The Cognitive Dissonance of the left

[G M]

http://www.chequerboard.org/2011/12/apologists-for-communist-totalitarianism-i-hate-those-guys/

Apologists For Communist Totalitarianism: I Hate Those Guys

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on December 23, 2011

 
One would think that the deaths of Vaclav Havel and Kim Jong Il would prompt universal condemnation for the dictatorial communist regimes the former so bravely fought against, and the latter used for self-aggrandizement at the expense of his own citizens. One would be wrong; the condemnation of dictatorial communist regimes is blessedly widespread, but it is by no means universal.
 
Consider first Neil Clark, who informs us of the following regarding Havel’s struggle:
 

No one questions that Havel, who went to prison twice, was a brave man who had the courage to stand up for his views. Yet the question which needs to be asked is whether his political campaigning made his country, and the world, a better place. Havel’s anti-communist critique contained little if any acknowledgement of the positive achievements of the regimes of eastern Europe in the fields of employment, welfare provision, education and women’s rights. Or the fact that communism, for all its faults, was still a system which put the economic needs of the majority first.
 
These comments are, of course, repulsive beyond belief, in addition to being historically illiterate, but as far as Clark is concerned, no good will come of Havel’s death if people like Clark cannot use it in order to lie about history. Andrew Stuttaford rightly takes Clark to task. So does Johnathan Pearce:
 

Presumably, [Clark's article] explains why there were millions of downtrodden, poor people attempting to enter the Soviet Empire from such hellholes as West Germany. That explains why East Berlin erected the Wall, to contain the flood of people trying to enter it. Yes, that must have been the reason. (Sarcasm alert).
 
I guess the fact that the Soviet System created a two-tier society: the Party and Everyone Else, must have escaped Mr Clark’s gimlet-eye attention. Perhaps the Gulag, the shootings of political opponents, the construction of the White Sea Canal (with slave labour), etc, were in fact all features of ensuring that the “needs of the majority” came “first”.
 
For what it is worth, on a more theoretical level, the horrors of collectivism can be summed up in Marx’s dictum: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. For if you believe that the needs of the majority trump such pesky issues as rights or liberties, then so much the worse for such liberal principles. But in practice, of course, the history of the Communist world was littered with stories of shortages, famines and shabby, crappily produced goods and services.
 
Make no mistake; however eloquent Stuttaford’s and Pearce’s condemnation of Clark’s drivel, no one will succeed in the effort to make Clark ashamed of what he wrote. The man is clearly ineducable.
 
Speaking of ineducable, consider Simon Winchester–hidden behind a paywall, so alas, no link–on North Korea:
 

The State’s founder, Kim Il Sung, claimed that all he wanted for North Korea was to be socialist, and to be left alone. In that regard, the national philosophy of self-reliance known in North Korea as “Juche” is little different from India’s Gandhian version known as “swadeshi”. Just let us get on with it, they said, and without interference, please.
 
India’s attempt to go it alone failed. So, it seems, has Burma’s. Perhaps inevitably, North Korea’s attempt appears to be tottering. But seeing how South Korea has turned out — its Koreanness utterly submerged in neon, hip-hop and every imaginable American influence, a romantic can allow himself a small measure of melancholy: North Korea, for all its faults, is undeniably still Korea, a place uniquely representative of an ancient and rather remarkable Asian culture. And that, in a world otherwise rendered so bland, is perhaps no bad thing.
 
Let’s give the mike to Brian Micklethwait, for a reply:
 

No bad thing? Competition for commenters: concoct morally disgusting sentences which begin with “For all its faults …”. You’ll struggle to top that one.
 
One could take that competition and run with it all day. “For all its faults, Nazi Germany was really good on the issue of realizing the health dangers of smoking.” “For all its faults, the Stalinist Soviet Union had itself a leader with an awesome mustache.” “For all its faults, Maoist China did not completely collapse into utter ruin.”
 
Now, your turn. Don’t be shy; this is a fun game!
 
Alex Massie is indignant. And who can blame him? Indignation ought to be directed at CNN as well, which has made eliding the facts and missing the point into something of an art form when it comes to North Korea. To be fair, of course, it is entirely possible that CNN is relying on the wrong academic to guide its thinking–or whatever passes for “thinking” at CNN–when it comes to North Korea. But that’s still no excuse, even if it might be an explanation.
 
I just have a simple request, however. Is it possible that we could ostracize communists–and their fanboys and girls–the way that we would ostracize Nazis and the people who make excuses for them? Could I possibly see that happen before I die of old age? Because that would be nice.

[DougMacG]

What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice.  - Thomas sowell

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/27/random_thoughts_112538.html

[DougMacG]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opinion/keynes-was-right.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Keynes Was Right
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 29, 2011

“The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.” So declared John Maynard Keynes in 1937, even as F.D.R. was about to prove him right by trying to balance the budget too soon, sending the United States economy — which had been steadily recovering up to that point — into a severe recession. Slashing government spending in a depressed economy depresses the economy further; austerity should wait until a strong recovery is well under way.
----------------------------

Someone please show where this award winning economist / far left pundit called for spending austerity during the last boom.  I missed that column.  Which programs did he want cut and by how much?  Krugman swerves into the truth.  One reason for failure of all stimulus programs today is that we already swimming in government stimuli and simply can't feel any effect anymore from another tril or two.  Krugman points to Ireland.  How about Canada?

