Re: plus ça change

[Guest guest]

, all,

Thanks for the articles. Having read them carefully, I still think that

Giuliani's main problem is that he pisses off the press, and of course the

media have immense power when it comes to making or breaking any political

campaign. We were in New York the month before 9/11, and we were not there

to solicit political opinion, merely on holiday after our visit to Alice.

However, we couldn't escape politics wherever we went, as New Yorkers from

all walks of life were practically queuing up to sing the praises of their

mayor the minute they heard our English accents. I do not agree that he

exploited 9/11 - he was out there taking action, in contrast with the

cowardly actions of President Bush. I also think that to liken him to

Mussolini is both racist and inaccurate. Mussolini was an uneducated man who

was content to be a puppet, first for his own entourage and then (less

happily) for Hitler, provided that he could strut about in his uniform and

be hailed as 'Il Duce' by hysterical crowds. Giuliani is not a crowd-pleaser

but an intelligent man of action.

Having said that, I am by no means his number-one fan, merely stating that

in the event of another Republican in the White House (especially after the

depressing information you gave that voting trends in the US are similar to

here) I would rather Giuliani than any of the other candidates. I have

already declared myself for Obama. I guess I don't count as " young " anymore,

being now thirty-mumble (!) - but in my lifetime Obama is the first

politician about whom I have been able to get excited. I almost wish that I

had taken up the offer I once had of a post in the Linguistics department in

Berkeley - I know I still would not have had a vote, but I'm sure his team

wouldn't mind a white English lady campaigning for him!

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Dan about what would happen in the event

of another terrorist attack on American soil. I would prefer to think your

view the correct one, but statistics show that in the event of war,

countries turn to the conservatives (amongst whom I count Blair, btw!) So

let's hope it doesn't happen, and get out there motivating potential

Democrats to vote Obama!!!!!!!

fa

" Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you. " CG Jung

[Guest guest]

fa, all,

I can't compel you to read materials and then analyze them as I would.

But, the severest brief against Giuliani concerns his lack of ethics, a

deficit that is great not merely something capable of pissing off the

press. So I have trouble believing that you discounted the concrete

narrative.

Nor is their any doubt that 9-11 has made Giuliani a very rich man even

though his principle actions during the tragedy were to give calming press

conferences.

He has almosty zero support amongst the first responders in NY. You might

investigate why that is.

***

As for comparing Giuliani to Mussolini. If you read carefully, it was

Breslin who did so. Be that as it may, this hardly qualifies as racist nor

is Breslin's analogy about much more than Giuliani's propensity for total

control, demand for absolute loyalty and, since you read the articles, his

amazing ability to install the inept while replacing the masterly.

***

You don't agree, but for me Giuliani is--without any doubt--the most

dangerous politician with any grip on the imagination in America. Not only

is he a man without scruples, an amazing liar, but his sympathies lie with

totalitarian views of leadership and governance.

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

>

> As for evolution, I note Huckabee also dismisses the facts of

> paleoanthropology. Luckily we don't vote on the findings of scientific

> research. Huckabumpkin dismisses sceintific knowledge because he can

> substitute magical ideas for that knowledge. It might not prevent him

> from being a viable candidate, yup lots of bumpkins agree with him, but

> it completely prevents him from being thought of as knowing anything

> true about biology and paleoanthropology.

Fortunately, knowledge of biology and paleoanthropology are not

necessary for, or for that matter even relevant to, governing. One

might as well fret that he does not know the history of the

Studebaker, or something.

>

> If he starts hearing Jesus talk to him in his head, then we would be

> reminded of what Kierkegaard thought about such voices: how does the

> knower know this voice is that of Jesus?

>

> Worrisome were it to come about.

Nah .... he's not a madman.

>

> ***

>

> fa, Mr. Giuliani was aptly characterized by Jimmy Breslin, the

> journalist:

>

> " A small man in search of a balcony. " This obviously is a reference to

> Mussolini.

