| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Conservatism is the Voice of Youth. I keep thinking of this comment posted here recently by Michael:
The left wants the world to stay the same as it was in the late 60s and early 70s, plain & simple. They were young and had some influence then.
But they have become so old, grumpy & out of touch that they turn all normal people off. Q: if you were young and rising, with energy and hope and excitement at your life ahead, which would you go with: A) those who are dour & hate everything and see evil in you, your family, your beliefs and your nation, & have no joy in life OR B)those who are generally positive and optimistic & see opportunities for improvement and growth, and generally enjoy the wonderful gift called life?
I choose B.
It rings true.
#2Thanks for the comment, Bellman. Don't you find that the leadership on the Left, e.g Kennedy, and leading bloggers on the Left like Kos, are kind of the way Michael describes them? For reference, here's the post Michael was commenting on.
One doesn't have to look hard to find angry people on either side of the political debate. You choose to look at the mild Glenn Reynolds and the not-at-all-mild Kos. I'm too lazy to do it, but you could perform a similar survey of Matt Yglesias (for the left) and somebody like NiceDoggie (for the right) and get the opposite results.
As for the political leadership, you can count on the minority party to be shrill. Remember the Republican leadership under Clinton, and the Democratic leadership under Reagan/Bush? Shrill. It's their job.
Finally, I post about my personal goodwill wishes (for today) over on my site.
BTW, this live preview feature is very nice.
#5One doesn't have to look hard to find angry people on either side of the political debate. You choose to look at the mild Glenn Reynolds and the not-at-all-mild Kos. I'm too lazy to do it, but you could perform a similar survey of Matt Yglesias (for the left) and somebody like NiceDoggie (for the right) and get the opposite results.
That is not correct. The two sites were not chosen at random to make a case; they are the leading Conservative and Liberal weblogs, per TruthLaidBear.com.
Finally, I post about my personal goodwill wishes (for today) over on my site.
Cool!
BTW, this live preview feature is very nice.
Thanks. I'm glad you like it.
That is not correct. The two sites were not chosen at random to make a case; they are the leading Conservative and Liberal weblogs, per TruthLaidBear.com.
Well, not to get all social science-y on you, but...
A. If you are interested in a true represenation of the "average" liberal or conservative blog reader (which, I might add, is not necessarily similar to the average liberal or conservative), you would need to examine the readership and posters at several sites. As a side note, I find the *comments* sections of many blogs to be particularly pessimistic (Kos) and in some cases evil (LGF). But if you are interested in the whole forest, you gotta count a LOT of trees.
B. Don't believe the numbers on Kos. More readers than the next two combined? Hard to believe. I think it is counting all the sub-blogs that make up the Diaries section. Also, I read somewhere that there might be some automated hit-inflating going on over there... BUT, that is a vicious rumor that I never saw any proof of.
Suffice it to say that if you believe TLB's numbers, there are WAY more liberals than conservatives, since the "top" liberal site beats the "top" conservative site by hundreds of thousands of users. And that is clearly not true, or Denis Kucinich would be King.
#7The subject of my post was the bloggers, rather than the readers. But you've suggested some good ways to expand the scope of the inquiry.
I've posted previously on how it seems to me that the rank and file on the Left is better than their leaders. From this post:
Why will the rank and file on the Left pay attention to what we say?
Because they really do love America and want what's best for this country.
Fair enough. I feel the same way about the Right. Most are fine people, it's the leaders who are either incompetent or malicious.
#9...it?s the leaders who are either incompetent or malicious.
There's that harshness that is so strongly associated with the Left these days, and which I blogged on earlier this week. Harsh language like this is common to Liberal leaders such as Dean and Gore, and leading Liberal bloggers such as Kos.
It seems very anomalous. It amounts to little more than name-calling. I don't think it's persuasive to others. Why is this such a feature of the language of the Left?
Vik,
Oh, come now. How's about a few 'moonbats'? 'Feminazis'? 'Environmental wackos'? Even the word 'liberal' these days means anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view.
Pot. Meet kettle.