[JDN]

"How about Canada?"

I have always like Canada; beautiful country and nice people.  They have an excellent National Health Care plan for example.     Canada's income tax rate is approximately 10% higher than ours.     Further, Canada's income tax system is more heavily biased against the highest income earners versus the U.S.      Makes sense to me...    

[Crafty_Dog]

Doug has a post on Canada this morning in the Political Economics thread.  JDN, would you bring your comments here over to there please?

[DougMacG]

You can't make this stuff up.  I have used some of the same logic to explain how we could have survived our massive debt if we had gotten our act together a couple of years ago, grown the economy and stopped adding to the debt.  But Krugman still wants more.  At 15 trillion with deficits still over a trillion a year in 2012, he still wants more:

"We need more, not less, government spending to get us out of our unemployment trap. And the wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession with debt is standing in the way. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=1

Hard to point out he is wrong when he does that for you:

"Taxes must be levied to pay the interest, and you don’t have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede that taxes impose some cost on the economy, if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance and evasion."

[ccp]

On drudger this am:

Another liberal socialist professor from Columbia U. succeeded in gaining a class for college credit for the OWS radical agenda.
Hannah Appel.

I presume if someone in the class went to a Tea Party event instead the person would get an F.

Just because one can think "outside the box" does not make one qualified to teach.  There is a limit to opposing and independent thought beyond which it is just stubborn, angry stupidity.

The radical left has really hyjacked the political thought in the Ivies.

[DougMacG]

Is she stupid (no) or does she just think we are? (maybe)  Perfect Soviet-Orwellian talking.  Romney won a close Iowa caucus that he almost didn't enter and trailed badly 10 days ago, but she says a win is a loss.  Reasoning: because of money.

The point she is trying to make is that the money and establishment advantage didn't buy that many votes.  Meanwhile her guy is the establishment with the big money advantage.

2 million jobs lost, I wouldn't want her job spinning these facts.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/04/wasserman_schultz_bad_night_for_romney_great_night_for_us.html

[ccp]

"Spin" is ok.  It makes no difference what a politician says but just go ahead and call them a liar and look what happens - You have the CNNs ODonnel going bonkers with her gotcha moment on Newt - "are you calling him a liar?" [Romney] 

Newt said frankly yes.  So of course CNN runs with it trying to make it into another big scandel.  This from the keeping 'em honest station - what a joke.

The political correct establishment thing is to never call spin what it is - lying.  The L word is no different now then the N word the F word.

On second thought the F word is great.

[DougMacG]

The DNC Chair won't hurry back to Fox News Sunday.  This clip only shows a little of it.  It was worse in total.  She struggles to answer the "one term proposition" he made in his own words in Feb 2009: "if I 'doesn't get it done in 3 years'...

I harped on this in another thread, but she can only refer back to the mess "he inherited":
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/08/wasserman_schultz_painfully_tries_to_explain_why_obama_deserves_another_term.html

"Without any help from the Republicans"
"The Republican Congress" - [HE HAD A DEM CONGRESS THE FIRST 2 YEARS!]
"he inherited a huge set of problems at once"
"George W Bush presided over... No one was minding the store, with almost no regulation that was appropriate over the financial services industry..."

I realize I am the only one harping on this, but he moved over to the White House, not from political obscurity, but from serving 2 YEARS IN MAJORITY CONTROL AND DE FACTO LEADERSHIP OF CONGRESS, ALMOST COMPLETELY UNRESTRAINED BY A LAME DUCK, 2ND HALF OF A 2ND TERM PRESIDENT.

Unemployment was 4.6% when the American people turned out people like Sen. Santorum by double digits in a swing state and put a San Francisco liberal in Speaker's chair leading up to the elevation of the Senate's number one rated liberal to be the nominee and then the President.  That is not exactly an inheritance - it has their fingerprints all over it.  And also it was not exactly a path to getting conservatives or Republicans on board with a reach to the middle agenda. 

"Without any help from the Republicans"  - Thank God.

Even if no one says it aloud, didn't everyone alive and paying attention see this happen?

[Crafty_Dog]

I'm with ya Doug in my amazement at how divorced "the story" is from reality.

[DougMacG]

One consensus among the 20% of Americans who identify as liberal is that Republicans are in denial of science.

On global warming, they won't say how fast it is warming or what part of it is caused by human's using fossil fuels for energy but are certain that causation is proven in science, even after the lead scientists were caught cooking and cherry picking the data, studies and analysis.

Next is always evolution where a few 'Christian conservatives' prefer not to speak out against a Judeo-Christian religious belief that man is different from other creatures.  No one that I know on the right denies that God's creation included some ability for living things to adapt.

OTOH, the left on global warming is in compete denial that man or species will be able to adapt to the slightest variation in temperature.

