Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Adventures in Jew-Baiting
Only two positive outcomes have been born out of the John Edwards/blogger scandal - or as former Reasonoid Tim Cavanaugh dubbed it, White-Hot-Sticky-Holy-Spiritgate. One is the diminishment of candidate Edwards. The other is hilarity. And much of those humor is rooted in the antics of Catholic League president/pope/taoiseach Bill Donohue, who has skin roughly as thick as rice paper. Donohue has a problem with people pointing out an old anti-Jewish rant he foisted on that elite class of citizens who watch MSNBC.
Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It‘s not a secret, OK? And I‘m not afraid to say it. That‘s why they hate this movie. It‘s about Jesus Christ, and it‘s about truth. It‘s about the messiah. Hollywood likes anal sex.
This is obviously loony, but Donohue gets very angry when people toss those words back at him. MSNBC host Keith Olbermann did that on Monday, in his typical Murrow-on-roids manner.
Another guest pointed out that three years ago Mr. Donohue himself had said, quote, Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews, who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.
Mr. Donohue responded, I‘m not going to put up with it. It‘s not the issue here, or I‘m not the issue here. Yes, you are pal. Vulgar, trash talking bigotry can transcend race, religion, creed or color.
Wow! How will Donohue come back from that? Pretty moronically, actually.
On July 31, 2006, Olbermann interviewed Tom O’Neil, a Hollywood observer, and in the course of discussing Mel Gibson’s drunken anti-Semitic rant, O’Neil wondered aloud whether Mel could come back from this incident: ‘I don’t see how Mel rallies from this, especially in Jewish Hollywood.’ A few seconds later, Olbermann said, ‘And let’s clarify so nobody puts you on that list of folks who said things. When you said Jewish Hollywood, you meant the Jewish community in Hollywood, not Jewish Hollywood.’ O’Neil answered affirmatively. So let’s clarify for Olbermann’s sake. When I referred to Hollywood being run by secular Jews, how is this any different from what O’Neil said?
Let's clarify for Donohue's sake: The part about hating
Christianity. Come on, he obviously knows that pinning all
media mockery of Catholicism on Jewish hatred of Christians feeds
into all sorts of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
Why keep blogging this? Who cares about John Edwards? Well,
I don't, not anymore, after he blew a chance (mainly by
not stopping Amanda Marcotte from blogging at Pandagon anymore) to
smack down a clownish, paranoid shakedown artist who is to
Catholics what Al Sharpton is to African-Americans. Donohue doesn't
usually dabble in politics, but in entertainment, demanding the
scalps of comedians and artists who dare to make fun of the
Catholic Church, famous Catholics, or communion wafers. He's called
for
Penn Jillette to be fired for joking about Mother Teresa. He
called Trey Parker and Matt Stone (the latter of whom is, yes, a
secular Jew) "bigots" and
demanded Comedy Central pull an episode of South Park
which parodied stigmata, which the channel did.
Donohue gets away with a lot of this crap because networks (and
politicians) see him as a representative of "religion," and they
fear repeats of the Last Temptation of Christ protests.
Well, he's not a representative of religion. He's a fringe activist
who
denies that the Catholic Church had a "pedophila crisis." Yes,
that Catholic Church, the one that's investigated claims
that more than 4000 American priests sexually abused children,
claims that they had previously covered up, including some against
Edward Dudzinski, the priest who baptised me.
Fired blogger Melissa
McEwen says the Edwards affair was "a win for no one." Insofar
as it handed Donohue a victory, sure. But it can still be a win, if
his wacky beliefs and statements get more play and Donohue inches a
little closer to laughingstock status.
|2.14.07 @ 4:19PM|#
"Let's clarify for Donohue's sake: The part about hating
Christianity."
And the part about the Jews running things. And the part about
hating Jesus. And the part about hating truth.
Warren|2.14.07 @ 4:26PM|#
...claims that more than 4000 American priests sexually
abused children, including Edward Dudzinski, the priest who
baptised me.
That explains a lot actually. NTTAWWT
ed|2.14.07 @ 4:28PM|#
He's called for Penn Jillette to be fired for joking about
Mother Teresa
He has that power? I hope he doesn't see this then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO_4ssKtywg
|2.14.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Speaking of Jew baiting, Al Franken is officially running for Senate. I guess as long as he doesn't want to be sworn in on the Torah, all it good, right? Right?!
|2.14.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Maybe Norm Coleman can beat Franken over the head with that
plaque that was supposed to hold George Galloway's head.
Ever see someone climb on a diving board, yell "Look at me! Look at
me!" and then execute an ear-splitting belly flop?
|2.14.07 @ 4:36PM|#
Whenever I hear or read Donahue, I'm taken back to my teenage
years when I too was belligerent arch-catholic conservative. While
I did and still do have a major problem with antisemitism (seeing
enough Holocaust documentaries when you're a kid does that do you)
I didn't sound all that different that this asshole. I once called
a girl a "whore" during a sex ed class because she defended
pre-marital sex. I would rail about abortion, condoms, gays, and
the liberal-run "anti-Christian" media whenever I had the
chance.
The more and more I think of this fucker, the more and more I hate
him and bigotry for which he stands for. I hate him because if it
weren't for a few events in my life (going to college was the major
one) I would probably would have continued right down the
right-wing path and ended up as bigoted an ass as Donahue, Pat
Buchanan, Mel Gibson, and yes, my father.
Looking back on it all, I have to say that people like Donahue make
me feel good to be a "recovering Catholic/born-again atheist." No
regrets, not ever.
|2.14.07 @ 4:39PM|#
You're a CATHOLIC?! Holy Jesus!
Pfft. I'll never read another Weigal post again.
|2.14.07 @ 4:41PM|#
Norm Coleman has always been a "hold up my finger to see which
way the wind is blowing" type of a pol since he's been in college
politics.
By November '08 he'll be as anti-war as Murtha or Feingold.
(My prediction: Franken in a walk - he'll remind people of
Wellstone.)
|2.14.07 @ 4:43PM|#
I gotta agree with Hollywood on this one: anal sex is more interesting then the messiah.
David Weigel|2.14.07 @ 4:43PM|#
You're a CATHOLIC?! Holy Jesus!
Actually, I'm now a Methodist. Guess why?
|2.14.07 @ 4:44PM|#
It's funny, because Franken has always been a silly comedian.
