should be characterized as such.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Oct 12, 2006 at 12:41 AM “More evidence that right wing scum ought to die,”
Fascinating logic. I guess in your world insult = reason.
Posted by chopper on Oct 12, 2006 at 1:17 PM “For example: The students at Columbia University were correct to storm the stage on which the minutemen were talking and unfold their banners. Further it it is not an argument that the speech was sponsored by the College Republicans and therefor was protected and sancrosanct political speech. The Republican Party is a Fascist criminal organization and should be characterized as such.”
Yes, those facist Republicans should be violently suppressed for daring to disagree with all of us politically correct leftists.
Posted by chopper on Oct 12, 2006 at 1:19 PM “William Blum estimates that right wingers are responsible for killing some 30 million people in the “Cold War”. People have to understand that right wingers are murderers even if they killed no one personally.”
Who is William Blum? And why should we care?
During the Cold War leftwingers excused, denied, and even actively supported the mass killings of Communist and other leftist regimes. Best estimates are that various Communist regimes murdered at least 100 million people in the 20th century.
People have to understand that left-wingers are murderers even if they killed no one personally.
Posted by chopper on Oct 12, 2006 at 3:46 PM Well if you want to include the deaths attributable to communists, Mao and Stalin because major famines occurred on their watch and because their policies were to blame then we should blame the capitalist scum for all of the deaths caused by inequality which is in the order of hundreds of millions,
The best capitalist is a dead capitalist
Posted by Spinoza750 on Oct 13, 2006 at 5:33 AM HERE IS A GOOD RECENT ARTICLE ON DEATHS CAUSED BY CAPITALISM.
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/thatcher.html
The reader should be aware that Treanor uses the term “liberal” to mean any apologist for capitalism in the European manner.
,,
Posted by Spinoza750 on Oct 13, 2006 at 5:42 AM http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/thatcher.html
Excess mortality, inequalities in life expectancy, and health inequalities in general are an ethical time bomb, for liberal market democracy. When we think of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot as the greatest killers in all history, we have got the wrong men. Their symbolic importance for liberalism is that they are so clearly non-liberal: it is not related to any objective scale of death. The Belgian Congo Company, a business and not a state, killed about 10 million people: their brutality bears comparison with that of the SS. But that is not the killing that is remembered in liberal-democratic market societies. Their own accepted history presents these societies as the end of an ‘age of atrocities’. That history is a fake.
On the contrary, evidence is accumulating, that liberalism - and the liberal free market which it promotes - form a killing machine. The evidence from Russia suggests that it is primarily the market which kills people, not a liberal political system. On the other hand, the triumph the modern free market depended on the victory of the liberal ideology: that was certainly the case in Russia. No liberals, no market. Before modern liberalism emerged in the 18th century, the modern free market did not exist: it is not a natural phenomenon.In the long term, the global market economy seems not only to increase inequalities, but to systematically worsen the conditions for the weakest populations. All research shows huge global inequalities in health, almost always to the advantage of the market democracies. There is no doubt that there is a huge excess mortality at global level: about 13 million from preventable infectious diseases alone, according to the World Disasters Report 2000.
Inside western societies, health inequalities appear permanent - unaffected by changes of government, beyond the reach of health policy. The evidence is relentless: the poor live shorter lives in worse health, socially disadvantaged groups are also disadvantaged in health and mortality, and so are disadvantaged ethnic minorities.
The inequalities are persistent. Three studies in Amsterdam showed higher mortality rates in the poorest neighbourhoods. That was in true in 1972-1976, true again in 1977-1983, and true again in 1986-1991. Another study found the same pattern in the four largest cities of the Netherlands: mortality rates in prosperous neighbourhoods were as much as 24% under city average, mortality in the poorest neighbourhoods was up to 32% above average. Probably these inequalities are much older. Amsterdam statistics for infant mortality can be related to social class, as far back as 1854. Although perinatal and infant mortality fell sharply, the inequalities remained.
The inequalities in mortality reflect the multiple inequalities in liberal market democracies - income and poverty, social class, unemployment, successful and declining regions. Researchers who use new indicators find new matches, between inequality and mortality. In Spanish cities, for instance, inequalities in education are reflected in dramatic differences in mortality. Lack of education seriously damages your health. In fact it drastically shortens your life and increases your risk of dying.
The inequalities in mortality are extreme, for specific groups - just as extreme as the social inequalities themselves. The Madrid/Barcelona study found that some disadvantaged groups were 7 times more likely to die.
Within the free-market societies, the differences in life expectancy are substantial. They are at least as great as the difference among their national averages, which range between 75 and 80 years. The Madrid/Barcelona study found a 6-year gap, according to educational level.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Oct 13, 2006 at 6:11 AM The excess mortality - the most significant for the historical comparisons - is substantial. Is it not a statistical triviality. For the entire population of western liberal market democracies, about one-sixth of global population, it is certainly measured in millions. And that is only the internal excess mortality, without counting any deaths in Africa, for instance. Another study in Spain compared mortality rates in 2220 geographical areas, and estimated excess mortality at 10%, or 35 000 deaths a year. If these were sustained rates, Spanish market democracy has killed more people than the Spanish Civil War. (During the entire period covered by the study, Felipe González was Prime Minister).