>

> The Rudy is, as I see it, Cheney Inc. on steroids. One does not have to

> do much research into his record as mayor, or consider how he became

> immensely rich by exploiting 9-11 and his machiavellian conception of

> 'leadership,' to understand that he is a singularly dangerous figure.

> But consider his record as mayor: he has taken to lying about it even

> though his record doesn't need bald lies to reinforce his

> accomplishments. This seems revealing: The Rudy just needs to lie where

> the truth would be sufficient.

>

> Giuliani is suitable to be a dictator, not a president. He is a man

> geared toward mendacity, corruption, and seems not to have an ethical

> bone in his body.

>

> read the following and do some research and get back to me. ;-)

>

> Old Habits

> How the Giuliani method may defeat him.

> by Kolbert

>

>

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/07/080107fa_fact_kolbert?printable=tr\

ue

>

> Mayberry Man

> Is what New York never liked about Rudy Giuliani exactly what the

> heartland loves?

> by J. Boyer

>

>

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/20/070820fa_fact_boyer?printable=true

>

> Note also that the arch neocon Norman Podhoretz is a principle GWOT

> advisor to The Rudy.

>

> : You're not as down on the president's whole democracy project as

> some of our friends are. How essential is it that some of that Muslim

> world embraces democracy and Islam embrace modernization?

>

> Podhoretz: It's essential in the long run, because what we are

trying to

> do is make the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for

> democracy. And to quote the great Bernard , " Either we bring them

> freedom or they destroy us. " But that doesn't mean an overnight

> transformation. It means clearing the ground, sowing the seeds, and

> helping to nourish and keep them alive until they can bear fruit. As

for

> Islam, I believe that as new political, economic, and social conditions

> begin to grow, pressures on the theologians and the clerics will also

> begin to mount from below. This will take the form of a demand that

they

> find warrants in the Koran and the sharia under which it would be

> possible to be a good Muslim while enjoying the blessings of decent

> government, and even of political and economic liberty.

>

> : How much of a problem is Islam?

>

> Podhoretz: The great problem is Islamofascism, which is a modern

> political movement within Islam that owes as much to the Nazi and

> Communist models as it does to the Koran. Islam itself is a problem to

> the extent that it refuses or fails to fight against the Islamofascists

> speaking in its name. But my own view is that Islam cannot forever

> resist the kind of modernization and reformation that began within

> Christianity and Judaism in the early modern period.

>

>

> Let's appraise the illogic and delusion of this exchange: one is going

> to fight in Podhoretz's terms World War IV against Islamic states that

> by his own admission are immoderate, and, in the aftermath of killing

> and wounding and maiming combatants and non-combatants alike, the

> remaining Muslims will come to reform their religion in accordance with

> the prejudices of Mr. Podhoretz because, although Islam (according to

> Podhoretz) is a very bad religion, it's not so irredeemable that

killing

> millions of its adherents would be sufficient to help them see the

>'light.'

He seems to assume that modernity or " enlightenment " is somehow

inevitable or irresistible. So many " conservatives " seem to have so

much in common with Marxists.

regards,

Dan

>

> One might call this lunatic. However it's notable also that this has

> never worked--ever--in history.

>

>

> regards,

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I cannot believe that you are as naïve as

you pretend to be. You must be aware, even if you do not drink with journalists

on a regular basis as I do, that a newspaper article is hardly an academic text

(and even those can be fallible!). Newspapers print whatever will SELL.

I did not accuse you of the Mussolini

remark, having indeed noted the citation – I merely pointed out that the

remark was both racist and inaccurate, which it is.

I do not, however, wish to continue

arguing about this, especially as I believe we are both supporting the same

candidate anyway?

Regards,

fa

" Show me a sane man and I will cure

him for you. " CG Jung

From: JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ] On Behalf Of Calhoun

Sent: 06 January 2008 19:32

To: JUNG-FIRE

Subject: RE: plus ça

change

fa, all,

I can't compel you to read materials and then analyze them as I would.

