Thursday, November 03, 2005

Brownie yuks it up w/staff while N.O drowns..

New emails released. Read 'em and weep..

7 Thoughts:

Blogger Doug said...

While some of the e-mails could very charitably be labelled "gallows humor," the ones that make me sick are the PR-related ones, and the clearly irrelevant dog-sitting ones.

Bottom line: had Brown had the background and demonstrated even the desire if not ability to do a good job, these e-mails would be taken differently. As it is, he deserves all the opprobrium he can get.

Thursday, November 03, 2005 2:15:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

Once again, proof that Republicans are immoral.

Friday, November 04, 2005 11:42:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

This may be an example of you "trying out your propaganda," but I simply cannot see how all Republicans are immoral, which is definitely how your comment comes off. It also could be taken to mean that all Democrats are moral, which I, for one, wouldn't claim.

As propaganda, it's pretty weak: exactly who will read this and say, "Gee, Demo's right. I better switch parties so I can be among the moral. Till now, I've been immoral."

Of course, if they were immoral, they wouldn't make the moral decision.

So, I simply don't get what the point of a statement like this is, as I don't think you could possibly mean it literally, it's pretty useless as "propaganda" -- even if you're a fan of propaganda (which I'm not) -- and, finally, it almost certainly causes anyone who reads it to conclude either:

1. He means it, and thus can be discounted as a fanatic,

2. He is trying some kind of heavy-handed manipulation, which I ain't buying, as I see Republicans around me who aren't immoral, even if he's only referring to politicans, or

3. He just likes feeling morally superior -- were he a Republican, he'd just say the same thing with the terms reversed.

I mean, you can't really bust on Ann Coulter and then give yourself a free pass.

I imagine this is some kind of quasi-Lakovian move on your part, but I don't think even Lakoff would approve. His point was not to use a moral bludgeon to herd the sheeplike masses but rather to frame issues in moral terminology as a Trojan horse by which to shuttle progressive ideas past the knee-jerk reactions of conservatives, especially cultural conservatives.

You know my objections to that, but if what you're trying to do with statements like this is to pull off some kind of Lakovian conversion, I sincerely doubt it will work.

Feel free to explain it to me if I misunderstand.

Friday, November 04, 2005 1:52:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Clarification: What you're doing by consistently saying things like this is not even Lakovian; this isn't about Lakoff, it's about your apparent decision to simply (in both senses) label any Republican act as immoral. Since there's plenty of actual unethical behavior to go around, I don't see the need to exaggerate...or alienate.

What Lakoff would do is say something like:

"Look, big or small, government has a moral responsibility to help in large disasters, and to act competently. Surely, it can't be relied on for everything, but by the same token it can't be allowed to do nothing. The callousness of these e-mails, and the larger incapacity of the Federal government to act, regardless of local and state government action or inaction, is a failure -- a moral failure that is surely beyond any partisan bickering." Or somesuch thing. In no part of Moral Politics did I see the injunction to simply label the opposition as immoral.

That, ironically, sounds a lot more like, "You're either with me [the moral one] or against me." Which you have rightly deplored. So, how is this different?

Friday, November 04, 2005 1:57:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

All Republicans are immoral. I find it hard to believe that you actually think raping small boys in front of their parents is "moral," or that supporting this sort of behavior is somehow "moral."

Anyone who is mentally awake in this country knows that the Republican party has supported torture and worse in Iraq and elsewhere, and has created a necklace of "black prisons" througout the world.

That is why I can say without qualification that anyone who self-identifies as a Republican is immoral. Torture is always wrong, period. Anyone who supports that is immoral, period.

Add to this the 100,000 plus civilians who have been murdered in Iraq for the corporate profits of Bush's cronies. This is also immoral, and anyone who supports this is immoral.

This is quite clear to me. I am surprised to hear that you find such behavior acceptable, clearly it is not. Clearly anyone who would accept it, let alone support it, is immoral to the core.

Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:12:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

McCain, Lindsay Graham, John Warner don't accept or allow it, to name three Republican politicians.

Are you absolutely sure that all Republican voters are for it, too?

Sunday, November 06, 2005 8:38:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Furthermore, the fact that you'd use my dissent from your illogic as proof that I am somehow for torture, given everything I've ever written on this blog and before (on the yahoogroup) makes me think that you're either playing word games, have become totalitarian in your thinking, or are just being silly. Or some combination of the three.

Sounds very close to the kind of fundamentalist argumentation, neocon or theocon, you used to abhor. Or, rather, some kind of hard totalitarian left (i.e., Maoist or Bolshevik) thinking: agree with me, with no degrees of dissent or disagreement, no shades of nuance of any kind, or you are as morally bad as those I'm already labelling as morally bad.


Also, has it occurred to you that those who support these things, or who turn a blind eye, may in fact think themselves moral, may in fact act ethically in their personal lives, but may have blinders? Those people need to be reached, not discarded as the Darth-Vader-like "actors of evil" you and the President seem so eager to label the Other.

Not to mention the fact that it is possible for one to support the war and deplore Gitmo, et al. Not that I do; it's just a fact that it is possible, as there are many who believe this, whether you like it or not.

I imagine that every time I respond to you, I just give you more fuel for your crusade, so I think I will stop responding. What's the point?

Sunday, November 06, 2005 8:44:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home