FOT Forum
FOT Community => Links => Topic started by: yesno on July 19, 2008, 12:50:35 PM
-
I love a good smackdown. This one's not as funny as the Friedman one, but it's thorough.
http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=69067f1c-d089-474b-a8a0-945d1deb420b
-
Fuck TNR.
-
Fuck TNR.
Maybe. But pseudo-thought like Klein, as dogmatic as it is ignorant, is worse than reflexive liberal contrarianism or center-leftism or third way-ism or whatever TNR thinks they are.
-
Fuck TNR.
Maybe. But pseudo-thought like Klein, as dogmatic as it is ignorant, is worse than reflexive liberal contrarianism or center-leftism or third way-ism or whatever TNR thinks they are.
How about arrogant neo-con shill-ery?
-
I haven't read Klein's book, just read reviews and seen the short film. But from what I know of it, her ideas ring more true than the TNR review's ideas.
May well be that my pinko prejudices are clouding my reading of this, though.
-
How about arrogant neo-con shill-ery?
Arrogant, yes, but do you really think that TNR is "conservative"? They were dead wrong on the Iraq war, but they're still pretty left of center. Plenty of people to the right of me are still "liberal."
Brandishing them with a disreputable ideological label just seems to me like a convenient way to justify not paying attention to them. Meanwhile, articles like the one I linked to are a necessary corrective to smug totalizing pseudo-intellectuals like Klein.
-
I haven't read Klein's book, just read reviews and seen the short film. But from what I know of it, her ideas ring more true than the TNR review's ideas.
May well be that my pinko prejudices are clouding my reading of this, though.
What kills Klein for me is mostly the same kinds of things the reviewer points out.
Conservatives (of the non kooky religious type) with whom I disagree are not evil. They're just wrong. Maybe they have the same values as me and they're wrong about how to fulfill them. Maybe they just have different values. But smart and good-hearted people can have disagreements without demonizing each other.
Plus, whoppers like calling the Cato Institute "neoconservative" just show she doesn't have the basic knowledge of the political scene that you'd expect from someone, you know, writing a book. The Reason magazine libertarian types did a better job of opposing the Iraq war than, say, Hillary Clinton.
-
I'm a liberal in plenty of other places on the Internet, but I always wonder if I'm not the most conservative regular FOT poster.
-
I'm a liberal in plenty of other places on the Internet, but I always wonder if I'm not the most conservative regular FOT poster.
Not if Tom counts.
I'm politically eclectic in that I've been accused of being both a Stalinist and a Rockefeller republican. A dogmatic pragmatist.
I actually know and work with with plenty of Republicans, which is why naive bashing of them as if they're just some monolithic force of evil bugs me. I try to know people from a wide variety of walks of life. I don't think your average Daily Kos poster really thinks that's valuable. Trust me, the naivety of most of those on the right of the subtlety and diversity of liberal thought is staggering, but if liberals are going to parade about as if they're the smart ones I think it's not unfair to expect better of them.
And here is a pretty good left wing takedown of right wing know-nothings (the kind that think that socialism=Stalinism, basically):
http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=992
It's not as humorously written, though.
-
Fuck TNR.
Maybe. But pseudo-thought like Klein, as dogmatic as it is ignorant, is worse than reflexive liberal contrarianism or center-leftism or third way-ism or whatever TNR thinks they are.
Funny, I would never think of Naomi Klien as not genuine...in any topic that she might like to investigate. Fences and Windows, No Logo and various articles for print seem extremely well done. I have Shock Doctrine sitting on my coffee table back home. Look forward to reading it. It will be interesting to reference the notes from the article you linked when I get around to reading the book.
I think she's brilliant, we need more people like her!
-
I think her reportage is great. I enjoyed No Logo when it came out.
I just think she is unwilling to examine her assumptions about what makes her opponents tick. The fact that she can't even keep straight who believes in what is just the most obvious symptom. Plus, she's an ideologue, which is dangerous.
Maybe stuff like Shock Doctrine serves some kind of purpose in the grand scheme of things. That doesn't mean it's not tendentious hornswaggle.