This is not to excuse the Left, but to point out that, if we're going to excoriate the Left for its use of language, we need to excoriate everyone for such tactics. So while we take Bellman to the mat for saying the leadership is "either incompetent or malicious", we need also stand up to Michael for writing things like the Left is "so old, grumpy & out of touch that they turn all normal people off.". There's lots of normal people (like your truly) who are fairly Leftie, and who are equally irritated by the constant barrage of name calling and innuendo by folks on the Right. (Well, I wouldn't say I'm too irritated. I generally laugh people like that off no matter what politcal stripe they may be.)
stephen
Well, I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but I truly believe that the Bush administration is, in many respects, either incompetent or malicious. I am not clear on which it is, but certainly one.
I wasn't here trying to persuade you of that fact, since it was not the topic at hand. If you are interested in a debate on that subject, I will be happy to raise several supporting points.
I like to call things how I see them. That's how I see them. I don't feel like I've become some bitter person since Bush chose to invade Iraq, so my changing rhetoric is (in my opinion) changes as the situation changes.
#12Thanks for the comment, Stephen.
"Moonbats" etc. doesn't to me compare with "incompetent and malicious." I mean, come on. "Incompetent and malicious" -- that's pretty harsh.
If it were an isolated incident, it would be nothing, but there's just tons and tons of it on the Left, from Janeane Garofolo to Dean ("I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for") to Gore ("He betrayed this country") to Kos ("Screw 'em.")
Here you have the leader of the DNC, Dean, saying "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." You can't get around that. Hate has no rightful place in American politics. You'll find no comparable quote from a top political leader on the Right.
#13Bellman, thanks for the feedback.
Well, I?m sorry if it sounds harsh,
...well, it sounds like we agree on the harshness.
Vik,
There's no denying what you say. The leadership of the Democrats, or of the Left, to the extent they promote hate or call names, have no excuse for what they do. While Dean didn't call anyone a name, stating he "hates" Republicans was repugnant, and he should have been taken to task for what he said.
As for making comparable statements, mmm, I wouldn't quite say that "You?ll find no comparable quote from a top political leader on the Right." For example, rather than say outright they hate gays, the likes of Jesse Helms and Alan Keys say they're sick, sinful and unacceptable. Or, as I said above, some Republicans (even the leadership) will just insinuate:
Americans must be wondering why it is that Al Qaeda, this ragtag bunch of terrorists scattered all over the globe, can reorganize themselves ... and the United States cannot reorganize itself. Al Qaeda doesn't have a Senate. Al Qaeda doesn't have a Senator Daschle that has another focus. -- Dick Armey, October 16th, 2002
Or how about Michael Burgess, a Republican representative from Texas, who implied the Democrats are traitors: "[they] basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy"? What about Orrin Hatch who, prior to the last election, said terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry", as if Kerry was one of them?
Need I mention Ann Coulter and Michael Savage?
I'm all for civility in discourse, and I think the more fiery among us on the Left need to rethink their tactics in this regard. I'm a firm believer in the honey-catches-flies-thingie. I think there's lots of folks on the Left who think much the same as me. Yes, there's Kennedy, Dean, Jesse Jackson and all the rest. But there's also Ben Nelson, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and quite a few others.
Funny, but you never hear praise for the leaders on the Left who are both civil and reasonable.
stephen
#15There?s no denying what you say. The leadership of the Democrats, or of the Left, to the extent they promote hate or call names, have no excuse for what they do. While Dean didn?t call anyone a name, stating he ?hates? Republicans was repugnant, and he should have been taken to task for what he said.
Cool, thanks!
As for making comparable statements, mmm, I wouldn?t quite say that ?You?ll find no comparable quote from a top political leader on the Right.?
Jesse Helms, Alan Keys, and Burgess are hardly in a political position comparable to Dean and Gore.
Funny, but you never hear praise for the leaders on the Left who are both civil and reasonable.
You hear a lot of people say good things about Lieberman.
