Robinson Responds
Julian Sanchez | September 17, 2004, 4:12pm
Yesterday, I reported that numerous people believed that they knew the identity of the person who appears in this video, purportedly kicking a restrained protester: They believe the person on the tape is Wharton student Scott Robinson, who interned in Washington, D.C. this summer. At this point eight of them, seven D.C. interns and a University of Pennsylvania political science student who says he lived across the hall from Robinson for a year, have provided comments for attribution, claiming to be certain the person on the convention video is the student and intern they know. (Various others have sent anonymous statements to myself and other bloggers to similar effect.)
On Thursday evening (technically very early Friday), I spoke with Robinson. He conceded that he was in New York at the time, volunteering at the Republican National Convention, but says that he was not at the Andy Card speech where the incident took place around noon that Wednesday. He said he had been out late Tuesday night and didn't wake up before midday, as he was only working evenings. He also gave me the name of the Wharton fraternity brother with whom he stayed that week, with whom he said he'd been at the time of the Card event. That person, whose name I'm omitting at his request, declined to say anything on the record when contacted via email.
Update: The University of Pennsylvania's campus paper has picked up the story, with a comments section where students are discussing it. That piece adds a visual ID from the chair of the UPenn College Republicans, though a more tentative one than other sources have given. No further word from Robinson himself as yet.
Helios | September 17, 2004, 5:47pm | #
"The lefty activists really are only in favor of free speech at their own convenience. (And in the RNC case, it isn't really a free speech issue--the RNC had rented the Garden and therefore had the right to control attendance. The girl who was kicked had no right to free speech, and the RNC had no obligation to provide her with a forum for her views." -Brooke
I respectfully beg to differ.
Madison Square Garden is located in the United States of America, the Constitution of which, at this date, still does in fact guarantee the Right of Free Speech.
Furthermore, kicking anyone while they are down is universally regarded as mere cowardice.
Lastly, if one wishes to control attendance, one can certainly find any number of civilized, humane, and lawful ways to do so, such as politely but firmly escorting the person who's attendance one wishes to control to the door.
Let's talk turkey, shall we? The overwhelming majority of Republicans in the US are fine, law abiding Gentlepeople, and the same goes for the Democrats.
That being said, for every instance where some form of cheap unamerican thuggery is perpetrated by a private Democratic citizen, there are in actual fact at least 10 committed by their Republican counterparts. This is not exactly what any rational person would call a fair situation.
What is happening here on a National scale is that the scrappy little Democratic kid, after all this time, has simply had enough, and is finally, in his long-suffering anger, standing up to the chronic schoolyard Bully, and poping him a good one right on the Kisser.
It is interesting to note the disingenuous Republican "outrage" at this turn of events; the
"activist" Republicans relish any opportunity to dish it out, but in the very rare instance when the tables are turned on them in their own game, they just can't take it at all.
A cheap shot is a cheap shot. It's wrong, it's unfair, and it's Unamerican.
On another level, this really goes to the heart of much more important issues with extremely serious consequences for all of us regardless of our political orientation.
Bush, Cheney, Rove, and all the other Republican "leaders" complicit in these tactics, although they promised the exact opposite, have succeeded in 4 years in effectively polarizing the American Citizenry to a degree not seen in this country since the Civil War.
This last is no coincidence, it is in fact a key element in their ongoing agenda to divide and conquer our Nation, our People, and our vast resources for their own personal gain.
This is how they do it.
They care nothing about our actual well-being and real "family values", what they care about is power and money, in roughly that order.
As long as they can emotionalize the debate, they can obscure and distort their actual policys; because they have the entire Citizenry wound up in a crippling partisan rage, the People are less likely to think clearly, and in this poisonous atmosphere the human tendency is to focus not on the broader issues, but on narrow, immediate, emotional "fights".
When the People take a breath to look around, what do they find?
Federal agents in their librarys, multi-trillion dollar debt, ever-downward spiralling wars, devastating reductions in healthcare and overall quality of life, and much to their dismay, they find themselves widely disliked and often despised by former friends in the International community who were, only 4 years ago, close and valued associates, staunch allies, and often enthusiastic supporters.