-
I've been staying out of this thread, because I haven't read Shock Doctrine yet and I glazed over at that TNR article almost instantly. I actually like that Franklin Foer guy who is (I think) the new editor in chief, but I pretty much agree with Grimcock - TNR is all about finding intellectual justifications of power for me.
Klein has sounded pretty credible in interviews on the book. If she's actually saying that there's some kind of conscious conspiracy between Milton Friedman-style neoliberal economics, the CIA, and clueless 50s mental health professionals, well, she's probably wrong, but I don't get the impression that that's what she's saying. And honestly, a lot of neoliberal economics (like in Chile) has clearly been evil by any objective measure, regardless of the personal morality of the people behind it.
-
It comes down to this, JG: she doesn't bother to see a difference between the neoliberal economics of the Chicago School and Friedman and Cato, and the very un-neo-liberal neocon crowd. If you oppose the wanton use of military force, you should talk to and form strategic alliances with those folks, not treat them as though they're something they're not, or come up with some fancy intellectual dance as to why being opposed to war is really being in favor of war when you are otherwise pro-business.
To me, this is just a factual error of a most basic kind which tells me she's not terribly interested in seriously understanding the opponents she is writing a freaking book about.
The other point she makes in the book-- that people take advantage of terrible circumstances to rush through political change-- is correct, but hardly a new phenomenon or limited to one group.
She imputes bad faith to her opponents, not a conspiracy. That just bugs me.
-
I guess I should clarify that I *also* impute bad faith the many on the right who saw it as justified to lie or bend the facts in order to achieve an outcome they thought was desirable.
I just think it's odd that she doesn't see a difference between that crew and the economics guys. Particularly when, it can't be stressed enough, those guys oppose the use of military force to achieve political ends.
I also see a difference between liberal interventionists and neocons. There's a lot of crossover when it comes to the use of military force and foreign policy, but I still see them as distinct. The fact that TNR finds "intellectual justifications for power" doesn't make them neoconservative. By that standard, the Clintons would be, too.
-
Oh, dear, why am I wading into this?
I equate Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein (and Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon) with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (and David Horowitz and Michelle Malkin).
Boil it, boil it, boil it and every one of them has the same argument: things are bad for you because of THEM. You aren't happy because of THEM. THEY are bad, and THEY prevent you from being good. THEY are morally bankrupt and out to get you.
The only difference is who THEM is. It's the reason that so many people on the extremes of so many positions used to be at the EXACT OPPOSITE extreme. They're addicted to blame; who is getting blamed is almost an afterthought.
-
Oh, dear, why am I wading into this?
I equate Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein (and Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon) with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (and David Horowitz and Michelle Malkin).
Boil it, boil it, boil it and every one of them has the same argument: things are bad for you because of THEM. You aren't happy because of THEM. THEY are bad, and THEY prevent you from being good. THEY are morally bankrupt and out to get you.
The only difference is who THEM is. It's the reason that so many people on the extremes of so many positions used to be at the EXACT OPPOSITE extreme. They're addicted to blame; who is getting blamed is almost an afterthought.
I would agree that Chomsky and Klein can be repetitive, but there is a HUGE difference between them and people who blame terrorist attacks on homosexuals, for example, or hurricanes on a gay pride parade. Sometimes overextending an argument about the dangers of free market systems is not the same as being a racist or a sexist. I read the Shock Doctrine and felt that she tried to squash too much into her overarching theory of all things, but try to refute her by arguing that Pinochet was justified in his behavior or that the United States has benefited from torturing people; making an argument a little too broad in order to make it digestible for a book is not the same as using religion or the media to get people to avoid talking about the state of their country or government. Sometimes BLAME is okay if it leads to accountability and to righting the system -- the problem is that we don't ever get to the accountability part, especially not for business or politics.
I too am confused as to why I've got into this turd-throwing thread.
-
Oh, dear, why am I wading into this?
I equate Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein (and Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon) with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (and David Horowitz and Michelle Malkin).