Even this is probably an underestimate, since it is a comparison of areas, not of social groups. The comparison can not be complete, unless each zone is inhabited by one social group only. This study, incidentally, allows a first estimate of the excess mortality under Thatcher. The population of the United Kingdom is about 50% greater. Without correcting for age structure, assume the absolute excess mortality before Thatcher was simply 50% higher in the UK, about 52 000. Assume that excess mortality worsened due to transition effects, in the 10 years of the Thatcher government, and the estimate exceeds a half-million. Only the largest extermination camps under the Nazi regime (Belzec, Treblinka and Auschwitz) exceeded this scale of death. A full research programme, by demographers and epidemiologists, could improve on this type of first estimate. But who would pay for a research programme, that compared Margaret Thatcher to Eichmann?
Posted by Spinoza750 on Oct 13, 2006 at 6:11 AM If you want to see how evil capitalism is compare the indices of health in China and India from 1950 to 1980. Despite the Chinese Famine caused by the cultural revolution. The death rate in India was higher due to inequality!
Further, if you want to see the dramatic difference in poltical ideology and death rates compare the state of Kerala in India to the rest of India. Kerala had democratic government which was dominated by Socialists and Communists during that period and all of the health indices are higher there. Life expectancy is over ten years higher in Kerala than the rest of India. The same is the case in Latin America where you can contrast life expectancies with political ideology. Cuba has the best statistics and Costa Rica is second. The more capitalist the country the worst off it is.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Oct 13, 2006 at 6:30 AM “The best capitalist is a dead capitalist”
This statement says it all. It, or similar sentiments, are the justification for every mass murdering tyrant that has ever lived. Robespierre, Stalin, Hitler, Mao-Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, would all be proud of such a sentiment.
If you perceive you have the plan for heaven on Earth, and you see others as standing in the way of that plan, it is only a short step in logic to having all those you see as in the way killed.
You should be careful about what you wish for Spinoza. Revolutions tend to eat their children, and all of the above men had many of those who helped them to power executed. Robespierre lost his head of course, and Hitler shot himself, so even being the top dog in a tryanny doesn’t grant immunity. And your hero Castro, btw, has had some of those close to him executed.
Posted by chopper on Oct 13, 2006 at 3:48 PM Chill out, Chipper. No one’s gonna kill you. The overwhelming majority of dead capitalists died peacefully in their sleep. Their principal concern was not the anarchist and communist assasins lurking in the shadows of their palatial estates, but which of their filial ingrates wuold inherit the lion’s share of the loot, taxes notwithstanding. Communism and fascism are the two sides of the same democratic coin, the two ideologies which made possible the transition from feudalism to capitalism. In other words, democracy is the balance between the two, which is why fascism is so often defined as “the communism of the rich” and communism “the fascism of the poor”. Take your standard political spectrum, from communism on the left to fascism on the right, and twist it into a circle so that the two authoritarian extremes coincide. Now raise the fascist end along the z-axis and drop the communist end an equal distance down the same axis. The vertical line connecting the two is the axis of collapse and recovery. It’s the helical model of warfare and revolution, and it’s a completely capitalist contraption.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 14, 2006 at 7:54 AM >>>Chill out, Chipper. No one’s gonna kill you.<<<<
Yes they are. They are going to crawl out of his modem and cut off his penis. Therefore no more capitalists.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Oct 14, 2006 at 9:40 AM “If you want to see how evil capitalism is compare the indices of health in China and India from 1950 to 1980. Despite the Chinese Famine caused by the cultural revolution. The death rate in India was higher due to inequality!
Further, if you want to see the dramatic difference in poltical ideology and death rates compare the state of Kerala in India to the rest of India. Kerala had democratic government which was dominated by Socialists and Communists during that period and all of the health indices are higher there. Life expectancy is over ten years higher in Kerala than the rest of India. The same is the case in Latin America where you can contrast life expectancies with political ideology. Cuba has the best statistics and Costa Rica is second. The more capitalist the country the worst off it is.”
India from 1950 to 1980 is a poor choice for an example, since it was run according to socialist principles during that time period. I guess the “evils” of capitalism are shown by the consistently longer life expectancy and general indicies of well being that the US and the West in general had over the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Posted by chopper on Oct 14, 2006 at 12:57 PM “The inequalities are persistent. Three studies in Amsterdam showed higher mortality rates in the poorest neighbourhoods. That was in true in 1972-1976, true again in 1977-1983, and true again in 1986-1991. Another study found the same pattern in the four largest cities of the Netherlands: mortality rates in prosperous neighbourhoods were as much as 24% under city average, mortality in the poorest neighbourhoods was up to 32% above average. Probably these inequalities are much older. Amsterdam statistics for infant mortality can be related to social class, as far back as 1854. Although perinatal and infant mortality fell sharply, the inequalities remained.”