The "serious thinker" pose he struck on the cover of "Rush Limbaugh
is a Big Fat Idiot" was a gag. Of course he's not really a serious
political thinker - he's clowning in the role.
Except now he's not clowning.
Which is not to say he's not a clown.
|2.14.07 @ 4:44PM|#
David, you should have stayed in the Catholic Church and told
everyone else to leave.
Shit, I suspect that 75% of Catholics are only Catholics because
they think everyone else should leave. The only thing that
the 75% agree on is that the other 25% are smoking something.
Timothy|2.14.07 @ 4:49PM|#
David Weigel | February 14, 2007, 4:43pm | #
You're a CATHOLIC?! Holy Jesus!
Actually, I'm now a Methodist. Guess why?
You like anal sex?
|2.14.07 @ 4:50PM|#
The other, purely grammatical way the two statements are
different is that the other speaker, when prompted, specified that
he was talking about that subsection of the Hollywood community
that is Jewish, while Donohue's statement can't be read in any
other way than as a statement that ALL of Hollywood is under the
yoke of ZOG.
"That portion of Hollywood that is Jewish will be angry at Mel
Gibson," is a different statement than "The filthy Jews run all of
Hollywood while they skulk in their lairs hating Christianity,
twirling their moustaches and planning ways to undermine the
truth!"
|2.14.07 @ 4:51PM|#
Well, I don't, not anymore, after he blew a chance
(mainly by not stopping Amanda Marcotte from blogging at
Pandagon anymore) to smack down a clownish, paranoid
shakedown artist who is to Catholics what Al Sharpton is to
African-Americans.
???
She had already made her statements, why would Edwards insisting
she not blog there anymore make them magically disappear?
|2.14.07 @ 4:51PM|#
Some day, thoreau, there will be a Catholic politician with the
stones to point out how out of touch the heirarchy is with Catholic
voters.
You know what Kerry should have said when he was attacked by people
like Donohue about his support for abortion rights? "Yeah, Cardinal
Bernand Law used to tell me the same thing."
VM|2.14.07 @ 4:51PM|#
"Actually, I'm now a Methodist. Guess why?"
Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr in "Cannonball Run"?
|2.14.07 @ 4:53PM|#
Yes, joe, but 74.9% of us will still think that he's a heretic for one reason or another. So will the other 25%.
David Weigel|2.14.07 @ 4:54PM|#
She had already made her statements, why would Edwards
insisting she not blog there anymore make them magically
disappear?
After Edwards announced he wasn't hiring them but the fresh talk
"wouldn't be tolerated," the campaign let Marcotte keep blogging on
Pandagon, where she reviewed the movie Children of Men,
wherein she made some more comments about religion and took more
heat.
|2.14.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Some day, thoreau, there will be a Catholic politician with
the stones to point out how out of touch the heirarchy is with
Catholic voters.
You know what Kerry should have said when he was attacked by people
like Donohue about his support for abortion rights? "Yeah, Cardinal
Bernand Law used to tell me the same thing."
The problem with this to my non-Catholic mind is the reaction most
Protestants have when hear this, namely: "Then why not leave the
Catholic Church?" At some point, church doctrine is so antithetical
to what you believe -- pro-life, anti-gay, anti-handjob,
self-administered or otherwise -- that it doesn't make a whole lot
of sense to stick with it. Most Lutherans would, if their pastor
sounded like a raving lunatic to them, either move to a different
Lutheran church or to an Episcopalian or Presbyterian one.
|2.14.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Bill Donohue seems like one of those guys who always has little gummy bits of spittle in the corners of his mouth.
|2.14.07 @ 5:01PM|#
The problem with this to my non-Catholic mind is the
reaction most Protestants have when hear this, namely: "Then why
not leave the Catholic Church?"
We Catholics are a stubborn bunch. Protestants gave up too
easily.
|2.14.07 @ 5:07PM|#
Is it just stubbornness, or is there something about Catholicism that you do value over mainline protestant denominations?
|2.14.07 @ 5:11PM|#
Josh,
Why don't conservative American Catholics move to El Salvador,
where the laws are much more in line with their beliefs?
Because they're Americans, and they don't want to stop being
Americans. Being an American is something that matters to
them.
And they don't feel any less American when liberals control the
government.
Grotius|2.14.07 @ 5:11PM|#
...he's not a representative of religion.
Well, I think we can safely say that is true of any religious
adherant, given the general diversity within each religion.
_____________________________________
If the Dutch war for independence against the Sapnish crown is any
indication, Protestants too are a stubborn bunch.
Grotius|2.14.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Josh,
Most religious people haven't historically switched because that
was the belief they were born into. It is an issue of psychology
and sociology. Indeed, a lot of work demonstrates that religious
belief comes first for most people and then efforts to jusitfy it
come later. It takes some fairly corrosive stuff to undermine that
socialization.
So, in an increasingly secular society where larger portions of the
population aren't socialized into a religion at all or in a
"serious" manner it isn't surprising to see no or weak allegiance
to religious belief amongst a larger class of the population.
Ed|2.14.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Exactly what constitutes an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory? Does alledging that Israel had a hand in 9/11 count?
|2.14.07 @ 5:29PM|#
Why don't conservative American Catholics move to El
Salvador, where the laws are much more in line with their
beliefs?
Because all of their friends, family, and jobs are in the US? If
this is the reason for staying Catholic too, that's perfectly fine.
This isn't an attempt at a gotcha, it's a legitimately curious
question.
I wouldn't stay in a religion that was at odds with my basic
notions of fairness and individuality. Many Catholics do -- is it
out of habit? Out of a belief that it should and can be
reformed?
Grotius|2.14.07 @ 5:33PM|#
Ed,
Exactly what constitutes an anti-Semitic conspiracy
theory?
Oh, I don't know, such hoax works as The Protocols Of The
Elders Of Zion.
|2.14.07 @ 5:35PM|#
It's because Catholic girls are hot, and going to Mass is a great opportunity for scoping out chicks.
|2.14.07 @ 5:37PM|#
Josh,
"Because all of their friends, family, and jobs are in the US?"
Belonging to the Church, especially if you are a long-time
communicant as a parish, forms its own bonds.