Boil it, boil it, boil it and every one of them has the same argument: things are bad for you because of THEM. You aren't happy because of THEM. THEY are bad, and THEY prevent you from being good. THEY are morally bankrupt and out to get you.
The only difference is who THEM is. It's the reason that so many people on the extremes of so many positions used to be at the EXACT OPPOSITE extreme. They're addicted to blame; who is getting blamed is almost an afterthought.
No offense, but this kind of simplistic equivalency argument is one of the worst aspects of American politics today. Boiling them down to their essence is usually a misguided attempt by people without a firm grasp on the facts to justify their shaky understanding. Basically, it does exactly what Yesno said earlier:
Brandishing them with a disreputable ideological label just seems to me like a convenient way to justify not paying attention to them.
It's pretty easy to draw ideological parallels between people on the right and the left and just throw your arms in the air and say "It's all the same garbage!" But it's not. The two approaches yield different results.
I'm not trying to call you out or start a fight or anything, I'm just saying I don't find that kind of argument useful. Because then the conversation turns into a distracting "Noam Chomsky is nothing like Pat Robertson!" mudslinging contest instead of a thoughtful analysis of each position individually.
-
Oh, dear, why am I wading into this?
I equate Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein (and Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon) with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (and David Horowitz and Michelle Malkin).
Boil it, boil it, boil it and every one of them has the same argument: things are bad for you because of THEM. You aren't happy because of THEM. THEY are bad, and THEY prevent you from being good. THEY are morally bankrupt and out to get you.
The only difference is who THEM is. It's the reason that so many people on the extremes of so many positions used to be at the EXACT OPPOSITE extreme. They're addicted to blame; who is getting blamed is almost an afterthought.
I gotta say, from what I've read of Chomsky (i.e. only the easy stuff) this isn't true at all. He usually takes a pretty hard-nosed, fact-based analytical approach. The only reason it seems extreme is because of the terms of discourse in mainstream culture, which are, arguably, pretty extreme themselves.
I will lend my voice to the chorus of people who have no real interest in an argument about this. But if your familiarity with Chomsky is mostly anecdotal, you should check out some of his lectures. They're cogent, and to me (in the context of my pinko prejudices) very convincing.
-
Granted I know Klein mainly from hearing her in interviews and documentaries, but mostly from her followers (I went to college with many of them). However, that review of her seemed pretty right on with the problems that I've had with her (though more with the faction of political thinking that holds her up). The shrill-ness and blame corporations (and now neocons) for everything attitude, I think, blocks clear or useful thinking. Its a defensive stance that doesn't allow for either comprimise or priorities. Everything is part of a right wing cabal of people who apparently think exactly the same thing. Often, it doesn't matter what it is, but its definitely evil.
I agree with so many of the basic ideas that followers of Klein (ultra-left? I honestly am less comfortable with many of the political labels than apparently Klein is) about over-consumption and the limits on the use of military force. But the rhetoric of conspiracy and black and white thinking has always left me cold. I might feel the same about TNR, but that doesn't mean their generally view of her failings aren't on the money.
-
TNR is actually largely for spreading a number of distortions about what Chomsky believes. In fact Christopher Hitchens wrote an article on that very point in the 80s: http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm
So I understand a suspicion of what they publish. I've never truly understood where the "New Democrats" were coming from -- it never seemed to be about ideas to them. In the Klein case, I think it's unwarranted, because I think she does engage in a lot of facile generalizations that need to be called out.
-
I think I'll be done with this on this board. I'd rather keep my political boards and my radio show boards pretty separate.*
I did want to respond to Bryan by saying I've heard and read a lot of things from Chomsky (and all the other people I listed with the exception, amusingly enough, of Naomi Klein - mea culpa). And also to say that I disagree with Todd over the usefulness of "a plague o' both your houses" type arguments, but that I agree with him that further debate over their usefulness is probably not a wise thing to do.
*To that end, I am wondering why Philly Boy Roy has never weighed in on East Oak Lane's famous native.
-
Buffcoat: Fair enough.
Yesno: thanks for that link. Oh, for the days before Hitchens destroyed his mind with drink!