Most stunning though is the omission of abortion from any discussion of a war on science.  let's see, science establishes it is a) alive, b) human, and c) of genetic code completely distinct from the mother.  In the later term, IF the cord is cut and the creature removed, it can live on support just like other people at the hospital.  Yet we kill them off at a rate that could make lenin and Stalin take pause, comparisons to Hitler and holocaust passed up by request.  Yea, this is science. But the Huffington Post is in search of something gone awry in the conservative brain.  Go figure. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/why-republicans-deny-scie_b_1196823.html

Chris Mooney

Author, 'The Republican War on Science' and 'The Republican Brain'

Why Republicans Deny Science: The Quest for a Scientific Explanation

[ccp]

The Columbia Univ. liberal who writes books on poverty as well as a lecturer for the far left liberal movement including one world government, wind and solar proponent and basically trashing capitalism and the rest was on Scarborough this AM.  I didn't listen to all of it but he listed CEOs, financiers and doctors as the 1% who are bilking the 99%.  They also had Ezeikel Emmanuel the brother of Rahm and an MD policy liberal on.

I notice he doesn't mention the entertainment industry being part of the 1%, or politicians, or some lawyers.

How about Columbia University professors who make a nice salary and benefits and get plenty of time to write/hawk books:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/where-professors-make-the-most/

There is always justification for some to do well as long as they are politically correct.  All the others are lumped into "bilking the system".   

Frankly as a doctor I WISH I was in the one percent.  Lumping all doctors together is just as bigoted and biased as one can get.  I am sure the Emanuals are broke.  I wonder how much Sachs makes off his books.  I am sure every penny goes to feeding the poor.

Class warfare continues.

[ccp]

Andrew Sullivan calls himself a conservative  .  He gives assigns credit for anything good to the genius of Obama.  Anything bad is result of the incompetence of the right or the delusion of the far left (which of course does not include Obama).  Obama  he concludes is a moderate.   

Some of the highly debatable opinions whcih are stated as though they are fact include:

For example, the bailout of the auto industry was a "great success".   (I ask for whom?)

And of course if Brock is not as far left as some paint him it is not because he couldn't be, it is because he *really is* a moderate left of center.   

He totally ignores Brock's own devisive politics.  I could go on but one can see for himself.  OF course the article is under the Newsweek banner.  A few decades ago I used to subscribe to this magazine:   

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html

[JDN]

For example, the bailout of the auto industry was a "great success".   (I ask for whom?)

Actually, most people consider it a "great success".

But give some of the credit to Romney; a big car guy himself.

Actually, Romney is now taking credit for the "great success" of the auto industry bailout!   

“Mitt Romney had the idea first,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, citing the Times opinion article. “You have to acknowledge that. He was advocating for a course of action that eventually the Obama administration adopted.”

Actually, you've got to love Romney's flip flops.

In broad terms, that’s pretty much the course that Obama followed. But of course, the story doesn’t end there. Let’s briefly review the chain of events:

1.) Romney lays out broad outlines of a plan to rescue American auto industry.

2.) Obama implements a plan that follows general contours of Romney plan.

3.) Conservative Republicans erupt in fury at Obama plan, condemning it as a government takeover of industry and accusing Obama of being a socialist Marxist Kenyan secularist Muslim, or something like that.

4.) Romney joins the withering condemnation of the Obama plan, ignoring the fact that it’s quite similar to his own. He says it’s “a very sad circumstance for this country … really tragic in a lot of ways.”

5.) The plan works, inspiring Romney to try to reclaim authorship of a plan that he earlier attacked as “really tragic” and “very sad.”


Is there anything Romney won't flip flop on?

[ccp]

I didn't know Romney is taking "credit" for using billions in taxpayer money to save them.

 

[DougMacG]

"guys, as much as I like to debate stuff, please keep this thread contained of all else, BUT formulated questions for the man."

I will copy and extend comments Chomsky quotes here and delete them out of the 'Chomsky' thread.
---------
What hypocrisy?: Chomsky makes the argument that because he has received funding from the U.S. military, he has an even greater responsibility to criticize and resist its immoral actions.
http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N51/chomsky.html
---------
Regarding the death of Osama bin Laden, Chomsky stated: "We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a 'suspect' but uncontroversially the 'decider' who gave the orders to commit the 'supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole' (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, [and] the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region."
---------
(Doug):Uncontroversially, Mr. Chomsky, the "deciders" to be assassinated or hanged unlike the Libyan war are many, including the current Vice President and Secretary of State as former members of the senate authorizing military destruction.  Obama could start by prosecuting his veep for authorization and then himself for continuing the war.  Guilty are not only George Bush but also 77 Senators, 296 House members and all 15 members of the UN Security Council at the time.

Not only are we are no better than bin Laden but that we are far worse, he says.  You folks go ahead and raise him to that status of visiting dignitary; I have no questions for him.  He is  an expert on linguistics employed at anesteemed university, MIT, I have no linguistic questions.  For the rest of it, I would like to see his views elevated with clarity to the ballot and DEFEATED.

War criminals around the world, by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, U.S., U.K., plus Bulgaria, Cameroon, Guinea, Ireland, Mexico, Mauritius, Norway, Singapore and Syria all voted in favor of Resolution 1441, some will contend they had no idea the consequence would be a war already authorized by the US congress.

Seventy Seven War Criminals in the Senate alone: YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

We might have to expand Guantanamo in order to criminalize our foreign policy differences.  OTOH, we would no longer be a sovereign nation with a say in it if his views had prevailed.