"I wouldn't stay in a religion that was at odds with my basic
notions of fairness and individuality." The proclaimations of the
heirarchy are not the religion. Particularly in the field of
politics. Non-Catholics, and quite a few Catholics, often
misunderstand (or misstate) the limits of the infallibility
doctrine.
Ed|2.14.07 @ 5:39PM|#
It's kind of an ethnic thing, too. For me, being Catholic is part of being Irish.
Dave W.|2.14.07 @ 5:40PM|#
Does the theory that the US secretly gave Israel the bomb count
as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory?
I am not saying the US did, but I think it is a theory worth
considering. Is considering it anti-Semitic (because of the close
connection between Israel and Judaism)?
|2.14.07 @ 5:44PM|#
I think Donohue is wrong to implicitly ignore the Gentile
moviemakers, like Tarantino, who are as culturally corrupt as one
might like.
Attributing superior virtues to Gentiles which they do not in fact
possess is pretty much the definition of Jew-baiting.
Under this definition, of course, Thomas Paine was a master
baiter:
http://reason.com/blog/show/118665.html#641781
Grotius|2.14.07 @ 5:45PM|#
For many (most?) religious adherants official religious doctrine isn't particularly important as an intellectual matter. A perfect example of this is the religious wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, where folks slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people over doctrines in significant part because it was religion as community solidarity that was at issue.
Ed|2.14.07 @ 5:46PM|#
"Does the theory that the US secretly gave Israel the bomb count
as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory?"
I don't think so. But the theory that Israel controls the American
government might be. Didn't a lot of people think the Vatican would
control the government when Kennedy was elected. That was
anti-Catholic (maybe anti-Irish) to be sure.
edna|2.14.07 @ 5:46PM|#
Does the theory that the US secretly gave Israel the bomb
count as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory?
yes, especially because it comes in a package with other
antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Dave W.|2.14.07 @ 5:51PM|#
yes, especially because it comes in a package with other
antisemitic conspiracy theories.
If it turns out to be true then would that make all the theories in
the package true, too. Not sure how this package thing works.
|2.14.07 @ 6:08PM|#
Because they're Americans, and they don't want to stop being
Americans. Being an American is something that matters to
them.
That, and the certain rush one gets from foisting one's notions of
right and wrong on others.
|2.14.07 @ 6:39PM|#
"Actually, I'm now a Methodist. Guess why?"
"You like anal sex?"
That's the same reason Hillary usually gives.
Lee Harvey Oswald|2.14.07 @ 6:59PM|#
South Africa and Israel worked jointly on the atomic bomb. Conspiracy theory has it that SAs nukes are now in Taiwan. If true I wonder if they have the 'nads to use 'em?
Dave W.|2.14.07 @ 7:04PM|#
You're a CATHOLIC?! Holy Jesus!
Actually, I'm now a Methodist. Guess why?
How do you feel about Rent?
|2.14.07 @ 7:07PM|#
"Props to Joe for defending the Church!"
Props to Akira, who is apparently a conservative Catholic, for
acknowledging that "the hierarchy" is not "the Church."
People like you, Akira, who don't let political and social disputes
interfere with Catholic solidarity, are why I haven't left.
Peace.
|2.14.07 @ 7:08PM|#
"Actually, I'm now a Methodist. Guess why?"
Because you find the acting in movies made before 1950 too
stagey?
Dave W.|2.14.07 @ 7:17PM|#
You know what Kerry should have said when he was attacked by
people like Donohue about his support for abortion rights? "Yeah,
Cardinal Bernand Law used to tell me the same thing."
Now THAT rocks.
Dave W.|2.14.07 @ 7:24PM|#
The proclaimations of the heirarchy are not the religion.
Particularly in the field of politics. Non-Catholics, and quite a
few Catholics, often misunderstand (or misstate) the limits of the
infallibility doctrine.
Especially if you are relatively nomocratic about governance, the
way libertarians are.
|2.14.07 @ 7:40PM|#
"Exactly what constitutes an anti-Semitic conspiracy
theory?"
Oh, I don't know, such hoax works as The Protocols Of The
Elders Of Zion.
That didn't exactly answer the question, but the Protocols forgery
certainly is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Its subject was
Jews, and the Protocols forgery was first brought to the attention
of the world and published by Sergye Nilus, a pronounced
anti-Jewish racist. It's fair to assume that he did so in order to
engender antipathy toward Jewish folks.
Does the theory that the US secretly gave Israel the bomb count
as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory?
No, cuz the subject is the Israeli government (and the US
government). Governments engage in conspiracies frequently. Should
we refrain from investigating the actions of the Israeli government
cuz that government is run by Jews? Of course not. Now anti-Semites
might well use actions/and alleged actions by the Israeli
government, and theories about the same, for their own racist ends.
But that does not justify dismissing consideration of theories
about those actions and alleged actions as out of hand at all. Of
course there might be other good reasons to dismiss certain
conspiracy theories.
Does alledging that Israel had a hand in 9/11 count?
No. For all of the above reasons.
Now there is overwhelming evidence that the Israeli government had
prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and failed to tell us.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j100402.html
http://www.antiwar.com/israeli-files.php
I know of no evidence that they had any role in their facilitation,
but let's say that it was revealed that the Israeli government
marshaled the attacks; it still wouldn't justify antipathy toward
even the Israeli population in general, let alone Jews in general.
In fact, blaming Jews in general for the actions of the Israeli
government is not only racist; it's really absurd since there are
so many Jews who oppose the Israeli government.
Dave W.|2.14.07 @ 7:54PM|#
Of course there might be other good reasons to dismiss
certain conspiracy theories.
well, then, should we refrain from investigating how Israel got the
bomb because it could prevent the US from getting on a "high horse"
when North Korea and Iran try to acquire the same?
The Wine Commonsewer|2.14.07 @ 8:00PM|#
Adventures in Jew-Baiting
The real problem with Jew baiting is it just doesn't work as well
as night crawlers. Or even Cheese Whiz.
|2.14.07 @ 8:10PM|#
edna:
"yes, especially because it comes in a package with other
antisemitic conspiracy theories."
Dave W:
If it turns out to be true then would that make all the
theories in the package true, too. Not sure how this package thing
works.
Good answer, Dave W, As Ayn Rand observed, the "package thing" is
illogical. It doesn't work.
