If You Really Loved Me You'd Let Me Eat Your Brain

« Stupid Deregulation Tricks | HomePage | Mosquitoes Already!? »

08 April 2005

Sometimes I Get Confused

Comments

Clinton Hatred (CH) Therapy 101: Read the below and tell me your initial thoughts. Do your feel the need to defend the Bush admin with 'Yeah but" statements? Now,what if Clinton or Clinton admin said the below statements? Any difference in your answers or feelings toward the administration? Is it just funny when Bush Admin does it and a calculating power hungry ego maniac searching for his legacy when Clinton does it? If so you might have CH.

1) "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Clinton or Bush's State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

2) “We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators [in Iraq]… I think it will go relatively quickly… [in] weeks rather than months.” — Dick Cheney or Al Gore, speaking of the invasion of Iraq

3) "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney or Al Gore – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

4) “I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq.” — Paul Wolfowitz, speaking without realizing the hypocrisy of his statement.

Posted by: puzzleboydave | 08 April 2005

I don't know about the running situation but a $6000 Serotta Ottrott was what Kerry was biking with in Waukesha's MACC Fund last Summer. I was riding the 20 mile trek and Kerry started an hour earlier as he was riding in the 100 miler, or so the rumors went. As far as I know he never finished the race 'cause I waited. So have you moved from Clinton hating to petty complaints about Kerry's seared memory now and still no Bush Follies?

And for clarity purposes what's your beef about the ACLU?

Posted by: puzzleboydave | 09 April 2005

It's good to keep pushing for a Republican follies section but don't hold your breath, puzzleboydave.

Since nothing has been forthcoming, I will take the liberty of posting something written by John Cole -- a genuine conservative Republican, not a professional turncoat --who is not a happy camper:

What I see going on around me is that my party is in power. We control the Presidency. We control the House and the Senate. Republican appointees outnumber Democratic ones on the Supreme Court, and we are poised to add more. We own talk radio. Cable news tends to be neutral to conservative (it certainly is not liberal or progressive- some outfits may have anti-Republican reflexes). We have all but eliminated partisan debate in congress, playing by rules much tougher than anything that was in place. Where there were once no conservative (or few) newspapers, there are now several. We have numerous conservative online journals. Hundreds of publications that all push the same point and pass on the same message.
And it still isn't enough. Everything is under attack if it does not toe the same hard-right line. The university, the institution of marriage, journalism as an enterprise, the medical community, the legal community, every foreign institution, the United Nations -- anything that doesn't cater to the conservative need for instant gratification in the form of message adherence and submission to the new doctronaire -- must be destroyed. Look at the recent behavior of Republicans in Congress towards REPUBLICAN APPOINTED CONSERVATIVE JUDGES. Forget 'screw me once, shame on you.' This new breed of fanatacism is "Slight me in any discernable way, even a mild disagreement, and I will publicly destroy you."

Posted by: Betzee | 09 April 2005

The autopsy of Terri Schiavo should confirm beyond scientific doubt that most of her cerebral cortex had turned to fluid, meaning it would have been impossible for her to recognize visitors, try to speak, make eye contact or perform any of the other basic human functions attributed to her.
If so, it raises an intriguing question: Once confronted with incontrovertible proof that they were wrong on a claim they stressed so hard, will House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and others rethink their position on Schiavo's fate?
Not a chance.
In our post-factual world, something as straightforward as an autopsy report probably won't have any impact whatsoever. For too many people, the only facts that are valid are those that confirm what they already ``know'' to be true.
Examples of that mind-set are all too easy to find. Just recently, a presidential commission tried to explain how our intelligence agencies and top government officials could have gotten things so wrong about Iraq. By its account, once our leaders convinced each other that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was pursuing nuclear weapons, the only ``facts'' they were willing to consider were those confirming that cherished belief.
As the commission put it, our government was crippled by ``a culture of enforced consensus.''
That's a chilling phrase, not least because ``culture of enforced consensus'' describes so much of what goes on these days. It's a tactic that Galileo would recognize immediately I might add.

Posted by: Joe | 10 April 2005

Joe said: For too many people, the only facts that are valid are those that confirm what they already "know'' to be true.

Agreed, and with the Internet you can locate almost any belief system with quotes that confirm "their" truth. Look here's four links supporting their position, it must be THE truth!