-
Buffcoat: Fair enough.
Yesno: thanks for that link. Oh, for the days before Hitchens destroyed his mind with drink!
I met Hitchens when I was in college. A group of which I was a member of invited him to our campus to speak. Which he accepted, and he was fascinating and brilliant. However, since this was almost 20 years ago, I can't for the life of me remember what he discussed. (This is not due to alcohol consumption, only age and the passing of time.) I do remember going out with him and a group of students to one of the few local bars, appropriately enough, and I distinctly recall feeling that none of us was his intellectual equal. Not even close, and that intimidated me, probably more than it should have. 20 years hence, with all that Hitchens has written, there is no way in the world I would feel similarly intimidated by having a drink/drinks and a conversation with him. I would probably be focused on asking why the hell he has written some of the things he has. On the other hand, I've grown up a lot and have much more confidence in myself.
-
Wait, I realize that I'm confused by this thread. Is this the smackdown you all were talking about?
(http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/actors_films_images/king_kongs_paw_naomi_watts.jpg)
-
I think Hitchens is a brilliant writer. Just not a very convincing one. He's a pretty good example of the immoderate thinker who ricochets from one extreme to the other.
-
I'd concur with that assessment wholeheartedly, and would add that that's a combination that makes for great television, less so for great writing.
-
I haven't read anything by any of these people but I have a subscription to Harper's and I agree with buffcoat!
The End.
-
Buffcoat, you get down off of that ledge RIGHT NOW
-
Buffcoat, you get down off of that ledge RIGHT NOW
Wait, does this mean I'm the monkey?
-
If so, be flattered.
-
I love a good smackdown. This one's not as funny as the Friedman one, but it's thorough.
http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=69067f1c-d089-474b-a8a0-945d1deb420b
I saw her speak last night and it made me revisit this thread and the review in TNR. Klein's response:
www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/09/response-attackshttp://
-
Yeah, I saw that. I guess it just bugs me that people who were stridently against the Iraq war get no credit for that, because of some of their allies on unrelated issues. Libertarian opposition to war is consistent, unlike that of the Democratic party with its periodic bouts of Clintonism.
She does not address the fundamental critique of her book: that politicians of all stripes, left and right, use crises (and manufacture them) in order to push through their agendas. This only seems sinister and wrong when you oppose those agendas. And it imputes evil intentions to people who are acting in good faith. There are plenty of evil things on the right to pick on, without having to invent new ones.
Btw, people have responded to her response (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9626), but they're just arguing about who said what when, which doesn't seem all that consequential.
I'm hoping that the financial crisis allows a democratic administration and congress to push through universal-ish health care. Obama is on record saying that change is hard to achieve during good times, because most people are "conservative" in that they don't want to rock to boat. Does this make us "shock social democrats"? Do I believe in disaster equality?
-
On the other hand, I mostly agree with this Klein speech:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/6/naomi_klein
Which is that economic ideology, in and of itself, can be dangerous. Trying to implement Marxism without paying attention to reality is dangerous, and trying to implement economic liberalism without paying attention to facts on the ground is dangerous. I totally agree. There's no such thing as a correct way to run society. Some things work, some don't, and it all just depends. People are not predictable economic actors and different people in different societies at different times behave differently.
I don't agree that this means that people who have promoted particular ideas are responsible when others who try to implement them outright ignore what those ideas are. Marx is not responsible for Stalin. Being a pragmatist does not mean that you have to denounce everyone who thinks he has a good idea and that it is correct for being an "ideologue." The people who come up with policies and ideas are not the bad kind of ideologue, the people who keep trying to ram them through at enormous human cost, even when it's clear they're not working, are.
-
I don't agree that this means that people who have promoted particular ideas are responsible when others who try to implement them outright ignore what those ideas are.
Like Jesus, you mean?
-
to equate Chomsky with those other numbskulls
is the kind of false equivalency that deserves a belt buckle to the face.
-
to equate Chomsky with those other numbskulls
is the kind of false equivalency that deserves a belt buckle to the face.
I agree with Trembling Eagle.