Also, how often have we seen this type of implication?: "The
Israeli government or the neocons are Jews or mostly so and they
did this, therefore Jews are (something bad)".
Regardless of the truthfulness of the first part of the statement,
the second part doesn't follow. It's the second part that should
ALWAYS be challenged.
Full disclosure: I'm not a Jew or Catholic or even a Methodist. I'm
not follower of any religion.
|2.14.07 @ 8:15PM|#
edna,
If it is proven that Israel got the bomb from us, will it be
anti-semitic and/or a conspiracy theory to say so?
|2.14.07 @ 8:15PM|#
Dave W:
well, then, should we refrain from investigating how Israel got
the bomb because it could prevent the US from getting on a "high
horse" when North Korea and Iran try to acquire the
same?
I was talking about meritorious reasons of truth and logic, not
expediency.
|2.14.07 @ 8:28PM|#
joe
Once upon a time I didn't make the distinction betwixt "heirarchy"
and the "church." To me it was one in the same, and it still is to
most of the Catholic members of my family. For instance: Whenever
he went to Mass, he'd alway go on a right-wing tirade when he saw a
parishioner's car that had BOTH an anti-abortion and a Clinton/Gore
bumper sticker. Why? Because according to him, Holy Mother Church
says abortion is murder and no true Catholic would vote for a
pro-choice president.
I left the RCC after 25 years mainly because, thanks to college, I
no longer believe in the supernatural. Also, because I actually
found out that there was a world outside of the one-horse town
where I grew up and discovered that the people who my father would
proclaim were on their way to Hell (e.g. homosexuals, atheists,
"fornicators") were not the evil, baby-eating, bastards he made
them out to be.
While some of my Catholic friends still joke I'll be a one of them
for life due to baptism, I shock the dust of the church off my feet
long ago. I'm not going back.
|2.14.07 @ 8:30PM|#
Neu Mejican,
Only one of the items (Odigo) in the link that you provided is
germane to the case that the Israeli government had foreknowledge
that is contained in the links that I provided.
See also:
"Terror Enigma: 9/11 And the Israeli Connection" by Justin
Raimondo
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595296823/reasonmagazineA/
|2.14.07 @ 8:51PM|#
I know this is picky, but Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister wasn't fired. According to her own post, she quit because she was getting death threats and threats to her family. Nice friends Mr. Donahue has.
|2.14.07 @ 9:00PM|#
Karen,
I thought that former Bananarama singer/songwriter, Siobhan Fahey,
called it off.
|2.14.07 @ 9:00PM|#
Good God, 67 comments and not one shout of props to David for
his gratuitous (but brilliant) gaelic allusion!?!
Buy that man a Guinness.
|2.14.07 @ 9:14PM|#
...And that's enough to post a Bananarama vid! They were so
good!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mugexOuw-W0&mode=related&search=
Here they are in one of their earliest ones with with Fun Boy Three
doing "It Ain't What You do" Dig this!
|2.14.07 @ 9:19PM|#
Will someone please take joe's keyboard away?
I can't even read this nblog anymore because he infests any even
halfway decent thread with his trollery. If I wanted to read
DailyKos, I would.
It's really exhausting trying to find joe-less threads around here.
I think he has some sort of computer program.
edna|2.14.07 @ 9:46PM|#
If it is proven that Israel got the bomb from us, will it be
anti-semitic and/or a conspiracy theory to say so?
if it is proven that santa claus is the creation of a zionist
mercantile conspiracy in search of mind control over the goyim for
zionist ends, will it be anti-semitic and/or a conspiracy theory to
say so?
if you want to blame the french, go ahead.
|2.14.07 @ 9:49PM|#
edna wins.
Rick Barton, I don't get the bananarama reference, although they
were huge when I was in college and therefore should
understand.
|2.14.07 @ 10:11PM|#
joe,
If you have a problem with Catholic opposition to abortion and
homosexual behavior, your problem isn't with the hierarchy, it's
with the Scriptures and 2000 years of Catholic tradition, not to
mention the preceding 1000 years of Jewish tradition on those
issues.
Luckily, as Americans, if we don't like the way our govt is
operating, we have the option to change our government rather than
leaving the country. The Church, on the other hand, isn't a
democracy, it's take it or leave it. Eternal truth is not subject
to majority vote or even consensus.
|2.14.07 @ 10:40PM|#
Donohue is no taosiach, he's an spailpín
fánach in my book.
I took an undergraduate History of ConLaw course from Virgil Blum,
S.J., way back when. Donohue wouldn't be fit to brush the man's
biretta.
I like to tell my Catholic friends that I quit "The Church" over a
theological dispute.* When I have argued with "Cafeteria Catholics"
that they would be much happier finding another spiritual home, I
could not believe how adamant some of them are about staying within
The Mystical Body and fighting to change it. Those brought up
Protestant, or in some non-Christian faith without an
ecclesiastical hierarchy may not understand the value the Catholics
put on the organizatonal and dogmatic unity of Christianity. The
Great Schism and the Reformation are seen as the regrettable
actions of some sincere but misguided heretics, corrupt politicians
and suborned clergymen. The modern ecumenical movement may seem to
paper this over, but Rome really does think that all Christian
churches should reunite, and conform their doctrines to the
Official Version. The rank-and-file tend to have similar views
about joining a competing branch of Christianity. There's even the
phenomenon described by Michael Harrington, a self-described
"cultural Catholic," who, while a heretic or even an atheist,
doesn't want to be cut off from the community he grew up in.
Compare and contrast these behaviors with that of folks you know
who seem to belong to the "wrong" political party. "Liberal"
Republicans and "conservative" Democrats often stay in the party
they were raised in for practical reasons, such as the ability to
vote in primary elections in constituencies dominated by that
party, but cultural connections can be important, too. The
participants on this board, many of whom have changed ideologies
and/or parties, if not religions, are no doubt atypical in our
willingness to cut such ties.
Kevin
*The RCs believe in a god or three, and I had come to not believe
in any.
William R|2.14.07 @ 10:45PM|#
Weigel, you're pathetic. First Jews do run HollyWeird
Second, the top grossing movie of 2004 couldn't get the backing of
one Major HollyWeird studio. They all blackballed Gibson and his
movie.