We get what we vote for. Oh, that's right, we did not actually vote for all this the last time around.
This time, we must do better.
Helios | September 18, 2004, 12:58pm | #
So, then, applying his own words (not mine), I believe I am entirely within my rights of Free Speech to assert that "....Bill is the fool.
He's just another idiot who doesn't have a clue about the Constitution.
He's probably one of those "dead document" assholes. He said:
The kicker is an asshole and the kickee is a trespasser. He should be prosecuted for assault and she should be prosecuted for trespassing. He's an asshole and she's..."
What she is, Bill, is entirely within her Rights under the Constitution. It took a tremendous degree of Courage for that woman to protest.
We do not live in a proto-fascist feifdom where we must cringe and tiptoe before our Unelected masters, Bill, as much as you want that to be
the case.
This is The United States Of America, Pal, and my Father, Uncle, and Millions of other Brave, Honorable, and Courageous American Men and Women nearly had their asses blown off in WW II when we kicked the living shit out of the Nazi Menace, in order to secure the Rights and Freedoms that
all of us enjoy today, you included.
You
especially; right, Bill?
He should be arrested for kicking, it is true, but what "crime", exactly, do you propose this woman committed? Offending the dignity of the RNC??? You have got to be joking.
Once again, in case you did not get it the first time, what should have happened, but did not, is that a trained Security person should have
politely escorted her to the door.
Arrested for "Defiant Trespass"??? Don't make me laugh. They are literally making this shit up as they go along. Yesterday some complete jackass in "security" tried to make a huge deal over the resemblance of an 8 oz weighted bookmark to a "sap". They took the poor lady away from the Airport in shackles, then "declined to press charges".
This hysterical over-the-top arrest-everyone-at-the-drop-of-a-hat shit started under the Guiliani
regime in NYC, and is a Disgrace, a Fraud, a Sham, a cynical Abuse Of Power, and is in fact
an insidious Subtrefuge carefully designed to distract, draw attention away from, and obfuscate the very serious actual
theft that is in fact being perpetrated against the American People.
Our country is literally being stolen from
us under the rubric of "Patriotism" and "Law
and Order". A lapel pin doth not a Patriot
make, Bill. Often, it is quite the opposite.
"The Patriot 'Act' " is the most aptly-named piece of flim-flammery ever to be perpetrated in the history of our Nation. Let's look at who the
real criminals actually are, shall we?
You know Bill, don't you, that the unelected duo of W and Dick "Lon" Cheney misled this Country into an Illegal war, and have slaughtered over 1000 soldiers so far, and are now trying to suggest that Kerry, of all people, is somehow to
blame for their utter, miserable failure in the desert?
Most outrageously, this entire adventure has drained our economy of
3.5 TRILLION
dollars, and for what? For the purpose of allowing Dick "Lon" Cheney to make even
more money than he already has, while Millions of people have lost their Healthcare.
Perhaps the most important thing that has been lost under this immoral and unelected regime that cynically cloaks itself in the rhetoric of "Family Values" is our traditional American sense of basic Fairness, Tolerance, and Compassion towards our fellow Citizen.
"Fuck The Other Guy", and "I've Got Mine" have become the order of the day, and that is EXACTLY what W & Dick "Lon" Cheney want. The average American today is concerned with TV, Sports, SUV'S, Money, and their own personal degree of comfort, roughly in that order.
Free markets are all very well, Bill, but there is something known as the social contract, and it is being pissed on and ripped in two, just like
that poor little 4-year old girls Bush Sign.
Only this isn't a phony set-up. This is for real.
The contemptible, entirely Unamerican display of cowardice which a Republican crowd exhibited by chanting "4 more years" as a single poor, brave woman protested her child's murder by this unelected regime, and was hauled off and arrested by jackbooted police, is a dishonorable, disgraceful, and very serious stain on this entire Nation's Honor, something straight out
of Triumph Of The Will; an insult of the most serious nature to all Freedom-Loving people everywhere.
Take a good, long, close hard look at these people, Bill
This IS the REAL "Axis of Evil",
these are the men who are destroying OUR country from within, and
this is how they are doing it.