[G M]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/27/multimillionaire-elizabeth-warren-im-not-wealthy/

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios” she told [Lawrence O'Donnell].
 
Hard to see how Warren wouldn’t be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she’s worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.
 
She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.

[DougMacG]

Make no mistake, Ed Koch is a liberal, but I enjoyed this piece by City Journal covering his career fairly well.  I admire certain decisions he made along the way to stand on principle sometimes to his own political detriment.

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_ed-koch.html

[DougMacG]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2012/02/02/what-if-barack-obama-and-paul-krugman-ran-a-business/

A little bit facetious but so is the idea presented in the title that (either of) these two ideologues would ever let there ideas be tested in a competitive marketplace.

Spoiling the ending for you:

"Putting workers before profit, it turns out, leaves you with neither."

[JDN]

Sometimes I am deeply disappointed in Obama.....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-drones-and-the-law-20120205,0,876903.column

[G M]

Sometimes I am deeply disappointed in Obama.....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-drones-and-the-law-20120205,0,876903.column

Ha hahahahaha!

[Crafty_Dog]

Concerning the Ed Koch article:  Ed was at our house a few times because it was where a committee within the 17th CD that was co-chairedy by Bella Abzug (also mentioned in the article) and my mother would meet to further the candidacy of Sen. Eugene McCarthy for the nomination of the Dem party for President in 1968.  I liked Ed, and continued to like him throughout his career.  He was REAL and he genuinely loved New York City.   BTW, the slogan referenced in the article put out by the Cuomo people was "Vote for Cuomo, not the homo."

[G M]

Sometimes I am deeply disappointed in Obama.....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-drones-and-the-law-20120205,0,876903.column

So, the trillions more in debt, the loss of American strength, the massive Obama corruption doesn't bother you, but the drone strikes do?

[JDN]

I'm not interested in debating any of the subjects, except drone strikes, but to answer your question, perhaps the additional debt may have saved us from going into a full depression (many economists agree).  Obama IMHO is one of the most honest and family oriented Presidents in my memory so his so called "corruption" doesn't bother me. It pales in comparison to many others.  As for our loss of strength, I'm not sure why we need to spend more than the next 10+ countries combined on military matters.  Frankly, I am glad we are out of Iraq and leaving Afghanistan.  I hope we don't go into Syria or Iran or anyplace else for that matter unless we are directly threatened. Ever since we entered the Vietnam War, I am tired of being the world's policeman, losing American lives, spending billions/trillions of our dollars, and never being thanked.  We have enough issues at home.

But yes, I think the drone strikes are wrong; I don't think one man, be it Obama who I trust more than most, or any other President, should be allowed to target and kill American citizens with impunity just on his say so alone.  I believe that there must be some due process.

[G M]

"perhaps the additional debt may have saved us from going into a full depression (many economists agree)."

You mean the shovel ready jobs that weren't? The Solyndras that have gone belly up? The dem donors/union thugs got saved from a depression, unfortunately, the rest of America didn't.

What economists? Krugman?

[G M]

 Obama IMHO is one of the most honest and family oriented Presidents in my memory so his so called "corruption" doesn't bother me. It pales in comparison to many others.

Yes, nothing says family values like attending a church of racial hatred for 20 years.

[DougMacG]

JDN answered the Obama question, are you better off than you would have been.  The emergency funding to avoid panic and collapse however was in the transition period with Bush, McCain, Obama, Geithner and Bernancke all in agreement. Hardly the policy direction difference that will determine the next election.

[ccp]

"Obama IMHO is one of the most honest"

Folks, this is what we are up against.

The 40-45% who will always vote for this guy no matter what.

Lying is no longer lying (unless one is Republican), spinning is no longer lying it is just politics and "they all do it", and indeed one cannot even call someone a liar when in fact they clearly are as that is now poltically incorrect and worse than calling someone a slang bigotted name.

Last night I noticed CNN calling Obama on his "reversal" on PACS.  If it was a republican it would have been called "flip-flop".

I didn't see the show but I assume they had several guests essentially explaining why it is really NOT a reversal or at the very least how he was driven to do it and is still true to his word etc... 

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/when-i-was-called-slut-barbara-walters-just-laughed-laura-ingraham-slams-the-view-on-double-standard/

[trickydog]

A very interesting piece by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt - he takes an approach to the political situation that is very similar to one that I have been exploring for the last few years with regard to religiosity and mythological realization. 

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/forget-the-money-follow-the-sacredness/

Extracted from Haidt:
"Despite what you might have learned in Economics 101, people aren’t always selfish. In politics, they’re more often groupish. When people feel that a group they value — be it racial, religious, regional or ideological — is under attack, they rally to its defense, even at some cost to themselves. We evolved to be tribal, and politics is a competition among coalitions of tribes."

He trends from the left - and yet I find the core of his argument very persuasive.  It applies equally well to both "sides" of the spectrum and begins to account for why we are so enthusiastically tearing ourselves apart.   How we can possibly make sense of maiming ourselves.

Mark 9:43:  And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched

[Crafty_Dog]

Interesting point Tricky Dog.

In a similar vein, in later years Konrad Lorenz spoke of the possibility of creating a a fourth type of aggression on top of territorial, hierarchical, and reproductive aggression-- "collective militant enthusiasm" into his analytical framework.