Self imposed brain washing (SIBW) is what I call it. Repubs and Dem both do it. When a Republican changes his/her position they call it "changing their mind after reviewing all the facts" and when a Democrat does the same it's called "waffling". Big picture spreading democracy is good by the Dems but not when it's on Bush's time clock. Inconsistent? Not in their minds, they have links supporting their beliefs on the internet. When you hear statements like the above you can be sure you're in the presence of SIBW. I know of no cure, all you can do is attempt to show their inconsistencies over time, but that is usually when the splitting of hairs to redefine their statements and situation as truly different appears. One thing for sure, facts mean nothing to these people.

Posted by: puzzleboydave | 11 April 2005

##puzzleboydave said: Joe said: For too many people, the only facts that are valid are those that confirm what they already "know'' to be true.

Agreed, and with the Internet you can locate almost any belief system with quotes that confirm "their" truth. Look here's four links supporting their position, it must be THE truth!##

Yeah, it is way too easy to find whatever opinion you need to back up your world view, whatever it is.

One way to avoid falling into that trap is to take time when making important decisions. Like the whole DeLay thing. I looked up a lot of articles on it from his supporters and detractors but I don't yet have a clear picture of what really happened. I'll keep thinking on it. The tidbit I heard about the NYT fishing for a condemnation of DeLay from former congressman Livingston sounds pretty partisan.

Another way is to just teach critical thinking skills in school. Who is the author, what is their intent, and what vested interest do they have in the topic at hand? That's one of the few things I learned in my lousy public school education.

Here is an idea for a search engine: Give it a topic, maybe a few keywords for what info you're looking for on that topic, and it'll return a spectrum of results ranging from pro to con with white papers thrown in for good measure. I'm pretty sure you could judge the pro- or con-ness of a body of text just by measuring the frequency of terms like "terrible idea" or "positive benefits" to name a few.

Posted by: Thomas C. Mueller | 11 April 2005

It's more a matter of repressing facts that are perceived as threats to what the powers that be, currently the Republicans, want to believe. Just as the Catholic Church was enforcing the consensus of the 17th century when it condemned Galileo for his finding that the Earth revolved around the sun.

It explains the push to introduce ``intelligent design'' into classrooms as an alternative to evolution. Unable to win the debate within science, a field that requires evidence and logic, intelligent-design proponents prefer to argue in less rigorous settings where political pressure can be brought to bear, such as local school boards.

Within the Republican Party, that ``culture of enforced consensus'' has even been expanded to require unquestioning support for the embattled DeLay, who is facing a multitude of legal woes ranging from political money-laundering to taking expensive foreign junkets from lobbyists.

``Conservative leaders across the country are working now to make sure that any politician who hopes to have conservative support in the future had better be in the forefront as we attack those who attack Tom DeLay,'' according to Morton Blackwell, a member of the Republican National Committee.

Apparently, to even entertain doubt about his innocence will be considered betrayal.

Posted by: Joe | 11 April 2005

Tom said: "Like the whole DeLay thing. I looked up a lot of articles on it from his supporters and detractors but I don't yet have a clear picture of what really happened. "

Yeah, I don't know what exactly is happening here with Delay but the Left wing is happy since it appears the Repubs are circling the wagons against one of their own. If I was the Left wing and a student of history I would suggest that they could use a "Newt Gingrich" for the '06 election and Delay it could be argued fits that bill. And Rove probably knows this which is why you hear Rove, Frist and other Repubs holding Delay accountable. Some might say that with the falling numbers Bush need a fall guy. Quite a chess game here. Since Rove usually wins my guess is that Delay won't be majority leader next year.

All I've heard (haven't read anything) is that Delay travelled to Scotland to play golf with a long time friend who also donates money to his causes and paid for the trip or something like that and that he may have indirectly threatened a Federal judge associated with the Shiavo case.
The first sounds innocent enough and the later is probably an exaggeration.

Critical thinking probably is a cure for Self Imposed Brain Washing.

Posted by: puzzleboydave | 12 April 2005

Tom DeLay has been stuffing his pockets with PAC money for years. Being conservative, the American people don't want leaders who perpetually play it close to the ethical edge. They don't want leaders who, under threat, lash out wildly at beloved institutions like the judiciary. They don't want leaders whose instinct is always to go out wildly on the attack. They don't want leaders so reckless that even when they know they are living under a microscope, they continue to act in ways that invite controversy.
House Republicans like what DeLay has done, and few have any personal animus toward him, but his aggressiveness makes them - and his own constituents - nervous. Only 39 percent of DeLay's Texas constituents said they would stick with him if he were up for re-election today, a Houston Chronicle survey found. That's worse than Bush's current numbers...

Posted by: Bill | 12 April 2005