It's time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid, Bill, and do one thing right on Nov 2, because you are
not going to get another chance.
Mona | September 18, 2004, 5:20pm | #
I affirm Mo on this: **That's why I tend to avoid sites like DU and FR. I prefer the more collegial environs of Reason's boards. Even the rudest posters here don't hold a candle to the guys that just pop in. True of wingnuts on both sides. Heck, these guys make JB look like Ghandi.
"Wingnuts: Making the French look polite since 1974"**
When I'm in the mood to directly enter the fray, the Reason board is my primary playground. Why, only a few days ago our own resident lefty, joe, told me, a post-9/11 Bush supporter, that my take on a certain matter related to Rathergate was "reasonable."
And, I've not ever seen sheer moonbat insanity from joe; leftwing blogs all over the 'net are now hosting serious arguments that Karl Rove forged the CBS memos. The theories put forward as to how and why Rove did this are...well, the stuff of psychiatric assessments. In my view joe strained too long and too hard to believe the CBS memos might be real, but he did not lose all contact with Terra.
In the main, we tend to remain civil here. And, notwithstanding that we 'tarians have a reputation for being nutballs, there just isn't that much crazy shit posted on this board, from either side of the political spectrum. Not as compared with much of the rest of the blogosphere, whether DU or FR.
As one who largely supports the Swift vets in their position re: Kerry, I've spent quite a bit of time at their message board. Since partisans from the right inundated that board in mid-August, it has seen a growth of the same denranged thinking you find from some (certainly not all) Freepers. The admins there intially tried to keep the nuttier stuff off the board, or they would send the post to their purgatory board. But they don't seem to be doing that as mauch lately, prolly cuz of the volume.
In any event, this board, when it isn't being inundated by wackos from elsewhere, is a stimulating and civil environment. I would hope any newcomers arriving here would perhaps try to fit into the aesthetic the regulars have established.
--Mona--
Helios | September 18, 2004, 6:04pm | #
Congratulations Matt, I thought you'd never ask.
Here is a small excerpt from book 5 of "The Social Contract, Or Principles Of Political Right"
by Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1762.
Rousseau was a Frenchman who's ideas had a
profound influence on the Framers of our own Constitution, and to whom, along with the great General Lafayette, all Americans owe a great debt of gratitude; for without Rousseau's ideas, and without LaFayettes timely and cunnning military assistance, it is questionable whether you and I,
Matt, would even have the priviledge to conduct this excellent discourse.
It is true that we did somewhat repay that debt by Liberating the French when they got into that nasty scrape with the Nazi scumbags in WWII, but that is what friends do, you see, they
help each other out in a jam.
...."AS long as several men in assembly regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will which is concerned with their common preservation and general well-being. In this case, all the springs of the State are vigorous and simple and its rules clear and luminous; there are no embroilments or conflicts of interests; the common good is everywhere clearly apparent, and only good sense is needed to perceive it. Peace, unity and equality are the enemies of political subtleties. Men who are upright and simple are difficult to deceive because of their simplicity; lures and ingenious pretexts fail to impose upon them, and they are not even subtle enough to be dupes. When, among the happiest people in the world, bands of peasants are seen regulating affairs of State under an oak, and always acting wisely, can we help scorning the ingenious methods of other nations, which make themselves illustrious and wretched with so much art and mystery?"
....So, Matt, to answer your excellent question, you had already in effect "signed" the Social Contract when you were born as a US citizen. We all did, and it's a darned good thing, too. Isn't it?
Speaking of being born as a US citizen, I'd like to digress here, for a moment, to address the issue of Arnold Schwartzeneggers recent "request" that we yet again assent to change our Constitution, poor gal, who has seen so much action of late in this rather dubious regard.
I think the "Fair and Balanced" course would be to table this matter entirely, at least until certain rather more pressing issues facing OUR Nation have been satisfactorily resolved.
After all, he has just won the Govenorship of the largest state in OUR Nation, and I think it is fair to say that the American People are entitled to observe his performance for a while in that post, to see whether it really merits making highly irregular and unprecedented changes to that document, for the benefit, essentialy, of Arnolds political ambitions.