#16hi vik
once again its me. your last reply didnot address the issues that i had raised.anyway,the topic today is different. i think you will be astonished to know that most of the left support today in various parts of the world comes from the young. how else does one explain the presence of a poster of that great beacon of struggle against opression,che guevara, among student demonstartion in italy as late as 1998?the next wave of movement is going to come from the support of the youth . how else can any movement ever grow? the maoist struggle in nepal today is totally dependent on the young guerillas in the hills of nepal. one last thing, i was going through your exchanges with bellman. understand this the communist movement since its inception has been international.so if you really are debating about communism there makes no sense in debating about what the left leaders have done for the US. a leader who confines himself to national boundaries can never ever be a true marxist even if he swears by the ideology.off course the debate over whether internatioanlism is more important over nationlism is another matter.but please understand no leader in the US bears even a semblence of similarity to any communist leader.the aim of communism is never as you say to make a nation great, it is always to make humanity sans frontier great.
yours sincerely
sukirti
#17Sukirti,
It appears to me that it is not possible to determine what you are seeking to say in this comment.
Let me ask you this. In most parts of the world Communism has been abandoned. How did you become interested in Communism?
#18hi vik
to me it seems quite clear what my comment is all about. the points i made concerned
1) the involvement of youth in the communist movement today where i cited the continuing example of che guevara's haunting presence in student demonstrations in italy as late as 1998 and the maoits movement in nepal. i dont know whether sitting comfortably in the US you are even aware about what goes on in the poorer parts of the world. nepal after all is not an important trade ally of the US.
2)your exchanges with bellman are basically flawed because none of you have understood the true nature of communism.it is not national in nature. the question raised is how the left can contribute to the greatness of your nation. thats is unmarxist and no left leader worth his weight can ever talk about such things. we are more concerned about the whole of the world rather than just a single nation.
and about my interest in communism i feel its immaterial to ask how i went into that but suffice it to say that in parts of the world which you may not consider at all important communism still thrives.it is only after reading marx for the last seven years that i have become convinced and by seeing the brazen and bestial imperialist acts of the rich natiions, most of all the US seconded by britain europe, a fact predicted by marx that i have come to accept this glowing ideology. the struggle is not yet over. we will continue our fight for the poor and the opressed while you may think that by subjugating others through threats the US becomes great.i dont know you always talk about banning the works of marx. if it is all flaweda nd can easily be torn to shreds why are you guys so afraid of just allowing others to read his works? are you all afarid that it will show the true nature of capital to your youth.youare so afraid that marxism is taught in some universities. why? why fear a disgraced and flawed and illogical ideology?
yours sincerely
sukirti
#19Hi Sukirti,
Responding to your points:
1) Is there a Maoist movement in Nepal? I'm interested in what's happening in all parts of the world, which is why I asked in my last email what got you interested in Communism.
2) Your notion that Communism has never been intended to contribute to the greatness of the individual nation in which it is practiced is not correct in the case of the nations in which it has been practiced to date.
Perhaps you subscribe to some version of Communism which is not intended to do so. How can you hope to have any effect internationally if Communism does not contribute to the greatness of the nations in which it is practiced?
3) I appreciate that you have been reading Marx for the past 7 years. Be aware that on the page Marx sounds very appealing. Literally millions of people have fallen into the trap of believing in it, the result of which has been untold tragedy, such that Russia itself has been forced to abandon it. Why do you chose to study Marxism given that historically it has been proven to lead to tragedy?
i dont know you always talk about banning the works of marx.
No one in the U.S. talks about banning the works of Marx. I believe that Communism leads to tragedy and I have the right to say so. Because I live in a democracy I am free to say anything I want about any form of government, and any government leadership, including that of the U.S. If you, however, were living in a Communist country, and wished to criticize your government or its leaders, you would be imprisoned. Why do you want that for yourself?
Sukirty, nobody bans books in the U.S. anymore, even in schools, unless they talk about evolution.
Seriously, I force my students to read Marx as well as Adam Smith. And this whole post was about the United States' Left, which is hardly communist.
Vik, the Maoists have been fighting against the U.S.-funded monarcy in Nepal for year. Some recent news on this.
#22Bellman, thanks for this cool link. This is an amazing story. So the King is a tyrant and shut down the democratic government. It makes sense that the people would try to overthrow them, but I believe they are making a potentially tragic error in seeking to replace the King with Communism -- which will only be another form of tyranny for the people of Nepal.