But, the severest brief against Giuliani concerns his lack of ethics, a

deficit that is great not merely something capable of pissing off the

press. So I have trouble believing that you discounted the concrete

narrative.

Nor is their any doubt that 9-11 has made Giuliani a very rich man even

though his principle actions during the tragedy were to give calming press

conferences.

He has almosty zero support amongst the first responders in NY. You might

investigate why that is.

***

As for comparing Giuliani to Mussolini. If you read carefully, it was

Breslin who did so. Be that as it may, this hardly qualifies as racist nor

is Breslin's analogy about much more than Giuliani's propensity for total

control, demand for absolute loyalty and, since you read the articles, his

amazing ability to install the inept while replacing the masterly.

***

You don't agree, but for me Giuliani is--without any doubt--the most

dangerous politician with any grip on the imagination in America. Not

only

is he a man without scruples, an amazing liar, but his sympathies lie with

totalitarian views of leadership and governance.

regards,

[Guest guest]

fa, all,

What a ridiculous reply.

Your ad hom against journalist and journalism is also a straw man. Tis

merely a point of logic.

The subject is Giuliani. I'm not supporting any candidate but when I turn

my critical and hardly naive sensibility to the task of evaluation, all

I'm intersted in is whether the reportage is based in facts and evidence.

I pointed out two artciles in The New Yorker. With BS detector humming I

also can fact check their assertions. AS COULD YOU.

That the articles present assertions of fact and evidence doesn't mean

those assertions are true. But, what do YOU DO to satisfy yourself that

they are reporting baloney versus the alternative? This is a real

question.

Saying that journalism in-total is not academic research is, to my mind,

changing the subject. It's also illogical. Hmmm, naive too.

People who know me have never reported that amongst my faults are naivete.

When I was your age, I was more naive for sure.

***

You've really, as I read your silly reply, suggested the opposite of your

point: that you, having brought up Giuliani, can't be bothered to assess

his bona fides and track record and character.

Why not read the articles and, like a good, well schooled grad student,

reply based on your expert and sharp assessment of the articles' merits or

lack of merits, rather than trot out an ad hom bit of ridiculousness and a

straw man to boot?

You seem to need a bit of seasoning on these matters.

regards,

[Guest guest]

says: >>Saying that journalism in-total is not academic research is, to my mind,changing the subject. It's also illogical. Hmmm, naive too.<< --I think it is good to be reminded that newspapers are part of a producer-consumer loop and have a profit motive. Objective, neutral and in-depth reporting doesn't always hold the attention of a large enough audience to be worth the expense. I say this not because people are naive, but because they tend to be too busy to check out facts (and how does one check facts without trusting another source?) and because people tend to believe what fits a narrative while having low trust for the opposite narrative -- I've seen MANY people trust a "liberal" or "conservative" source because they had such low trust in the opposite sources! People who dismiss Fox while repeating things said on CNN as fact, or vice-versa. Either way, the assumption is that because one side is

wrong, another is more right by contrast. Illogical, but extremely common thinking. The alternative is to recognize that we know very little about the world except through the word of others, and that we must often choose which sources to trust based on what other people say about those sources. True objectivity is hard to find, and very few people make a profit from it. You can be pretty sure that much of what you believe about reality is based on half-truths or facts out of context, and that some of what you believe is simply false. Not fun to think about, but that's reality for you.

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Guest guest]

>

> says:

> >>Saying that journalism in-total is not academic research is, to

my mind,

> changing the subject. It's also illogical. Hmmm, naive too.<<

>

> --I think it is good to be reminded that newspapers are part of a

producer-consumer loop and have a profit motive. Objective, neutral

and in-depth reporting doesn't always hold the attention of a large

enough audience to be worth the expense. I say this not because people

are naive, but because they tend to be too busy to check out facts

(and how does one check facts without trusting another source?) and

because people tend to believe what fits a narrative while having low

trust for the opposite narrative -- I've seen MANY people trust a

" liberal " or " conservative " source because they had such low trust in

" the opposite sources!