Finally, folks are getting fedup with Jews whining about
anti-semitism. The latest being Mitt Romney announcing his White
House in front of the Henry Ford building. No matter what one
thinks of Ford, he is an American icon. You should stick to
blogging over at Andy Sullivan's joint
Gray Ghost|2.14.07 @ 10:56PM|#
Karen, Shakespeare's Sister was a duet in the '90s. One of the
founders, Siobhan Fahey, used to be in Bananarama. You might've
heard their hit, "Stay" in 1992. It was fairly big back then. I'm
embarrassed to admit that I've got their CD somewhere... Complete
aside, which BBQ restaurant in Austin was it that you were
recommending for their vinegary-sauce? I do miss the BBQ there:
Kreuz, Salt Lick, catching concerts at Stubbs...
Agree with the idea that criticism or examination of Israel's
policies does not equal anti-Semitism by itself. I do think that
Israel takes a lot of grief for behavior that is restrained by the
standards of the region. I can only imagine our reaction in the US,
if suicide bombers were on the NY subway, or if bandits in Mexico
were lobbing rockets at El Paso. Look at how nuts we went over the
lite-brites in Boston; I think our law enforcement would have many
of the same or more excesses that we currently criticize Israel
for, if we had their level of terrorist violence. Whether the
heightened scrutiny of Israel's behavior is due to comparing Israel
with other liberal democracies instead of its surrounding
countries, or whether it's due to the perception that Israel is no
longer an underdog, or some other observer bias, I've no
idea.
I tend to agree with edna in that the French seem to bear the
lion's share of blame for Israel's acquiring the bomb. It seems the
US didn't learn about the Dimona reactor until 1960, and when we
found out, we were not supportive. The Kennedy admin. was downright
hostile to Israel building both Dimona and the bomb. Kennedy
demanded semi-annual U.S. inspections of Dimona to ascertain
whether the Israelis were sequestering nuclear material. Then
Kennedy got shot and LBJ had different priorities. Most of this I
found on nti.org and fas's plug for Avner's Cohen's "Israel and the
Bomb." I've not read it, but it sounds very interesting.
There have been assorted U.S. misplacements of HEU and other
nuclear materials over the years; it's alleged that some of this
went to Israel. Conspiracy theories are just good clean fun...
|2.14.07 @ 11:18PM|#
Ironically, I'm watching the "Holier Than Thou" epeisode of
P&T: Bullshit where Donahue makes all manner of excuses for
theological S&M freak Mother Theresa's shady dealings with
Charles Keating and "Papa Doc" Duvaliers.
If you think the man is an asshole by his organization's press
releases, just wait until you hear the verbal diarrhea that spews
from his cake-hole.
Grotius|2.14.07 @ 11:20PM|#
crimethink,
...it's with the Scriptures and 2000 years of Catholic
tradition, not to mention the preceding 1000 years of Jewish
tradition on those issues.
Even if I were to accept this claim, tradition by itself is no
reason to follow a particular doctrine. Indeed, lots and lots of
traditions associated with Christianity have fallen by the wayside
over the years, so...
The Church, on the other hand, isn't a democracy, it's take it
or leave it.
Or take it. After all, any religious organization is no more
ultimately than its membership. In other words, if enough Catholics
want female priests some day you'll have female priests in the
Catholic Church.
Grotius|2.14.07 @ 11:27PM|#
crimethink,
BTW, I'd like to note that in at least some Jewish traditions (why
is that people treat Judaism as a monolith?!) abortion before the
40th day was appropriate in some circumstances (namely for the
health of the mother and like medical reasons).
|2.14.07 @ 11:35PM|#
Or take it. After all, any religious organization is no more
ultimately than its membership. In other words, if enough Catholics
want female priests some day you'll have female priests in the
Catholic Church.
Yeah, it's always good when sick asshole religions get their balls
cut off. Come on, Islam!
|2.14.07 @ 11:50PM|#
Will someone please take joe's keyboard away?
I think that joe's comments are usually very thoughtful, even when
I find those comments to be incorrect, which I often do when the
topic is domestic (especially economic) concerns.
He's intellectually honest and good at pointing out
inconsistencies. I think that his presence around this splendid
place tends to sharpen our prevailing libertarianism. Also, joe
seems to have a better appreciation for capitalism and other
liberties than most liberals do. He's witty and he's a nice guy.
I'm glad he's around.
dhex|2.15.07 @ 12:10AM|#
"Eternal truth is not subject to majority vote or even
consensus."
then how in the bloody hell do theological disputes get
settled?
which nicean creed is the eternal truth?
Grotius|2.15.07 @ 12:30AM|#
dhex,
You are right of course. It is even the case that the Bible as we
know it today was created by the working out of a 'debate' - a
consensus was come to amongst religious adherants (at least those
with a voice in the matter). Then again, they also attributed works
like Hebrews to Paul, though it is probably the case that he didn't
write Hebrews. Then there is the issue of how "Mark" actually ends
(what, there are like eleven different possible endings right?) all
the contradictions between the various canonical gospels, etc.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|2.15.07 @ 12:37AM|#
Under this definition, of course, Thomas Paine was a master
baiter:
That he was. Honest though.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|2.15.07 @ 12:42AM|#
Or even Cheese Whiz.
That will get you a philadelphian every time
|2.15.07 @ 1:14AM|#
Karen,
As Gray Ghost pointed out, Shakespeare's Sister was also founded by
Siobhan Fahey, who used to be in Bananarama. Did you enjoy the vid
that I linked to?
edna wins
No way! Her answer:
if it is proven that santa claus is the creation of a zionist
mercantile conspiracy in search of mind control over the goyim for
zionist ends, will it be anti-semitic and/or a conspiracy theory to
say so?
...to joe's:
"If it is proven that Israel got the bomb from us, will it be
anti-semitic and/or a conspiracy theory to say so?"
...is no answer at all cuz it's impossible for the premise in her
question to be proven true since it's nonsense, while the truth of
the premise in joe's question is open. edna committed some type of
fallacy. I thought that I knew which one but I looked it up and I
was wrong. Anyone know? (No offence, edna)
|2.15.07 @ 1:20AM|#
Conspiracy theories are just good clean fun.
More than that; they're an invaluable tool for understanding real
politic. Political power is often transmitted via the machinations
of hidden collusion and miss-direction. Often, conspiracy
theorizing is the only way to apprehend political reality.