The passion of some on the left against religion, indeed against those who oppose them in any fundamental way, might well be called CME-- as well as an example of Jungian shadow projection.

[G M]

A very interesting piece by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt - he takes an approach to the political situation that is very similar to one that I have been exploring for the last few years with regard to religiosity and mythological realization. 

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/forget-the-money-follow-the-sacredness/

Extracted from Haidt:
"Despite what you might have learned in Economics 101, people aren’t always selfish. In politics, they’re more often groupish. When people feel that a group they value — be it racial, religious, regional or ideological — is under attack, they rally to its defense, even at some cost to themselves. We evolved to be tribal, and politics is a competition among coalitions of tribes."

He trends from the left - and yet I find the core of his argument very persuasive.  It applies equally well to both "sides" of the spectrum and begins to account for why we are so enthusiastically tearing ourselves apart.   How we can possibly make sense of maiming ourselves.

Mark 9:43:  And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched

Look at the damage the democrat party has done to black Americans and continues to do under Obama, yet he'll get at least 90% of their votes. Tragic.

[Crafty_Dog]

GM:

A point with which I am in hearty agreement, yet I'm not sure it segues smoothly from Tricky Dog's post 

I understand his point to be one into which evolutionary psychology has put some thought, see e.g. Matt Ridley's , , , I forget the name or Robert Wright's superb "The Moral Animal" concerning how to explain selfless behavior in Darwinian terms.

While generosity is an aspect of this question, the progressives/liberal fascists/Dems/liberals tend to be generous with other people's money-- which of course is an oxymoron.  Those capable of linear thought must surely experience cognitive dissonance when contrasting the substantial personal charity of Mitt Romney with the niggardly charity of super-rich gigolo Sen. John Kerrey, Vice-President Biden, presidential candidate multi-millionaire plaintiff attorney , , , wuzzhisface-- the one with the pretty hair?-- or even the Community Organizer in Chief , , , but I digress 

[G M]

Crafty,

The dems shattered the black family and use race to enslave captive voting blocs on the left's plantation and use tribalist invective to enforce those boundaries.

[G M]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/20/video-comedy-is-not-pretty/

Big fan of Obozo!

[G M]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/03/23/crime-and-the-numbers-game/

Does Trayvon Martin Killing Reveal Epidemic of Racial Violence?


The present media wave about the tragic death of Trayvon Martin is for me, an outsider, a fascinating lesson in race, politics, and media perversity in America.
 
The impression is being generated that young black men are continuously hunted by white men, and killed.
 
So I wanted to know the exact figures. The most recent, those of 2009, I could find are on the site of the Department of Justice.
 
About 13% of the population is black. About 80% is white (this number includes Hispanics).
 
In 2009, 2,963 white individuals were killed by white offenders. White offenders killed 209 black individuals.
 
In that same year, 2,604 black individuals were killed by black offenders. And 454 white individuals were killed by black offenders.
 
As we see, there is cross-racial deadly violence, but offenders mainly cause victims within their own race; it is so-called intra-racial.
 
What about recent decades? Murders surveyed between 1974 and 2004 show that 52% of the offenders were black, 48% were white. Of the victims, 51% were white, 47% were black.
 
In that period, 86% of white murders had whites offenders, and 94% of black murders had black offenders.
 
There may be a hunt by white vigilantes for innocent young black men in Florida — if it exists, the figures show this is a limited phenomenon. Trayvon Martin’s death should be thoroughly investigated and the vigilante should be brought to trial in case he broke the law. But such a crime is an exception.
 
The main problem for young black men is not violent white men chasing them. It is black on black violence.
 
The number of net cross-racial violence in 2009 shows that blacks killed more whites than whites killed blacks. To be exact: 245 more.

[ccp]

They never stop distorting and spinning.

I watched for a few minutes Chris Hayes leftist propaganda show this AM and the topic is civil disobedience.  Now I am thinking what in the world is a liberal propaganda show speaking of civil disobedincen the left is all ABOUT huge government control over every aspect of our lives and promting class warfare and redistribution of wealth.   JUST THE OPPOSITE of what "civil disobedience" is all about!

So I note they are referring to climate change.  Again they have that loon Van Jones on who is all over the talk show circuit promoting the left agenda:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/up-with-chris-hayes/46982806/#46982806

[DougMacG]

“A man’s admiration of absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him.”

[G M]

http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2012/04/09/the-big-double-standard/?singlepage=true

The Big Double Standard


The News...
 
Some of you may be bothered by the fact that NBC News lied and is now lying about its lies in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. As Breitbart.com reported while all the mainstream outlets except the Washington Post looked the other way, NBC News edited a tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call to make Zimmerman sound like a racist. A full description of the scurrilous edit is at the link.
 
When they were caught in their dishonesty, NBC News temporized. When they could no longer temporize, they scapegoated a single unnamed producer, firing him late on the Friday before Easter/Passover weekend so no one would notice. Then NBC News President Steve Capus released a statement to Reuters saying the deliberate editing of the tape to misrepresent the phone call was “a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call.”

