We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, July 11. 2014
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Mitchell's one screwed up guy.
He [i.e., the ethical conservative] regards as cynical nonsense Robert F. Kennedy’s boast that while other men see things as they are and ask why, he himself dreamed things that never were and asked why not—as if the burden of proof for things that never were lies not with the dreamer but with the skeptic.
RFK was giving a speech on failing US foreign policy and the VN war, he said (and note that he's paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw):
"I think there's more that we can do internally here, I think there's more that we can do in South Vietnam. I don't think we have to accept the situation, as we have it at the moment. I think that we can do better, and I think the American people think that we can do better.
George Bernard Shaw once wrote, "Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say, why not?"
RFK was talking about a concrete situation, Shaw later explained that his idea was about general outlook on life. But this doesn't work for Mitchell, who quotes out of context and elsewhere trots out the usual cherry picked parade of horrors to illustrate why not imagining a better United States is for the best.
The ethical conservative is most skeptical of progressive attempts to effect fundamental changes in human nature and the human condition. When he hears progressives talk of “ending” or “eradicating” evils such as racism, sexism, injustice, inequality, or hate, he thinks of the guillotine and the gulag—implements of past attempts at progressive perfection.
yeah, sorry about the need to eradicate the slave trade, slavery, jim crow, the need for Brown v Board or Miranda, or the timely need Civil Rights Act or the Voting RA -- all of which were done without gulags or guillotines (except their equivalent in the civil war, but Mitchell's ilk did put up a lively stand against change).
Is that the George Bernard Shaw the apologist for Mussolini or George Bernard Shaw the apologist for Stalin?
And who could think Robert Kennedy cynical. Hawk one day dove the next; wiretapping MLK one day, Civil Rights champion the next; aide to Joe McCarthy and Liberal paragon all in one . . .
Your list of things needing eradication are not of the category of things to which Mitchell objects.
RFK may somewhere have been thinking of concrete things but he also chose to speak of dreaming about things that never were, which is airy fairy nonsense. Point Mitchell.
You couldn't content yourself with disagreeing with Mitchell but had to unburden yourself of your stellar insight that he's one screwed up guy.
Your local community college probably has some remedial reading courses for you to take. I recommend the beginner AND the advanced classes.
Then you'll be awesome on these blogs.
people like you always descend to personal attacks. why is that? if you have something substantive to say supporting Mitchell's pompous bullshit, try having a normal discussion or debate. you'll lose, but you'll learn something. this is a political forum, and no one wins debates by resorting to purely ad hom attacks, as has been explained to you more than once.
When you deliberately misrepresent what I say (and fail to make an elementary analysis of what Mitchell wrote) don't expect me to show you much respect.
The bit in parenthesis isn't anything that would warrant a critical response. It warranted the response that I actually made: substantive and to the point, with no personal criticism.
If you can show me what in my response shows that I agreed with you that Mitchell is screwed up, I'll withdraw my sarcasm about your needing remedial reading instruction. As you won't be able to do that, don't act all wounded and stuff about being taken to task for your second-rate intellectual practices.
Tu Quoque Dept.: As I pointed out, you yourself couldn't just disagree with Mitchell. You went straight to his being "screwed up." And I do mean "straight." If that is respectful substantive debate free of personal comment, I'd be surprised.
The irony that the Democrats were in favor of slavery and opposed to the war to free them seems lost on you. That the Democrats started the KKK to continue the assault on civil rights seems to be one of your unknown unknowns. That the South was 100% ruled by Democrat politicans through out the entire period of hate and racism until a majority of Republicans in the congress were able to force a federal civil rights law through seems to have been missed in your progressive day dreaming through life.
what I notice about your comments in particular, and this isn't limited to you by any means, but you're one of the more prominent practitioners of it, is that you're light nonexistent on substantive criticism of anyone who brands himself as "conservative" or adopts a conservative fantasy of constitutional structures and law, and reflexively, unthinkingly heavy on ad homs for everyone else. "liberal" or "progressive" are just brand names for you, polar opposite of your own self-branding, and therefore, evil. anyone is free to adopt childish logic, but here's the real problem: your fawning over the founding fathers and their brilliant yet at the same time deeply flawed work in the constitutional convention prevents you from any serious introspective look at what's wrong with this country. what's wrong with the USofA? those damn liberals, feminists and activist judges. its not a two party system that gives you only the illusion of participation and teaches you not to ask whether something is fundamentally wrong with the system itself, something that might be fixed. RFK / Shaw said dream of things as they might be? commies! In this sense, you're a system tool, which resists any change of any kind. so as long as you can blame the progressives, you don't even have to ask if anything is ever wrong with your own thinking.
you're against slavery? thanks for clearing that up.
hey, did you know that the men who drafted and ratified the constitution, preserving the slave trade and deferring the final resolution of the problem weren't Democrats? no? I figured you didn't, the democrats weren't around until 1828.
do you know why jim crow even existed post-war through the 1960s? in general, because neither the GOP nor the Democrats thought it was worth eradicating when either controlled the government during those 80 or so years, but specifically because because GOP presidents Grant and Hays withdrew federal troops enforcing civil rights in the South as part of a deal involving the disputed 1876 election. although federal troops were previously successful in suppressing the klan and other groups like it, the job was abandoned for political expediency. isn't it ironic?
It's too late to apoligize, apology not accepted.
What I don't understand is your obsession with slavery. It ended in this country 149 years ago.
And I don't understand your preoccupation with the constitution that was signed over 227 years ago.
I assume that in your mind these two historical artifacts can never be forgotten, forgiven or put to rest. They must be trotted out whenever someone even writes, references or speaks any of the dog whistles you listen to. Are you even aware of the serious trouble this country is in today as a result of politicians in office today and decisions made within the last ten years or so? You don't need to go back hundreds of years to find something serious to discuss.
I await your light criticism...