Inequalities go all the way back to the ancient world. Every society has inequalities of wealth and status, what you are doing is comparing market economies to a mythical state of equality that has never existed and won’t exist for the forseeable future. Since it doesn’t meet your hypothetical utopia you imagine it is killing all sorts of people prematurely.
It is not suprising that poor people often have lower life expectancies. Many of the behavior patterns that result in poverty also result in generally poorer health and shorter life spans.
Posted by chopper on Oct 14, 2006 at 1:04 PM Wow MM, do you work on being incoherent or does it just come naturally? Let’s see, communism = facism = capitalism, yeah, right!
Posted by chopper on Oct 14, 2006 at 1:07 PM “>>>Chill out, Chipper. No one’s gonna kill you.<<<<
Yes they are. They are going to crawl out of his modem and cut off his penis. Therefore no more capitalists.”
Yeah, whatever. I see we are back to the insults, & just when I thought you were making real progress. I guess playing the toady to MM is just too much for you to resist, however.
Too bad, I hope you recover from your relapse.
Posted by chopper on Oct 14, 2006 at 1:14 PM “>>>Chill out, Chipper. No one’s gonna kill you.<<<<
Yes they are. They are going to crawl out of his modem and cut off his penis. Therefore no more capitalists.”
Btw, you’re too late for this, I’ve already reproduced.
Posted by chopper on Oct 14, 2006 at 1:17 PM No, Dexter. Communism and fascism are intersecting subsets of capitalism. The intersection contains all the other forms of political ideology used to justify capitalism.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 15, 2006 at 9:20 PM “No, Dexter. Communism and fascism are intersecting subsets of capitalism. The intersection contains all the other forms of political ideology used to justify capitalism.”
Hey MM, I can understand the insults. They at least make more sense than your incoherent political philosophy. Is Dexter supposed to be another insult, or is your memory just failing you? Any way keep it up, I find you to be entertaining.
Regards,
Posted by chopper on Oct 16, 2006 at 3:48 PM Apparently, you don’t understand the political “philosophy” or the insults. In fact, your responses indicate that you don’t understand much of anything at all.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 17, 2006 at 3:38 PM “Apparently, you don’t understand the political “philosophy” or the insults. In fact, your responses indicate that you don’t understand much of anything at all.”
Hey MM, the political “philosophy” (you did well to put it in quotes) you spout is juvenile and incoherent. Communism sprang from Marx’s diseased philosophy. To call it an intersecting “subset” of capitalism is absurd.
Your insults are equally juvenile.
Regards,
Posted by chopper on Oct 17, 2006 at 5:19 PM Well I’m coming across this 12 months late - I can understand why people dislike Americans - Chopper - you just want to believe you are superior and you go about trying to prove that your point of view is superior. You don’t even present an argument. You’ve completely missed the point of how the weather underground saw themselves and in retrospect reflect on their efforts. Say what you want - you ideas are borrowed and long dead.
Posted by Mr D on Oct 10, 2007 at 10:06 AM “Well I’m coming across this 12 months late - I can understand why people dislike Americans - Chopper - you just want to believe you are superior and you go about trying to prove that your point of view is superior. You don’t even present an argument. You’ve completely missed the point of how the weather underground saw themselves and in retrospect reflect on their efforts. Say what you want - you ideas are borrowed and long dead.”
Pray tell, Mr. D, why does it matter how the weather underground “saw themselves”. What is more important is what they did, which was commit criminal acts, up to and including murder. Why should we tolerate that? If being intolerant of murder (whatever cause you are supposedly working for) is evidence that I believe I’m “superior” then I’m guilty as charged. Are we now at a point where being “intolerant” is worse than murder? Is this what you mean by seeing myself as “superior”? Are we all now supposed to become a law unto ourselves? If my ideas are dead then civilization is dead.
Posted by chopper on Oct 13, 2007 at 6:34 PM “you just want to believe you are superior and you go about trying to prove that your point of view is superior. You don’t even present an argument.”
This is interesting, since your entire post is almost completely free of any content or argument. You didn’t bother to say how I saw myself as “superior” or what ideas of mine are “borrowed and long dead”.
Regards,
Posted by chopper on Oct 14, 2007 at 11:52 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Laura S. Washington
- The Whole World Was Watching
40 years ago this week, Chicago police battled protesters at the DNC. Two '60s radicals remember the madness, and look to Denver for change - Gun-toters in La-La Land
- The Great Election Robbery of 2008?
- Obama Not Feelin’ the Love from Smiley
- Who Would Ida B. Wells Vote For?
- The Nadir of Nader
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