Should Arnold absolutely require a Presidency immediately, I believe Austria has an opening available on a fairly regular basis.
As far as "No Blood For Oil", Mr. Z, or whatever you are calling yourself today, your filter, it would seem, is permanently clogged, and must be thrown out, but also the .30 wt which flows through
your veins has lost all it's viscosity, and this is why you make that godawful, horrid, wailing crunching sound, and why everyone now clearly sees that your wheels are, in fact, falling off.
It's ok, though. On Nov 3 we'll get scrap value out of you, and apply it towards the purchase of a far superior machine, one that runs clean, has no filter to clog up, and hence does not create the horrid stench we have become so accustomed to
in your lamentable presence.
As for your own personal opinions regarding my style and content, the honest reply is that I sincerely couldn't give a flying fuck what you think.
helios | September 18, 2004, 7:10pm | #
Thanks, Mona, I've heard of Schama and his book,
although I haven't read it yet. I will try to do so soon.
However, we are talking about the American Revolution, and what, specifically, has become of America at this late date.
The mere proximity of Rousseau's ideas to the French Revolution does not prove, in itself,
that his ideas were the cause of it, but I am no scholar, and I have not, as I said, read Schamas book.
It may be that France did not actually adopt American notions of equality as early as we ourselves did, that France really hang onto her old class structure, and therefore Rousseau's ideas did not have the soil in which to take root in his own country, the people had enough, and then all hell broke loose. I do not know.
What I do know is that we as Americans do have certain fundamental obligations towards each other, and that when these obligations are not
observed, our entire society suffers the consequences.
michael | September 18, 2004, 8:48pm | #
for some reason this thread doesn't seem dead, though it's definitely jumped the topical shark...
so:
Gary & rea: I think we can agree health insurance is an AIDS-related issue. But I also think you both conflate "left" with "liberal/Democrat" and they just ain't the same thing.
Thoreau: sorry you got overflow snark from Brooke et al, but that idea was funny. I think among the isms conservatives hang together better--it's about who's in power and who has spoils to divvy up.
Mona: ok, the Rand label was overbroad, though any idea of "libertarianism" that doesn't see that Bushco are the sworn enemies of liberty (free minds
and free markets) doesn't strike me as much better. In any case, you lose lots of respect here when you claim proven liers and slanderers as buddies. Andyhoo, I'll note that although the Randroid did claim the libertarian moniker, it didn't bother refuting the cult stuff.
Sorry this is so long, but once again I gotta congratulate Reason-ites for your truly superior civility, erudition and overall hep-ness:
Not too surprised to find Helios still here. Another left wing nut with no job sucking of the tax teat.
---
...the gene pool needs a lot more chlorine.
---
Note to self : Do not check back before tuesday. Hit & Run should be disinfected by then.
---
Thanks, Atridiots, for ruining what used to be a civil,interesting comments site.
Ah yes...this used to be a nice, tolerant, diverse neighborhood before all the darkies and wetbacks moved in...
Yes I know there have been some guests bearing little but insults, but blatant hypocricy coupled with snottiness always annoys me. It's a bit rich to trumpet your civility if it goes out the window the minute someone posts who doesn't know the handshake.
And just to show I'm semi-evenhanded: Helios: just cut it out. I have no idea who's more right about Rousseau, but at a certain point one is just typing to hear the keys click. I'd say get yer own blog but you already have one. Effective blogwhoring leaves 'em wanting more. And really, the caps are hella-annoying.
m
Helios | September 18, 2004, 9:47pm | #
Yes yes yes, all you fine upstanding young fellows, if you say it it must be so, by George, and all these rational, independent, non ad-hominem attacks show just exactly how wonderfully "objective" and "civil" you really are, why our country is in such a wonderful cashflow position with 3.5 trillion gone in 4 years, why we are doing so wonderfully in Iraq, why a Million+ people have lost Healthcare (ah, what's a million here or there), why Halliburton, Enron etc are wearing such nice rosy halos, why 75+ % of the International community has such a wonderful opinion of us, why your sickening Wurlitzer has to do the dirty work of lying on a constant basis to keep the truth from coming out, and why, let's face it, this guy that the whole thread was initiated to discuss really is, in the end (so to speak) quite representative of the actual principles and so-called morality that created this massive shitpile in the first place.