 
Some of you may read that statement and say to yourself, “Golly, Klavan on the Culture! How can Mr. Capus keep the word News in his title and not curl up in a ball of shame while tearing at his own flesh with his fingernails and begging God to forgive him for having sunk to depths of disingenuousness unimaginable to any real news person?” And some others of you may scratch your heads and wonder, “Gee! How come Andrew Breitbart was accused of dishonesty and racism when he posted edited videos of Shirley Sherrod, even though he attached a post explaining the edited context?” After which, you might add, “Crikey! Didn’t Breitbart respond to the accusations by making every piece of material in the Sherrod case readily available online?” And you might go on to remark, “Holy Moly, whatever a Moly is! Isn’t it kind of unfair that when NBC News actually has been dishonest and racist — and when they’ve responded to being caught in their dishonest racism by being even more dishonest — the news media doesn’t accuse them of anything at all but merely puts their collective fingers in their collective ears and whistles Dixie?”
 
Ah well. I can explain. There’s a double standard — but that’s okay! You see, NBC News is allowed to lie and get away with it because they’re good. Breitbart couldn’t even tell the truth without catching hell because he was bad. See the difference? It’s subtle I know — in fact, it’s so subtle you may have to be a big time literary theorist and legal scholar to understand it. So let’s turn for an explanation to big time literary theorist and legal scholar Stanley Fish.
 
Recently (as my colleague Michael Walsh pointed out to me) Stanley Fish wrote an article for the New York Times explaining why there was a firestorm when Rush Limbaugh made an inappropriate remark about a woman whereas Bill Maher and Ed Schultz made even worse sexist remarks but remained relatively unscathed. “Schultz and Maher are the good guys; they are on the side of truth and justice,” Stanley Fish and his mighty mind explained. “Rush Limbaugh is the bad guy; he is on the side of every nefarious force that threatens our democracy.” There you have it. It’s okay when leftists are evil because they’re good; but it’s evil when patriots are good because they’re evil.
 
Now I understand you may need a few more years of graduate school before you can understand the reasoning of a very smart man like Stanley Fish, but it’s worth the effort because with a presidential election coming up, I’m pretty sure we’re going to see a lot more lies from the mainstream media like the ones we saw from NBC News. And I wouldn’t want you to think that mainstream journalists were being evil when they were only being evil out of goodness. Because if you couldn’t see that their evil was good because they were good when they were being evil, you might carry Mr. Capus and some of his MSM buddies out of their offices and tar and feather them in the public square.
 
And that would be evil. Or good. Really, it’s hard to say.

[ccp]

"they scapegoated a single unnamed producer, firing him late on the Friday before Easter/Passover weekend so no one would notice."

How do we know THIS is true?

[G M]

"they scapegoated a single unnamed producer, firing him late on the Friday before Easter/Passover weekend so no one would notice."

How do we know THIS is true?

Good point. NBC claims to have fired an unnamed producer.

[G M]

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2012/04/11/in-praise-of-chumps/?singlepage=true

In Praise of Chumps

April 11, 2012 - 4:05 pm - by Richard Fernandez


When a red Ferrari recently crashed in Beijing, the rumor mills exploded with reports that the driver was none other than Bo Guagua, son of the Communist Party chief of Chonquing and graduate of Harrow and Oxford. Such is life among the vanguard of the Proletariat: in a Ferrari one day, on the run the next. Bo’s dad, Bo Xilai, has just been cashiered by the Politburo, and Bo’s mother is under arrest. But it was good while it lasted:
 

The Proletarian Life
 
Bo Guagua had been making social media headlines in China as he squired around Chen Xiaodan, the daughter of “Chen Yuan, the governor of the China Development Bank and one of China’s most influential bankers”:

 
Advertisement
 



Chen, now studying at Harvard for an MBA, is the granddaughter of Chen Yun, one of China’s top leaders until his death in 1995 and one of the “eight immortals” of the Communist leadership of the 1980s and 90s …
 
Her background thus makes her one of the most eligible women in the country. Together with 17-year-old Jasmin Li — the granddaughter of Jia Qinglin, a member of the all-powerful nine-member Politburo Standing Committee — they are better known among Europe’s elite as China’s “red princesses” for their high-profile appearances at blue-blooded Paris balls.
 
Chen has featured in photographs of debutante balls such as the Crillon Ball in Paris which have appeared on Twitter and Facebook as well as the usual Chinese social networking sites. In 2006, Chen was considered the most attractive young woman at the ball attended by beauties such as 20-year-old Princess Costanza of Italy and other European royals.
 
Wearing her Oscar de la Renta dresses, her stylish looks have been an inspiration to many young people in the new China, yet as news about these red princesses who mingle with the European and American glitterati is kept out of the state-run Chinese press, little is actually known in China about them.
 
The thing about communism, at least to the uninitiated, is that it appears to be identical in all respects to a hereditary aristocracy. If one didn’t know better, it would seem that the more communist a country, such as North Korea, the more it resembles a monarchy. In China, the children of the Politburo members are actually called princesses and princes, and they gad about in a style that makes the current European royalty look like a bunch of low-rent grifters.
 