-
to equate Chomsky with those other numbskulls
is the kind of false equivalency that deserves a belt buckle to the face.
I agree with Trembling Eagle.
Me too, but who did that?
-
how have I been out of this thread for so long? It's so exciting.
-
I think TE is referring to this:
Oh, dear, why am I wading into this?
I equate Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein (and Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon) with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (and David Horowitz and Michelle Malkin).
But b/guffcoat, though he may be wrong on this point, most certainly does not deserve a belt buckle to the face.
-
Anybody wants to try to belt-buckle the buffcoat is welcome to come and try it. See whatcha get.
The best thing about Obama's election (which I supported) will be seeing the loony right commit fratricide over and over again for 8 years.
The second best thing about Obama's election will be watching the delightful disappointment on the faces of the loony lefties as they realize that they aren't going to get what they want, and that they broke all those Starbucks windows for nothing.
-
Anybody wants to try to belt-buckle the buffcoat is welcome to come and try it. See whatcha get.
The best thing about Obama's election (which I supported) will be seeing the loony right commit fratricide over and over again for 8 years.
The second best thing about Obama's election will be watching the delightful disappointment on the faces of the loony lefties as they realize that they aren't going to get what they want, and that they broke all those Starbucks windows for nothing.
yeah that loony left
wanting healthcare for kids and to treat gays as human beings. They can just go to hell with that craziness huh?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loony_left
-
Anybody wants to try to belt-buckle the buffcoat is welcome to come and try it. See whatcha get.
The best thing about Obama's election (which I supported) will be seeing the loony right commit fratricide over and over again for 8 years.
The second best thing about Obama's election will be watching the delightful disappointment on the faces of the loony lefties as they realize that they aren't going to get what they want, and that they broke all those Starbucks windows for nothing.
yeah that loony left
wanting healthcare for kids and to treat gays as human beings. They can just go to hell with that craziness huh?
Exactly.
Wait, no. How, exactly, do the Fairness Doctrine and Card Check provide healthcare for kids and treating gays as human beings?
We just got finished defending against right-wing nutters wanting to leer into our bedrooms and doctors' offices for 14 years. Now we have to let Aunt Nancy and Uncle Harry tell radio stations what to say?
Everybody who's been out of power wants to overplay their hands as soon as they get back in. It's the way of the world, and it's why the people who just got kicked out will be kicked back in before too long. So it goes.
PS I'm a centrist NC Democrat who has never voted for a Republican in my life, but somehow I've become the FOT resident conservative? This must be what George Will and David Brooks feel like all the time.
-
Obama already wants to bail out the auto industry which is (pardon the wonkish term) retarded.
-
PS I'm a centrist NC Democrat who has never voted for a Republican in my life, but somehow I've become the FOT resident conservative? This must be what George Will and David Brooks feel like all the time.
Don't let it get you down, Comrade.
-
The term "Politically Correct" has been dragged through the mud for so long by the right wing and by stuff like South Park that it's hard to remember that there was a period of time where the concept really did have a chilling effect on discourse and it certainly inspired a lot of self censorship that got in the way of actual progressive dialogue. But now we've had the reactionary "Politically Incorrect and Proud!" stuff for so long it's actually exceeded the era where there really was an arguably oppressive atmosphere that one had to be sensitive to all present and non-present underrepresented groups at all times. Obama actually seems to be able to diffuse some of those tensions, and that's a good thing. It would be a shame if some of that stuff came back, because it will only mean even more backlash further down the road. Americans of every political stripe chafe at being told the proper way to express themselves and the proper way to think.
-
The term "Politically Correct" has been dragged through the mud for so long by the right wing and by stuff like South Park that it's hard to remember that there was a period of time where the concept really did have a chilling effect on discourse and it certainly inspired a lot of self censorship that got in the way of actual progressive dialogue. But now we've had the reactionary "Politically Incorrect and Proud!" stuff for so long it's actually exceeded the era where there really was an arguably oppressive atmosphere that one had to be sensitive to all present and non-present underrepresented groups at all times. Obama actually seems to be able to diffuse some of those tensions, and that's a good thing. It would be a shame if some of that stuff came back, because it will only mean even more backlash further down the road. Americans of every political stripe chafe at being told the proper way to express themselves and the proper way to think.