'Tis true. I started to suspect that the Iraq war was botched when I

saw first The National Review, and then Will, say so. But

waddaya gonna do? One can't be everywhere, or an expert on everything,

and yet, as a citizen, one must choose.

One is more likely to believe an authority when the message goes

against that authority's known interest. If left wing bloggers say the

economy is tanking, well... they always say that. If the POTUS says

it, then we listen.

Regards,

Dan

People who dismiss Fox while repeating things said on CNN as fact, or

vice-versa. Either way, the assumption is that because one side is

wrong, another is more right by contrast. Illogical, but extremely

common thinking.

>

> The alternative is to recognize that we know very little about the

world except through the word of others, and that we must often choose

which sources to trust based on what other people say about those

sources. True objectivity is hard to find, and very few people make a

profit from it. You can be pretty sure that much of what you believe

about reality is based on half-truths or facts out of context, and

that some of what you believe is simply false. Not fun to think about,

but that's reality for you.

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

>

[Guest guest]

, all,

You write,

> You can be pretty sure that much of what you believe about reality

> is based on half-truths or facts out of context, and that some of what

> you believe is simply false. Not fun to think about, but that's reality

> for you.

This sense is, perhaps, unintentionally ironic.

Yes, it seems we peeps aren't wired efficiently for objectivity. Were we

so, the crucial admission would be just what you suggest, that to the

extent we know anything, we know it partially.

There is a longstanding position, available even as a 'yogic' practice,

which has fallen on hard times. It's to know one's knowledge is partial,

inflected by non-objective features, and, driven by unconscious factors.

Of course those latter factors are by definition unknown. Thus the

position, as it were, is to be as objective as is possible. This could be

termed Critical Consciousness.

Short of the rigor implicate in that approach, one can also be fairly

adept at the whole evidence-premise-argument structure and how one

correctly operationalizes it. Needless to say, it's easy enough to mark up

any editorial or do the same with most news stories in discovering how

badly argued are their resolutions.

But, almost nobody does this even if they're in the tiny cognitive

minority able to do this. At the same time, as Glaswell and others have

noted, intuitive slices can resolve correct hunches about whether

something makes sense or is, in the main, true.

***

Wiped away in this hyper-rational take are dodgy concepts such as eros and

faith. But these are among the alternative means to apprehend the truth of

most matters.

***

, your riff is over-generalized but points out clearly problems.

Highly cogent cases made by so-called academics are superior where they

are so.

There's also retrospective verification. I would guess it is very rarely

the case that when a politician states he or she will do A, and B will

result, when A is implemented, B does in fact result. So, all the punditry

and commentary seems guileless and naive; because nobody says, in advance,

" B isn't bloody likely to be the outcome. It never is. "

Uncertainty is the only certainty? ...one reason I am so sensitive to

other people globalizing their own certainty and then blanketing me with

it.

regards,

[Guest guest]

, all,

As a relentless fence sitter, I concur with your sense that it's prudent

to assume there's a lot of missing information, context, etc. One--of a

certain disposition--may also deploy a counter-argument even when it is

not given. Devil's advocacy is sometimes called for.

I also assume choices are made and what's intentionally left behind may be

worthwhile. However, as far as a straight up argument in favor of a

resolution goes, I'd hope the best arguments are given and the secondary

ones are not.

But I don't rely on the insipid media for much contextual information. The

reader can go out and do the research and better contextualize all kinds

of stuff. Parsimony.

Last night the Republicans debated economic policies. They are generally

expected to conform to an ideological principle about 'keeping money in

the citizen's pockets.' But one can go back and recover the relationship

between purchasing power and taxes and then relate this to brackets and

types of earnings, and figure out what really seems to be the consequences

of various historical 'experiments' in tax policy. It's very well

researched.

Then, the context fulfills the necessary role of qualification: thus

making each and every candidate--last night--look like a charlatan and

snake olil salesman trying to pull the wool over the eyes of those who

can't be bothered to know anything about what actually happened in the

past.

regards,