And as long as you are ok personally hey, that's all that counts, right? Riiiight.
It really is amusing how insecure closet
elitists are just beneath the shiny surface.
But I have to hand it to this current crop of
tyro tyrants, some of them have dropped the pesky pretense of any moral obligation at all. I guess that is "progress", just like enriching Dupont.
Poor old DuPont, they really do need more money.
Funny you should mention them, I recall not too long ago they had sharp guys just like you cooking up Napalm in there.
Lots of "nice things" came from that work too.
And I'm psychotic and sick??? I think you need to pluck the beam, pally.
When you get that big old log out of yer eye, check out Guy Negre's Air Car over on my blog. It's way cooler than those nasty batteries. And the individual factories actually concentrate capital in the local communities - what a novel concept.
As far as my mental state is concerned, well, you just keep serving each other the Kool-Aid there, Skipper.
Yawn. I gotta go now, but it was fun. Predictable to the last arrogant, self-righteous, willfully ignorant syllable, but fun.
Golly gee, it's amazing how that massive lead evaporated to a dead heat in one week.
We'll see you at the polls, and then at the trials. You can all play lawyer there.
Sooner or later you'll get it.
You always do.
Toodles! :-)
JDM | September 19, 2004, 12:16pm | #
"I sure as hell would. If I saw three cops drag someone who was helping terrorists kill my neighbors, I'd try to land as good a blow as I could on the bastard, if I got the opportunity. Wouldn't you?"
I wouldn't. You're one mean cuss, joe. With all the time you've spent hectoring people here about their political views being rooted in the fact that they don't have enough love for their fellow man, it's a little surprising. Maybe you claiming the above now has something to do with gaining sympathy for the bizarre argument you're making.
"Republicans aren't thugs because they believe in flat taxes, high military spending, and eliminating Medicare. They're thugs because of how they fight."
I could swear I've seen Democrats claiming that Bush's policies are making us less safe. They must just be bad apples.
[Note to imbeciles: I'm not calling the Dems thugs, just calling joe on his bizarre evidence that Republicans are. Policy disagreements about how best to stop terrorism imply that different policies will make you less safe.]
[Note to other set of imbeciles: Yes the differences in policy could be about other extraneous factors, such as cost, but that's not what we're talking about here.]
Also, joe, my criticism of the argument that this one moron is evidence of anything other than the fact that there are morons, some of whom are Repubican's, applies to you as well. Even if you don't add random caps to your posts.
It would be a special genius indeed that could ananlyze these vast upwelling political trends, the dark heart of fascism in the Republican party, and determine that it would, or did, *explode* into - one little weasel zealot kicking a girl who happened to fall in front of him.
What if he'd gone outside for a hotdog right before the protest had started? There would have been no violence at all. Did these great and obvious lessons from the past account for his eating patterns as well?
[Note to imbeciles: Even if he wouldn't have gone outside for a hotdog, since Republicans only eat raw kittens, you can replace "hotdog" with "cigarette," and "eating patterns" with "addictions."]
Jason Bourne | September 19, 2004, 5:36pm | #
I must confess to being entirely ignorant of Harrinton's life and works...
Then you should pick up his
Oceana.
And as for Locke, since much of the preamble to the DofI is plagiarized nearly word for word from the (2nd?) Treatise...
That's not true. Only portions of the Declaration of Independence were plagiarized; for example the statement "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were taken almost directly from the writings of John Locke. However, the work itself is largely Jefferson's; this should be readily obvious since the document speaks with particularity to the American situation.
Anyway, the most famous idea of the Spirit of the Laws - mixed government - was cribbed from Aristotle; Locke was more original.