Whatever. I missed that era, probably because it only exists/ed in the heads of certain people. For example: people are "Native" or "First Nation" not fucking Indians, there is a country called India those folks are Indians. It doesn't take much energy to give your fellow human beings the basic respect of addressing them properly.
In 2008 we are STILL having this argument, really? really??
-
Nice of you to decide for people what they're supposed to call themselves.
http://www.aimovement.org/
-
Nice of you to decide for people what they're supposed to call themselves.
http://www.aimovement.org/
The larger point is I'll call people whatever it is they want to be called without feeling put out about it.
I'm sure you understand that.. I can just feel the NAACP argument coming on
"well they call themselves that" "if there is a BET how come there can't be a WHITE ...."
kill yourself
-
Nice of you to decide for people what they're supposed to call themselves.
http://www.aimovement.org/
The larger point is I'll call people whatever it is they want to be called without feeling put out about it.
I'm sure you understand that.. I can just feel the NAACP argument coming on
"well they call themselves that" "if there is a BET how come there can't be a WHITE ...."
kill yourself
quit being a dick, dick
-
I'll say it again: I like you, TE.
-
Nice of you to decide for people what they're supposed to call themselves.
http://www.aimovement.org/
The larger point is I'll call people whatever it is they want to be called without feeling put out about it.
I'm sure you understand that.. I can just feel the NAACP argument coming on
"well they call themselves that" "if there is a BET how come there can't be a WHITE ...."
kill yourself
I like you TE, too, but that doesn't mean you're not a dumbass.
"Native American" was a term invented by white anthropologists. There is no "correct" term, though "American Indian" is preferred.
( edit: this is how I know this: http://www.colorado.edu/Law/clinics/ilc/ )
-
Have I ever mentioned that I am a member in good standing of these folks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creek_people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creek_people)
So what is it you need to know about me and my people?
-
So what is it you need to know about me and my people?
A lot of Raymond M. Smullyan fans among your people? If you like those logic games you'd ace the LSAT.
Also, this is the single best and most concise essay/response on a bugbear of mine:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corporations-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now/
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/12/matthew-yglesias/politics-compromises-the-libertarian-project/
It's about how it's rubbish that the US economy is described as a "free market" economy. A "free market" might be good or bad. Or corporatism might be good or bad. Who knows. The point it, they're not the same thing, so criticism of one is not criticism of the other unless you can convincingly show that one *must* lead to the other. Back to Naomi Klein land the argument would be that just as pure Marxism leads inevitably to Stalinism (but impure Marxism leads to the pleasant vale of social democracy!), pure libertarianism leads inevitably to corporatism.
I really, really, really can't recommend that essay enough. Since I'm someone who likes business and entrepreneurship but who has been accused of being a raging pinko for failing to support a pro-corporate agenda, it hits close to home.
-
The term "Politically Correct" has been dragged through the mud for so long by the right wing and by stuff like South Park that it's hard to remember that there was a period of time where the concept really did have a chilling effect on discourse and it certainly inspired a lot of self censorship that got in the way of actual progressive dialogue. But now we've had the reactionary "Politically Incorrect and Proud!" stuff for so long it's actually exceeded the era where there really was an arguably oppressive atmosphere that one had to be sensitive to all present and non-present underrepresented groups at all times. Obama actually seems to be able to diffuse some of those tensions, and that's a good thing. It would be a shame if some of that stuff came back, because it will only mean even more backlash further down the road. Americans of every political stripe chafe at being told the proper way to express themselves and the proper way to think.
Whatever. I missed that era, probably because it only exists/ed in the heads of certain people. For example: people are "Native" or "First Nation" not fucking Indians, there is a country called India those folks are Indians. It doesn't take much energy to give your fellow human beings the basic respect of addressing them properly.
In 2008 we are STILL having this argument, really? really??
I'm not really arguing with you. I don't really respect your opinion.