I think we need to engage in conspiracy analysis to understand
political power. We need to ask the question; who benefits? I like
Rothbard's extension of common sense conspiracy analysis from
smaller political situations like the collusion of labor and
management to enact tariffs, to larger things like entry
into war, the creation of the Fed. etc.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.15.07 @ 1:21AM|#
Rick, the problem with Banannarama vids is that it sucks when the new stuff is old.
|2.15.07 @ 1:28AM|#
Ha, ha, ha. Read up on the history of the early Christian Church
and then come and back and talk to me about "one eternal
truth."
Yeah, you guys weren't democrats. You WIPED OUT the other competing
voices of Christianity. Ever heard of the Gnostics? Go read up on
on the sects that Augustine was frothing at the mouth about--the
Donatists et. al. See how nicely your "Christian church" treated
them.
And that was even before the early popes.
God, Christians piss me off.
Grotius|2.15.07 @ 1:31AM|#
I can understand Einstein's way of thinking about God - that is
accepting the "God of Spinoza." I don't take that position, but it
is a position I can understand.
I do not get the notion of a "personal God" working in human
history, handing out sacred texts, etc. I mean the latter claim
ought to bring up some obvious questions: for example, why is God
waiting until just a few thousand years ago to hand out sacred
texts?
|2.15.07 @ 1:45AM|#
Wine Commonsewer,
Which makes the old stuff in this case, like 25 yrs old! But I'm ok
with it. I just keep living (musically) in the 80's (and late
70's).
Here's another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n6chxpEINs
|2.15.07 @ 1:51AM|#
why is God waiting until just a few thousand years ago to
hand out sacred texts?
Cuz she's been stoned and feeling a tad lackadaisical?
|2.15.07 @ 4:24AM|#
...just wait until you hear the verbal diarrhea that spews
from his cake-hole.
Shouldn't that be Communion-wafer hole?
Dave W.|2.15.07 @ 7:04AM|#
More than that; they're an invaluable tool for understanding
real politic. Political power is often transmitted via the
machinations of hidden collusion and miss-direction. Often,
conspiracy theorizing is the only way to apprehend political
reality.
It is funny watching someone like Weigs, born while Bananarama was
on the charts, coming of voting age during 9/11 and really coming
into his own during the 2004 election cycle, talk about "conspiracy
theories." The etiquette of the aughts has slapped blinders onto
his political consciousness.
It is like Watergate or The Gulf Of Tonkin never happened for
him.
Hopefully he will enter a Blue Velvet phase soon and
realize that things are not always what they appear to be.
|2.15.07 @ 10:04AM|#
"Will someone please take joe's keyboard away?
I can't even read this nblog anymore because he infests any even
halfway decent thread with his trollery. If I wanted to read
DailyKos, I would."
What kind of a pussy gets this upset about seeing someone who
disagrees with him?
|2.15.07 @ 10:06AM|#
God, Christians piss me off.
They piss you off? How do you think Jesus would feel?
I'm not talking about strictly today's Christians. He'd be annoyed
with Peter and Paul's behavior in the years following his
death.
Yes, death. The dude died. He wasn't a deity. He never claimed to
be. Suck on that, Christians.
If you like Bananarama, thank Paul Weller. He signed them to his
label.
If you don't like Bananarama, don't blame Paul Weller. That was
years ago. Everybody gets a few missteps, right?
|2.15.07 @ 10:45AM|#
Why don't we all just convert to Scientology and wait for the aliens to come and reunite us with Elvis, Tom Cruise (pre-body snatchers), and maybe even Jesus?
VM|2.15.07 @ 10:56AM|#
Highnumber:
Paul Weller is fantastic. But just like Bob Mould, his solo/later
projects are only okay :)
Rick - thanks for the vids!
Backatcha -thanks to inspriation from High#.
That's Entertainment
by the Jam
Going
Underground
News of the
World
couldn't find "Away from the Numbers", my favorite...
|2.15.07 @ 11:06AM|#
Anyway, from my interpretation of how Christianity / Catholicism
came to be (in simple terms): Judaism was the predominant religion
back in the day. Jesus was allegedly born to a virgin mother.
Claims were made as to his "holyness". And, so, a new religion was
born, this one incorporating many of the Jewish beliefs, but
veering here and there as to include Jesus.
Just curious. Why is it that according to some Christians, there is
no way into heaven except through Jesus? Are they really so
ignorant as to believe that their fairly new (comparable to
Judaism) religion has claim to the entire kingdom of heaven?
Whereas Judaism claims that all "good" men (and women, of course),
regardless of religion, are entitled to their share of heaven. I
just don't see the logic behind the Christian way of
thinking.
If there is a God, why would only Jesus worshiping Christians be
accepted into heaven? What about all of the other people in other
nations that have never even been exposed to Jesus / Christianity?
It just doesn't make sense...to me at least.
JimmyDaGreek|2.15.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Just as a footnote: I am not condoning any specific religion.
Just curious on the Christian belief system.
...and I am not Jewish...not that there's anything wrong with
that...:)
|2.15.07 @ 12:00PM|#
edna,
You consider a Zionist conspiracy to create Santa Claus to exist on
the same plane of plausibility as our transfering military
information to an allied state?
I think that's just loopy.
|2.15.07 @ 12:30PM|#
VM,
Boo! Boo to you!
Everything Weller does is wondrous.
Seriously. If you haven't already, check out his most recent -
As Is Now. Most excellent, and available on eMusic.
Weller at the Vic 2/13/2003 - one of the 5 best concerts I've ever
been to. I was maybe 6 feet from the man when he sat at the
electric piano and played "What's Going On." Whoa.
VM|2.15.07 @ 12:35PM|#
High# - :)
Mrs. Moose is also a Weller fan across the board.
Thanks for the rec! Will check it out.
(I don't remember why we didn't go)
dhex|2.15.07 @ 1:07PM|#
"What kind of a pussy gets this upset about seeing someone who
disagrees with him?"
joe, according to my research, that would be 96.72% of all internet
users.
dhex|2.15.07 @ 1:10PM|#
and seriously, the gnostics - a widely disparate group of
religious sects - were generally not the sort of group any
modernist would want to hold up as having been a loss for pluralism
and modernity, mythologizing about their supposed progressiveness
aside.
though it is a good example of how the eternal truth generally
seems to be constructed by committee, and how those committees
often have knives and other sharp, pointy things. (a better example
in this case would be the cathars, if you want to pick a relatively
benign sect - by modern standards - that was persecuted into
non-being.)