I think that you are slightly confused here about what Aristotle meant by "mixed government":
Many classical political philosophers from Aristotle onward favored a "mixed government" combining the elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy (note that this does mean that Aristotle contemplated a government seperated along the lines of executive, legislative and judicial branches per se). The English theorist James Harrington in his
Oceana (1656) derived a theory akin to separation of powers from the old idea of mixed government. Montesquieu, in his
Spirit of the Laws (1748), formalized this seperation of powers into three distinct branches of government, and the modern expression of separation of powers came into being. So you are wrong to state that Montesquieu was cribbing his ideas from Aristotle; if he was cribbing from anyone it was Harrington (as was Locke).
Now, regarding Montesquieu on Aristotle generally, the differences are stark; for example:
(1) Unlike, Aristotle, Montesquieu does not distinguish forms of government on the basis of the virtue of the sovereign.
(2) Montesquieu, unlike Aristotle, opposed slavery (indeed Montesquieu was the first major philosophical figure to openly oppose slavery, which contrasts him with figures like Locke); as is well known, Aristotle argued a form of biological determinism when it came to concepts like slavery, gender, etc.; Montesquieu rejected these notions (he in fact argued that nothing barred women from becoming adept and wise rulers, a radical notion in the 18th century).
Mona | September 19, 2004, 5:36pm | #
michael writes: "Mona: ok, the Rand label was overbroad, though any idea of "libertarianism" that doesn't see that Bushco are the sworn enemies of liberty (free mindsand free markets) doesn't strike me as much better."
I see both parties as sworn enemies of liberty. I'm sure you disagree, but I have become a single issue voter since 9/11, and my motivation for voting for Bush is that I WANT a guy in the White House whom jihadists and their supporting nation-states fear is a "cowboy." Gaddhafi's recent willingness to be reasonable has everything to do with what Bush has wrought.
You add: "In any case, you lose lots of respect here when you claim proven liers and slanderers as buddies."
This I assume is an allusion to the Swift Boat vets. Well, initially I was horrified at their existence since I assumed it would backfire badly against Bush -- I assumed they were liars. Then I watched the C-Span video of their May 4 press conference, and then I read Unfit for Command. At the same time I was doing all that, the Xmas in Cambodia lie they debunded proved to hold up, i.e., as a debunking.
C-Span has a recent video available of John O'Neill addressing a literary crowd in San Francisco. He details the points on which the SBVTs have been proven to be correct, and it exceeds simply Xmas in Cambodia. (If I can find the link to that video I'll post it, but I doubt most would actually sit through it.)
Anyway, I began as an alarmed skeptic, but became a convert as their charges largely turned out to hold merit.
Michael also observes:
"Andyhoo, I'll note that although the Randroid did claim the libertarian moniker, it didn't bother refuting the cult stuff."
Objectivists teach that believing in any sort of deity is irrational and therefore *immoral.* Further, Rand practiced excommunication, and the schisms within the Objectivist movement parallel Xian splits into dissenting sects and denominations. Rand rejected the "libertarian" label and so do many of her contemporary acolytes, even if Ayn Randian does not.
Objectivists, in my substantial experience of them, regard "mere" libertarians as inadequate for not adhering to Rand's all-embracing worldview. Hers is not merely a political philosophy, but a faith to live by. Libertarians may believe in a deity, and/or may reject her claim that she found THE path to "objective" truth. Both positions are heresy to Objectivists.
The University of Virginia web page on new relgious movements includes Objectivism as a "cult," using the term in the non-pejorative, sociolgocial sense. They are correct to do so.
--Mona--
Jason Bourne | September 19, 2004, 6:45pm | #
Mona,
I think we should take on Iran next, and I hope Bush does so if he is re-elected.
Unsubstantiated hopes were not exactly what I expected as a response from you.
As the election draws near I have no doubt some of the jihadists are emboldened and holding out hope that Bush will be defeated, and that we will then go back to passing toothelss UN resolutions.
Which of course explains why they were just sitting on their butts in Iraq and Afghanistan until now? :) They do not fear Bush; they didn't six months ago, and they do not now.
I do not think it is "arguable" that Gaddafi simmered down on Bush's watch.
Whether you think it is arguable or not isn't the point; it is arguable. The Libyan regime had been seeking normalization long before 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, etc.; thus it is as arguable that what has occurred in Libya is much less of a sharp break than you argue, and more of an evolutionary process.