How admirable then, that intellectuals like Cornel West, Van Jones, and Bill Ayers can go around and seriously sell socialism and Marxism in the name of “equality” and “egalitarianism”. You know, because they are one with the Common Man. Surely their superior educations must provide a true insight into the nature of Marxist societies, because to the uninitiated the whole thing looks like a scam to trick people into waging “revolution” in which a few odd million will be horribly killed to create a worker’s paradise and green society. All the resulting outcomes we actually examine reveal only societies ruled by an aristocracy no different from — nay, more lavish than — the Court of the Sun King at Versailles. Versailles didn’t even have indoor plumbing.
 
But at least it had trees and bushes in the garden. North Korea doesn’t. North Korea’s forests have been burned down by the happy peasants to cook their gruel and to keep from dying of cold in winter. Defectors heading south know they’ve reached the capitalist Republic of Korea because they can see trees again. And as for the environment in China: well, why do you think the red princes and princesses go to Paris to dance the night away?
 
Future generations may wonder how it was possible for sophisticated Western intellectuals to actually devote their lives to bringing about communism as if it were anything more than a swindle. Consider Walter Kendall Myers, a distinguished State Department intelligence analyst, who together with his wife Gwendolyn spied on America for years on behalf of Fidel Castro. They were not paid money. In fact, their only known reward was being congratulated by Fidel himself:
 

Myers, an Ivy League-educated Europe specialist who made his home in Northwest Washington’s diplomat-friendly precincts, began working for the State Department as a contract instructor in 1977. He joined full time in 1985 and become a senior analyst with a top-secret clearance in the department’s sensitive bureau of intelligence and research.
 
…
 
“We did not act out of anger toward the United States or from any thought of anti-Americanism,” Walter Myers said in a 10-minute statement in seeking leniency for his wife. “We did not intend to hurt any individual American. Our only objective was to help the Cuban people defend their revolution. We only hoped to forestall conflict” between the countries.
 
They acted, as always, from what they believed to be idealism. Never did they entertain the notion that they might have been led on by stupidity. Gross, manifest, and terminal imbecility. They betrayed their country, and not in order to advance the cause of “peace” or “prosperity” for the “poor and downtrodden”. In reality, they sold out their country so that slimy tyrants in foreign countries could live the life of kings, and they did not even have the wit to notice.

[JDN]

@ GM

I have no idea if Zimmerman is guilty of a crime in the Martin incident.  It's tragic of course.  What little I know, and I've read a lot,
there seems to be two valid sides to the story.  I don't of course, know all the facts.  I'm not sure anyone does except Zimmerman and i doubt
if he will ever present his side at trial. 

Anyway, my question GM is do you think, given your experience, that Zimmerman should have been charged by the DA with a crime?  And why?

[G M]

From what I read in the press (which must be taken with a BIG chunk of salt) the Assistant State's Attorney (what is know as a Assistant D.A./Deputy D.A. in other places) that responded to the call and reviewed the case did not think that a case could be made in court and elected not to charge Zimmerman. Ultimately, the decision to file charges falls to the prosecutor and their ethical obligation is to act "in the interest of justice" as opposed to a defense attorney who must "act in the best interest of their client". As I understand it, if the prosecutor does not believe there is a reasonable chance at prevailing at trial, then charges are not supposed to be filed.

I heard the first officer on scene's report, verbatim on a local radio show and it corroborated Zimmerman's claim of being assaulted by documenting his bleeding nose, injury to the back of his head and wet, grass covered clothing.

If Obama and his race-baiting allies didn't need to fire up their base and distract from his failed presidency, this would have been a local story quickly forgotten.

[G M]

http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/327370-trayvon-martin-police-report

What's been made public thus far, at least what I can find for the moment.

[G M]

As I understand it, if the prosecutor does not believe there is a reasonable chance at prevailing at trial, then charges are not supposed to be filed.

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_pfunc_blk.html

Standard 3-3.9 Discretion in the Charging Decision

   (a) A prosecutor should not institute, or cause to be instituted, or permit the continued pendency of criminal charges when the prosecutor knows that the charges are not supported by probable cause. A prosecutor should not institute, cause to be instituted, or permit the continued pendency of criminal charges in the absence of sufficient admissible evidence to support a conviction.

   (b) The prosecutor is not obliged to present all charges which the evidence might support. The prosecutor may in some circumstances and for good cause consistent with the public interest decline to prosecute, notwithstanding that sufficient evidence may exist which would support a conviction. Illustrative or the factors which the prosecutor may properly consider in exercising his or her discretion are:

   (i) the prosecutor's reasonable doubt that the accused is in fact guilty;
   (ii) the extent of the harm caused by the offense;

   (iii) the disproportion of the authorized punishment in relation to the particular offense or the offender;

   (iv) possible improper motives of a complainant;

   (v) reluctance of the victim to testify;

   (vi) cooperation of the accused in the apprehension or conviction of others; and

   (vii) availability and likelihood of prosecution by another jurisdiction.

   (c) A prosecutor should not be compelled by his or her supervisor to prosecute a case in which he or she has a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused.

   (d) In making the decision to prosecute, the prosecutor should give no weight to the personal or political advantages or disadvantages which might be involved or to a desire to enhance his or her record of convictions.

   (e) In cases which involve a serious threat to the community, the prosecutor should not be deterred from prosecution by the fact that in the jurisdiction juries have tended to acquit persons accused of the particular kind of criminal act in question.