VM|2.15.07 @ 1:14PM|#
High# - excellent reviews, too!
Dhex: what about the gnostics? I got lost in the sentence. (/kicks
pebble, wipes away cheetos dust)
The line about eternal truth and committees is pure gold! "I can
tell you're looking for a way to live/ where truth is determined by
consensus / full of codified, arbitrary directives/ come join
us"
two snaps and a circle for you, Sir!
William R|2.15.07 @ 1:25PM|#
One other thing Weigel, the Catholic Church doesn't have a pedophilia problem. It has a homosexual problem. The Priests weren' molesting young children. they were going after 12-18 boys
|2.15.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Weller may have been a socialist then, but "Going Underground" is the best political song since "Won't Get Fooled Again."
dhex|2.15.07 @ 2:52PM|#
"Dhex: what about the gnostics? I got lost in the sentence.
(/kicks pebble, wipes away cheetos dust)"
well, a lot of gnostic sects were body negative that makes the ted
haggard brigade look healthy and accepting of their
sexuality.
if the demiurge (the thing/force that created the material world)
is an asshole, the then the body is the produce of an asshole -
i.e. shit - and should be neutered and denied from reproduction.
how much this followed in actual practice, well, that depends on
the sources you read. and of course not all of the sects grouped
under "gnosticism" were entirely body negative.
VM|2.15.07 @ 3:07PM|#
gotcha. Thanks!
High#: Lords of the New Church have this good political showing,
too.
Open Your
Eyes
Or Bad Religion's
American Jesus
|2.15.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Bad Religion lyrics = good stuff
Their oozin' aahs were real good too.
Never got into Lords of the New Church.
|2.15.07 @ 3:51PM|#
dhex-
I'm reading a book about the gnostic gospels right now. What's
interesting is that some of them appeared to believe that the more
mainstream (or whatever you want to call it) brand of Christianity
was "good enough" for most folks, and that gnostic teachings were
only for the "truly enlightened." That would imply that some of
them believed the teachings of the Roman Church were "noble lies"
told for the sake of the masses.
Hardly a progressive, egalitarian approach.
Of course, like you said, there were many gnostic sects. The "noble
lie" angle seems to be the province of those who believed in a
"second God" higher than the God of the Old Testament.
dhex|2.15.07 @ 4:23PM|#
thoreau - which book?
(i want to gently bump it and fire corn syrupy knowledge into my
brain)
|2.15.07 @ 4:23PM|#
I just reread
Honest to Jesus. It's an effort to separate Jesus, "the
humble Galilean sage," from the mythological Christ. Great book,
but if one takes the Jesus Seminar's work seriously, it is
difficult to call oneself a Christian. Their scholarly efforts to
separate what Jesus can reasonably be thought to have said and done
leaves little room for the worship of him as something more than a
man.
Anyway, the book goes into the non-canonical Gospels. It does not
get very deeply into the Gnostics themsleves, but it does touch on
them. If you are reading about the Jesus outside of the canon, you
may find it interesting.
|2.15.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Great book, but if one takes the Jesus Seminar's work
seriously, it is difficult to call oneself a Christian. Their
scholarly efforts to separate what Jesus can reasonably be thought
to have said and done leaves little room for the worship of him as
something more than a man.
Scholarly my ass. Their methodology is only a slightly more
sophisticated version of Thomas Jefferson's "of course Jesus
wouldn't have said anything like that" approach to determining what
Jesus said.
Grotius|2.15.07 @ 5:43PM|#
VM,
I don't know about Paul Weller (never heard of him), but Peter
Weller (are they related?) of Robocop, Buckaroo
Banzai,, etc. fame is an excellant classicist. :)
___________________________
On gnosticism:
Gnostics generally believed that there were two Gods, an inferior
God who created the Earth, etc. who was evil or at least an
inferior God who could not bring salvation from the situation of
the soul in this corrupt body, and a God of salvation. Most also
seem to have argued that there was knowledge to be gleaned from
various texts that would lead one to understand how to end this
corrupt union of body and soul - read the Gospel of Thomas for
hints, etc. of this sort of reasoning.
thoreau,
It is fair to say that at least some gnostics believed that not
everyone had the ability to understand these texts. Which may speak
to the nature of the souls. If they have one.
Grotius|2.15.07 @ 5:48PM|#
highnumber,
I accept the now fairly old notion (first discussed - in modern
times at least - by Albert Schweitzer) of Jesus as an apocalyptic
preacher. Which makes him just like a ton of other figures of his
time.
|2.15.07 @ 6:09PM|#
Have you read the book, Seamus?
I don't know their work beyond that. While the methods described in
there do include an element of "we doubt he would have said that,"
they do that by cross referencing the available source material and
eliminating pieces that are incongruous. I think their direct line
to God was cut off in the 90s and the time machine doesn't go back
more than 4 or 5 months yet. How can they decide what were likely
Jesus' words and deeds?
Grotius,
The book addresses Jesus' connection to John the Baptist and
apocalyptic Judaism. The author, Robert W Funk, believes that Jesus
was a follower of J the B before Jesus started his own public
ministry. He supposes that Jesus left the apocalyptic movement and
struck out on his own with a faith or philosophy that had no trace
of apocalypticism. The words that they have supposed to be Jesus'
actual words do not speak of an end of time or a savior.
VM|2.15.07 @ 6:12PM|#
Hi Grotius:
They aren't related :)
And thanks for the further enlightenment about the Gnostics!
|2.15.07 @ 6:28PM|#
Philip K Dick, somewhat in his novels but mostly in his exegesis, wrote extensively about Gnostic beliefs. That was during his nuttier phase.
dhex|2.15.07 @ 10:40PM|#
the 2nd valis book is basically a gnostic fairytale. (it's my
least favorite of the three; i wish pkd had dropped the science
fiction gloss at some point and just written books.)
if you're having that kind of experience, gnosticism provides a
decent starting point for explaining why the universe seems both
insane and timeless.
Grotius|2.15.07 @ 11:05PM|#
highnumber,
I'd say that is pretty much the scholarly consensus on the
"historical Jesus" (whether the guy actually existed or not, well,
that is up for debate).