If Bush is re-elected, I believe we will see more reasonable behavior from murderous, anti-Western Islamic zealots.
I don't think you will see any change in behavior; Bush has even admitted this by stating that the "war on terror" cannot be won. Bush is circumspect about your sort of claims, so I wonder why you are not.
I'm literally feversih right now, down with a bad stomach flu, or I'd try to set forth my understanding of Schama's treatment of Rousseau re: the French Revolution in compelling detail.
Simon Schama's notions are competently and grightly contested in this field, and you should know about this if you are going to comment on his work.
It is a masterful intellectual history, and as best I recall Schama argues that it was Rousseau's promotion of "nature" and his peculiar take on how reason ought to be applied that caught fire in France, and created the milieu in which the carnage would proceed.
Actually, at best, a gutted version of Rousseau's notions was used as an inspiration for the French Revolution, and this was contested throughout the Revolution by the adherents of other Enlightenment thinkers.
Further, though Rousseau's ideas were influential at the time of the French Revolution, popular sovereignty was never excercised directly, and thus Rousseau's ideas were never actually implemented. Indeed, Schama draws upon a long line of individuals (like Hegel) who have sought to blame "The Terror" (both red and white) on Rousseau, but this claim ultimately lacks credibility for the aforementioned reason.
Now, regarding the American Revolution, one of the most important principles in Rousseau's political philosophy for contestants in favor of that cause is that politics and morality should not be separated. Thus, when Rousseau stated that when a government fails to act in a moral fashion, it ceases to excercise any legitimate control over individuals, the American revolutionaries took it to heart.
Jason Bourne | September 19, 2004, 8:27pm | #
Mona,
Again, it is not arguable that this "evolutionary process" occurred on Bush's watch.
And again you are wrong; this evolutionary process was set in motion long before Bush came to office. That you ignore these pre-Bush actions doesn't add credibility to your statement, it in fact undermines it. You appear to lack the critical ability to assess facts which go againgst your biases.
As to Schama and his book, no doubt some scholars responded critically to it; he upset some applecarts, and said he knew he was doing so.
No, he reiterated a lot of fairly old arguments (going back to Burke, Hegel, etc.) in new form. And simply because he "upset some applecarts" doesn't make him right. A lot of holocaust deniers upset applecarts too, but I don't put much credibility in their work. In other words, if your sole defense is that he bothered some people, then I am afraid that I find said defense lacking. And again, let me re-iterate my earlier point; if your sole source of knowledge of the French Revolution is Simon Schama's work, then you are doing yourself a serious disservice.
Let me suggest the following:
The French Revolution in Social and Political Perspective, Peter Jones, ed. Its an excellent anthology which gives you a nice overview of the most important historians in this field: Robert Darnton, Francois Furet, Colin Jones, etc.
Bush clarified...
He talked out of both sides of his mouth; he flip-flopped in other words.
It is not the same kind of war that we have usually fought before, and that is what Bush meant.
Bush flip-flopped; this is evidenced by his prior, unequivocal statements on the "war on terror." Strike it up to muddle-headedness, a change in perspective, etc., he still flip-flopped.
Finally, your comment ignores (purposefully?) the point of my statement. Instead of addressing it, you opt for a stance of pedantry.
JDM | September 20, 2004, 1:50pm | #
So you put in the parenthetical "(that you'd want to use violence against terrorists)" and then call me dishonest or stupid. Real nice.
How about inserting "(that'd you'd kick a terrorist already in custody)?" Which is obviously what I meant, and obviously different from "(that'd I'd want to use violence against terrorists.)" I won't bother explaining why.
"I'm criticizing HOW they make this argument, and just about every other argument - by using language that lumps dissent from their views in with a desire to harm Americans"
For one thing, the Cheney quote you're talking about (the only one I can source) in no way implies that. I suppose by the time your mind gets done inserting parenthetical information into it, it does however. By then it's probably stupid and dishonest too.
Any number of Democrats use language that implies that Republicans have no interest in average Americans. I understand that Bush is only interested in the benefit of powerful corporations, who are destroying the earth, enslaving the third world, and getting rich on the backs of average Americans. What an awful man. I'd like to kick him, maybe. I predict - based on this trend in the Dems language and vast historical precedent that I won't get into - Armageddon. It will begin when a hippy slaps a evangelical preacher in the face at a Vote for Change concert.