   (f) The prosecutor should not bring or seek charges greater in number of degree than can reasonably be supported with evidence at trial or than are necessary to fairly reflect the gravity of the offense.

   (g) The prosecutor should not condition a dismissal of charges, nolle prosequi, or similar action on the accused's relinquishment of the right to seek civil redress unless the accused has agreed to the action knowingly and intelligently, freely and voluntarily, and where such waiver is approved by the court.

[G M]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-probable-cause-20120404,0,1976621,full.story

The search for probable cause in Trayvon Martin case
By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel
 
1:34 p.m. CDT, April 5, 2012
In order to arrest George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, the special prosecutor heading the investigation must show a judge that she has found probable cause.

Sanford police faced public outrage when they announced they found no probable cause to arrest the Neighborhood Watch volunteer.

So what exactly is it?

"It's a 'reasonable person' standard under the law," said John Tanner, former state attorney in the 7th Judicial Circuit, which includes Volusia County.

It is evidence that would convince a reasonable person that a suspect committed a crime.

For example: It's a rock of crack cocaine found in a man's pocket. It's a department-store security video showing a woman slipping a necklace into her handbag. It's a blood test showing a driver's blood-alcohol level above the legal limit.

Bob Dekle, who prosecuted serial killer Ted Bundy and is now a professor at the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida, characterized probable cause as "just above suspicion."

In the case of Trayvon's shooting death, it would be any piece of evidence that would convince a judge that Zimmerman probably committed a crime when he shot the unarmed teen in a gated Sanford community in late February.

That could be a witness, a piece of physical evidence or something else.

Sanford police were looking for evidence of manslaughter. Special Prosecutor Angela Corey will not say what charge or charges her team is reviewing.

Police can and do arrest suspects without probable cause, but judges must then order their release from jail. Senior Judge O.H. Eaton Jr. said that happened at least once or twice every weekend he was on jail duty reviewing Seminole County arrests for the previous 24 hours.

When that happens, police can rearrest the suspect, and prosecutors are free to file charges. But they must bring the case to trial within 175 days of arrest, according to Florida rules of criminal procedure.

That ticking clock is often an incentive for prosecutors to hold off on an arrest, they said. It gives them more time to collect evidence — for example, to get ballistics tests done if a gun is involved or to have fingerprints analyzed.

Prosecutors almost always demand more evidence than cops.

Though an officer needs only probable cause to make an arrest, prosecutors typically want enough evidence for a conviction — enough to convince a jury beyond every reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty.

It is a natural point of friction between the two branches of law enforcement, said Ric Ridgway, chief assistant state attorney in the 5th Judicial Circuit, which includes Lake County.

"It's probably the single most frequent source of … disagreement between law enforcement and prosecutors, between victim's families and prosecutors," he said. "They look at it and go, 'We know he did it.' As a prosecutor, I say, 'Can you prove it?' "

Evidence standards

Because of those different evidence standards, prosecutors typically kick loose at least a quarter of the cases in which police make arrests, he said.

That happened in the case of four co-defendants in the Jessica Lunsford murder, Ridgway said. The 9-year-old Homosassa girl was abducted, raped and buried alive in 2005. Prosecutors convicted suspect John Couey, the kidnapper and killer, but Citrus County deputies and prosecutors disagreed about what to do with four of his roommates.

Deputies arrested them on charges of obstructing an officer — withholding information.

"We would not prosecute them," Ridgway said, because there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction.

Sometimes police and prosecutors work a long time to gather enough evidence before making an arrest.

A Seminole County grand jury in February handed up a murder indictment in a 21-year-old homicide: Betty Claire Foster was stabbed to death at the Casselberry computer store where she worked in 1991. David Lee Hedrick, 50, a computer and audiovisual specialist, is now in the Seminole County Jail, awaiting trial.

A Brevard County grand jury last year indicted a woman there on a first-degree-murder charge in a three-year-old homicide.

And in Orange County, Brett Ballard and his wife, Joy, have been waiting more than three years to find out whether the security guard who fatally stabbed their 20-year-old son, Marcus, in 2008 will be arrested and prosecuted.

Marcus Ballard was stabbed eight times in the torso and neck and several times on the palms of his hands, according to his autopsy. The security guard told deputies the men were fighting at a Pine Hills apartment complex and he used his knife to defend himself after Ballard had begun choking him.

Sometimes, mistakes

Police and prosecutors sometimes get it wrong.

An officer was dispatched to a Miami-Dade County neighborhood in response to a reported burglary. About that same time, a black 15-year-old, his brother and a friend ducked into a neighbor's carport because of a sudden rain, according to an appeals-court ruling.

The officer saw the boys, drew his weapon, and the 15-year-old took off running and hid. An officer soon found him, ordered him facedown in the mud, handcuffed him and arrested him on a charge of resisting an officer without violence, according to the ruling.

The Third District Court of Appeal in May 2010 reversed the juvenile court's finding in the case, ruling that the police officer should never have made the arrest.

There was no probable cause that the boys had committed a crime.

Staff writer Susan Jacobson contributed to this report. rstutzman@tribune.com or 407-650-6394

[G M]

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

I have some serious issues with what looks like inexact and loaded language in the affidavit and the lack of probable cause in this case.

[JDN]

@ GM

Thank you for your detailed response and summary.