Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (18701)	5/25/2005 10:15:04 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361250

"Those terms, used in the post-WWII era by philosopher Theodor Adorno and historian Richard Hofstadter, loosely applied to McCarthyite types with a crypto-fascist streak who were much less “American” than those they denounced" p m carpenter's commentary May 24, 2005 A pseudoconservative coup on its last, wretched breath The recent New York Times’ story on the world’s increasingly hostile opinion of America in light of detainee-abuse reports was as revealing in what it did not address as what it did. It wasn’t the journalists’ fault; their point was merely to objectively frame how we’re subjectively perceived around the globe -- and of course it ain’t good. As the article summarized, “Accounts of abuses … ricochet around the world, instilling ideas about American power and justice, and sowing distrust of the United States.” And as an Afghan curtly lamented, “The Americans were good people before.” It was a poignant report that went on in that vein for 1500 words, and was depressing as hell. But I found this short passage to encapsulate a good deal of misunderstanding, at least in Europe, where, according to the article, many people have “a persistent and uneasy sense that the United States fundamentally changed after September 11, and not for the better.” Their misunderstanding lies in 9/11 as the turning point, while the truth, I think, is that America’s post-9/11 behavior was not a transformation in, but merely a symptom of, the Bush administration’s fundamental personality. That personality has us cornered because it’s a reckless one -- both authoritarian and pseudoconservative. Those terms, used in the post-WWII era by philosopher Theodor Adorno and historian Richard Hofstadter, loosely applied to McCarthyite types with a crypto-fascist streak who were much less “American” than those they denounced. And from their unwitting vantage point of a half-century past, no one portrayed the current administration better than Adorno and Hofstadter -- 9/11 merely helped to put that portrayal in stark relief. Hofstadter’s “pseudoconservative” -- so named because of the subject’s radicalism, not traditional conservatism -- was, deep down, the living antithesis of American ideals. He was “a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their destruction” (emphasis added). This flag-waving, cliché-spouting, dissent-hating patriot both loathed democratic government and endorsed its worst oppressions. Again, think McCarthy. Adorno’s associated “authoritarian personality” possessed, among others, these traits: a generally hostile frame of mind; an obsession with characterizing groups and individuals in terms of the “strong” and “weak”; a fixed adherence to what he holds as “moral values”; an urge to punish whoever violates those values; and an animosity toward stereotyped “bleeding hearts.” Frame them together -- the authoritarian and pseudoconservative -- and you have a creepy psychological snapshot of this country’s leaders and the retrograde population that still supports them. It’s an oddly antiAmerican-values bunch that, even though in the minority, managed to gain a foothold because so many in the majority just didn’t give a damn soon enough. We permitted a bloodless, ideological coup. Consider the above disorders in relation to the Bushies. They and their domestic cheerleaders got us into the madness of invasion and occupation, which invited the madness of detainee abuse, because it was the feel-good, muscular thing to do: They cooked up a threat and then devoured it. They manipulated democratic consent. They showed the world who’s strong and who’s weak (the foreign ninnies not joining us, the critical ninnies at home). They exploited “moral values” as political cover. And above all they pushed the notion that our actions were the ennoblement of American ideals -- when they decidedly were not. But in America’s defense I’ll say this to the world: Things are changing. Not within the difficult and diehard minority, God knows, which we’ll always have and every nation has. But within the majority, which, according to polls, has had enough from our authoritarian-pseudoconservative collection of neo-McCarthyites. So don’t give up on us just yet. pmcarpenter.blogs.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (18701)	5/25/2005 1:01:14 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 361250

Since YOU know about Peak Oil I would suppose Bush/Cheney knew about it years ago since they're oil men. So maybe Bush intended all along to take over Iraq for its oil reserves. We're building about 4 super-bases in Iraq I hear. Bet they will be located in big oil areas, and particularly one in the south where we'll have access to the coast for shipping it out. Maybe around Umm Qasr..see map. fas.org This idea makes 100% logical sense to me. What do ya'll think?