And finally, we get to the crux of the matter:
"That 'one little weasel' is not the only one, btw, just the only one who got caught."
So the larger wave of violence is known only to you, sans any evidence except your conviction that it must be so. And it is this wave of violence, hidden to all but you and our new friend Helios, which is the only proof that your insightful reading of the socio-political tea leaves is accurate. Maybe, but you're going to have a hell of a time convincing anyone who doesn't also already believe it for no reason outside of the ones they've constructed in their own minds.
JDM | September 20, 2004, 2:53pm | #
At the center of your argument is the unsupported claim that anyone has ever said that Democrats are trying to stage terrorist attacks on Americans, which is obviously dishonest.
The argument you are making is that you know that these non-existant claims resulted in a single particular instance of violence at the RNC. When I point that out you start making up things I never said by inserting parenthetical phrases into my arguments. Then you call me dishonest because you (not I) think that one of my counter arguments requires that:
"'not caring about average Americans' is equivalent to 'helping terrorists stage mass murder on American soil.'"
Then you go on to say that I've actually "claimed" that the two are equivalent. Which I did not. You see, joe, that particular counter argument is that just because someone uses language that makes you want to kick someone else (I don't, again, accept that they are using that kind of language) does not mean that you know that some girl got kicked because of it.
I mean, some fat old white guy who got rich off of warmongering and raping the environment takes money that could have been used to provide health care for a dying poor 3 year old, and you wouldn't want to give him just a little kick? Where are all the Dems beating men in suits? I'll just find one, and claim I'm right. That'll make me feel better.
The second part is that even if you could say violence was going to come out of it, this is a pretty thin reed to hang your vindication on. One guy, and a couple of weak kicks.
But what's the point? You get in trouble in an argument and you just start claiming your opponent is evil for one reason or another - dishonest, brainwashed, selfish, whatever.
Your kung-fu is particularly weak today. Take a breath and pull yourself togehter.
Helios | September 21, 2004, 7:02am | #
hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybey there's hope for this current crop after all.
YOU ARE DRUNK ON KOOL-AID: WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.
THE TRUTH YOUR LEADERS & MEDIA DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW.
How They Lie To You: Rove's Media Machine.
Bush & Bin Laden Make Billions in the "War on Terror".
Bush, 9/11, and Deep Threat; The Patriot "Act".
Enron-Cheney-Taliban-Who They Really Are.
The Plan: Bush-Rove-Schwarzenegger Nazi Nexus.
How Kerry/Edwards Will End The Real Terrorist Threat.
Mad Yet? : Holding Them Accountable.
Oh, yes, I almost forgot. Air can be compressed by an electric motor, which can in turn be powered by any number of 99.9 to 100% clean sources of electricity, such as photovoltaiac cells, windmills, watermills, tidal-generators, piezio-electric arrays, focused-solar steam engines, what have you.
It is the concept of the compression engine that is so appealing in a time when the importance of preserving and nurturing our environment has become a pressing issue of global concern.
I think it's important to use our imaginations if the species is going to survive another 25 years, let alone into the next millenium.
Lastly, "taking on" any nation, especially Iran or any other country in the already seething middle-east is really a very shortsighted and counterproductive category of strategy that is bound to create many more problems than it could ever hope to "fix".
Although it may be quite true in the current transitional stages to more advanced and enlightened modes of self-governance that the maintenance of strong defenses, primarily as deterrent measures, is arguably desirable and neccessary, successful new paradigms for active participants in a sustainable global future will include negotiations that take all parties interests into account, mutual cooperation and respect, initiatives to offer various incentives and rewards for constructive participation by and between parties, the opening of meaningful international dialog, trade, travel, cultural exchange, and myriad other alternatives to the outmoded power-struggles that have so disasterously marked, and for the most part ruined, the history of our planet thus far.
I think it is fair to say that the idea of a social contract was actually quite prescient and remains most relevant in this regard.
Peace.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