Yeah, Jesus (and I am not the first person to point this out by any
means) could have identified with any number of the "schools" of
thought at the time, yet he chose to associate himself with John
the Baptist, an apocalyptic preacher. Also Mark (the earliest known
gospel - ~70-75 CE) is studded with references to the very soon to
come apocalypse.
Grotius|2.15.07 @ 11:10PM|#
Corrrection & Addition:
thoreau,
It is fair to say that at least some gnostics believed that not
everyone had the ability to understand these texts. Which may speak
to the nature of their souls (that is the souls of
those who could not properly understand the texts). If they have
one.
|2.16.07 @ 5:30AM|#
Hardly a progressive, egalitarian approach.
I seem to recall that "gnosis" means "revealed knowledge" or
something like that, and that gnostic religions are all about
secret knowledge that is shared among a relatively select few.
IIRC.
Grotius|2.16.07 @ 5:59AM|#
Stevo Darkly,
Well, in one sense the Christological tradition that was forged
into the dominant form of Christianity is egalitarian in that
accepts anyone (in theory - in practice, lots and lots of those who
converted faced persecution and the like by their now fellow
communicants) into the folds of the community, yet the creation of
a hierarchy in the church undercuts this egalitarianism. Indeed,
attempts to enforce these hierarchies (I see them as human created
of course) - for example, the Petrine Doctrine - are significant
factors in many of Christianity's schisms.
|2.16.07 @ 10:07AM|#
Grotius,
The book posits that Jesus came with a new philosophy, but, in his
absence, his followers reverted to the trendy messiah oriented
apocalypticism, and wrote their Gospels to shoehorn Jesus into that
movement.
Grotius|2.16.07 @ 4:44PM|#
highnumber,
I see. Does the author draw on the decreasing use of apocalyptic
statements, etc. in the canonical gospels (from Mark to Matthew to
Luke to John) to make this argument?
|2.16.07 @ 6:45PM|#
No. To simplify, Matthew and Luke are rewrites of Mark with
different agenda and information from another source added.
Non-canonical Gospel Thomas seems to use the same source as Matthew
and Luke. Thomas was what they call a "sayings" Gospel. It has no
miracles, no Passion, no narrative at all. This source that Thomas,
Matthew, and Luke share is called "Q" (from German "quelle"). Q has
been theorized to also be a sayings Gospel. Presumably, right after
Jesus died, his sayings were collected in this Q. Over time, his
followers ascribed more and more divinity to Jesus transforming him
into the eschatological prophet we know today. The Gospels were
written as this took place.
John is a slightly different beast (most Gnostic of the canon and
probably the least historically reliable).
You haven't read any of the historical Jesus stuff post
Schweitzer?
I'm not a Christian and haven't set foot in a Christian church for
anything but ceremonial events for friends and family for many
years, but I find that Jesus the man was a fascinating figure and
becomes only more so as the veneers of religionists are stripped
away.
|2.16.07 @ 8:09PM|#
highnumber, I think most of what you said is a matter of
consensus. Mark has priority among the synoptics, they all drew on
collections of sayings (probably something like Q), and John is
crazy and Hellenistic and late.
But I don't think the idea that Jesus wasn't really an apocalyptic
preacher gets any support from all that consensus stuff, and I
don't think it's very plausible in any case. I mean, how are we
supposed to make sense of Mark without supposing that Jesus
preached about a Kingdom of God coming soon that everyone needed to
prepare for and spread the word about? That's like 90% of his
shtick. Is the book putting a lot of stock in Thomas or
something?
|2.16.07 @ 10:22PM|#
Dave2,
Even Mark was written a generation after his death. Paul never met
him, but his writings are the earliest Christian texts. Already by
the time Paul had assumed a position of great importance, the
movement had changed.
As far as making sense of Mark, it makes sense if you consider that
the Jesus movement, which was difficult to circumscribe, died out
not very long after Jesus' death, and Christianity, an apocalyptic
faith rose after that.
|2.16.07 @ 10:43PM|#
I'm thinking Mark and Q are pretty much all we have to go on when getting at the historical Jesus. What else are people relying on? (The Gospel of Thomas? Paul's letters?) I certainly don't know of any evidence pointing towards a distinction between 'the Jesus movement' and 'Christianity'.
Grotius|2.17.07 @ 2:18AM|#
highnumber,
No. To simplify, Matthew and Luke are rewrites of Mark with
different agenda and information from another source added.
Non-canonical Gospel Thomas seems to use the same source as Matthew
and Luke. Thomas was what they call a "sayings" Gospel. It has no
miracles, no Passion, no narrative at all. This source that Thomas,
Matthew, and Luke share is called "Q" (from German "quelle"). Q has
been theorized to also be a sayings Gospel. Presumably, right after
Jesus died, his sayings were collected in this Q. Over time, his
followers ascribed more and more divinity to Jesus transforming him
into the eschatological prophet we know today. The Gospels were
written as this took place.
This is all pretty standard stuff.
You haven't read any of the historical Jesus stuff post
Schweitzer?
Yes, I have. Lots of it. Anyway, most scholars remain convinced
that he was an apocalypticist; though much of Schweitzer's specific
arguments have been rejected.
|2.17.07 @ 4:38AM|#
Lots of scholars approach the study of Jesus from the point of
view of Christians, presuming the truth rather than questioning
every little bit.
That's how I see it, anyway.
I'm off to visit friends in sunnier climes.
Talk to y'all next week!
Grotius|2.17.07 @ 9:30AM|#
highnumber,
The dominant view amongst scholars is that he was an
apocalypticist; that is certainly true in the U.S.
Josh|2.18.07 @ 5:54PM|#
I knew this sounded familiar:
December 9, 2006, 5:28pm | #
Guy Montag,
One of the reasons for political conspiracy theories is political
conspiracy. It does happen. When we debase conspiracy analysis,
we're throwing out an invaluable tool for understanding real
politic. Political power is often transmitted via the machinations
of hidden collusion and miss-direction. Often, conspiracy
theorizing is the only way to apprehend political reality.
I think we need to engage in conspiracy analysis to understand
political power. We need to ask the question; Who benefits? I like
Rothbard's extension of common sense conspiracy analysis from
smaller political situations like the collusion of labor and
management to enact tariffs, to larger things like entry into war,
the creation of the Fed. etc.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245