The U.S. is involved:
Nepal's government has given no official reaction to Britain and India's decisions to cut military aid after King Gyanendra dismissed the government more than three weeks ago.
,,,The king said he acted because the politicians had failed to organize elections and end a nine-year conflict with Maoist insurgents. King Gyanendra has described his royal proclamation, which may remain in place for three years, as an effort to save Nepal's democracy. Britain, India and the United States are not convinced. All three have supplied Nepal's government with hundreds of millions of dollars in military hardware or training for its fight against the Maoists.
The group, formally known as the Communist Party of Nepal, has been named a terrorist organization by the United States. It wants to overthrow Nepal's monarchy, and loosely models its movement on the teachings of the Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong.
News reports quote some Nepalese officials saying that the moves to cut off military aid will simply help a terrorist organization. The United States has not suspended assistance. But it has warned that if the king does not restore democracy to Nepal within three months, both military and humanitarian aid could be at risk.
This is so cool, that we get to talk to Sukirti, who is from that part of the world, and involved in those circumstances.
Sukirti, I am rooting for the people of Nepal to throw off oppression. I hope they do not replace the tyranny of this King, with the tyranny of Communist rule.
#23hi vik
1)i never ever said that the US banned books. i am pasting a link from your site.'To those readers who are in college, are they teaching you Communism? I?d like to hear from you about it. And to those who are not in college, consider asking people you know who are, if that?s what?s going on at their university.'
tell me what is the intention of knowing what is going on in universities? after all as you say they are free to teach anything they like so why ask particularly someone what is going on at the universities? some intended demonstration against that?
2) i think you totally misunderstand me when you say that according to me communism is meant not for individual nations. what i meant was communism doesnot subscribe to blind jingoism and the support of one's nation even if it is doing harm to others. our goal is humanity. only by fighting for humanity can you fight for your nation. i will tell you why. many british persons supported india when it was waging a war against the same for independence because they realised that the british were exploiting india.tell me that makes them traitors to the UK but at the same time great champions of human dignity. so i merely said that if everybody shares your perception that whatever ones nation does is great,one would inevitably contribute to the exploitation of other nations by ones own nation. that is why marxism always aims at the real conditions of people in nations and not just mere focussing on a so called geographical distinction. it makes jingoists out of men. hence no real marxist can ever talk about making ones own nation great at the expense of others, which your so called leftists in the US are trying to do.
3) the condition in russia today is far worse than it was under communism. and that too if communism had not been betrayed ny khruschev it would have not collapsed.understand we were all alone and all the capitalists nations of europe and us were against us.
4)you have a misconception about prisons and communism.at any point of time the number of prisoners under stalin(including gulags) was still less than the number of prisoners in the US.at present 64 percent of us prisoners are black, who are a monority group.is that is what is democracy? and you all always rave about the so called murder of czar nicholas. a man who sent workers to work in the unbearable conditions of siberia and was responsible for the death of over 15000 people is mourned over. i say such a monster deserved to die.
5) you are so much afraid of communism that you had better live with a monarch the very antithesis of democracy. i dont konw whether we will be allowed to come to power or not in nepal specially by foreign powers but we surely will fight hard.and even if we die the movement will still continue.if my own country decides to intervene in nepal i will oppose it.thats what i mean when i say that communism is sans border.
watch out it think in the next 5 yrs nepal will be of enormous importance.
yours sincerely
(you have still not put up your profile!!)
sukirti
Vik,
At the risk of offending Sukirti, not all Nepali are in favor of the Maoist movement. In fact, from the ones I know (I currently have three Nepali employees, and have employed others, with whom I speak all the time), many are pro-capitalist. They detest the Maoists.
Now, it may be because they come from wealthier families they see nothing favorable in Maoism. Afterall, their families paid for them to come to the United States to get schooled, they generally come from the upper castes, etc. On the other hand, the Maoists are violent, and they would install a pro-Chinese dictatorship. So their distaste for Maoism (Communism) can come from any number of sources.
This is not to say they favor the king of Nepal. While he is not Maoist, these same folks are very upset he's suppressed democracy in their country for the second time in three years. They understand to a point why he's done it, even if they don't support him: the politicians who become elected immediately gift themselves out of the public treasury. It's a bit of a joke that when someone gets into office, he buys himself a particular brand of car, brand new.
It's a mess.
Sukirti,
I also have read Marx and Engels, even a little Lenin. No Mao. Marx is appealing, and he did the world a favor (intellectually) in a number of ways. Economics, however, was not one of those ways. I think if anything will help Nepal, it's an open government based on the ideas of law, liberty and property. Trading the tyranny of the one for the tyranny of the few will not help the poor of Nepal.
stephen
#25Stephen,
It's so cool to hear about your experience with the Nepali you know, and about their views on this situation. How cool is blogging? I would never have had the opportunity to participate in a discussion like this before.
#26Sukirti,
Stephen covered the situation very well.
My web post is an example of free speech. It is not the same as book-banning, which is using laws and the power of the state to punish those who publish books on specified subjects. The question is, how can you oppose banning, since you are in favor of Communism, under which book-banning always has been practiced?
#28hi vik hi stephen,
furst of all stephen i think this is a forum where we discuss things,so offense is out of question so dunno worry ,write anything u feel like.
vik, u r correct stephen's mails does say it all. i reproduce what he says,'Now, it may be because they come from wealthier families they see nothing favorable in Maoism. Afterall, their families paid for them to come to the United States to get schooled, they generally come from the upper castes, etc.'
this shows who are opposing maoism the ones who have lived for centuries by exploiting others and who are still not ready to change their ways and stop living on the blood of others. stephen i have met many guys who say marx is nonsense but none who has ever said that marx has nothing to do woth economics. if u acknowledge that marx has made a great contribution to the world it has to be political economics . thats what he wrote about all his life. i mean u may say that he was wrong but what he wrote about was all economics,no invisible hand concept, everything explained for. anyway, i dont know where the struggle for maoism in nepal is heading but it is a struggle made great out of sacrifices of many and irrespective of whether it succeeds or not ( i believe it will) the efforts so applied can never go waste.
ok bye
hasta la victoria siempre(ever onward to victory)
yours sincerely
sukirti
Sukirti,
Unfortunately, the Maoists cut a broad stroke. While many of the wealthier families do come from upper castes that have had an upper hand for many centuries, another large number of wealthier families are middle class families that have earned their monies. The Maoists, from what I understand, do not distinguish between the two.
Even if they did, they have no excuse for vandalism and murder.
While Marx had a great deal to say about economics, and about social systems, in my opinion his economic theories didn't pan out. I'd almost have to say the same about his social conclusions as well. Alienation, class conflict and proletariat ownership of the means of production are seductive reading, but they give adherents of Marx a false sense of empowerment. Not to mention economics.
Furthermore, in a truly just system, how is violence towards any human being, wealthy or poor, bourgeois or proletariat, justified?
I think the Maoists, and the poor of Nepal, would be better off empowering themselves through education, hard work and a push for legal reform.
stephen
#30Hi Sukirti,
if u acknowledge that marx has made a great contribution to the world it has to be political economics .
It's not correct that marx has made a great contribution to the world in economics, or in any other way. As Stephen points out:
his economic theories didn’t pan out.
Everyone who has followed his teachings has encountered tragedy as a result. He has contributed nothing more than an error.
Again quoting Stephen:
I think the Maoists, and the poor of Nepal, would be better off empowering themselves through education, hard work and a push for legal reform.
To that I might add, democracy and capitalism. They work great. They empower the people. They really offer the opportunity for people to have the chance to use their abilities and do good things.
Hey guys,
Just to insert some clarity: Marx was an incredibly influential economist. Modern economists may not agree with everything he says (they don't agree with everything Adam Smith said either), but all modern ecoomics is influenced by Marx's thinking. In fact, modern economics would be impossible without Marx.
-B
#32Aren't we about due for a Gay, Socialist President?
Put down your haterade and embrace your inner broke back!
Hey there, to offer a counterpoint, me and my little enclave of leftists weren't even alive in the 60s, and we like to think of oursleves as pretty positive, life-loving folks. Cheers.