On Christa Wolf, Havel, and the Much-Overused Word Dissident
Writing in The Weekly Standard, Reason Contributing Editor Michael C. Moynihan laments the language used in recent obituaries for German novelist Christa Wolf. Sample:
[I]t is more appropriate to call Wolf an East German novelist, a nostalgic for the regime she romanticized and unofficially served?—?including a three-year stint as Stasi informant. In 1989, when jubilant Ossies breached the Berlin Wall and sprinted towards the well-stocked shops of Kurfürstendamm, Wolf argued that East Germany should continue to exist.
The American obituarists allowed room for the Stasi controversy, and a few offered an incomplete précis of her political stupidities and toadying to party bosses. But these were waved off as unimportant. The New York Times declared Wolf the "public conscience of a long-divided people" (a title often applied to another GDR nostalgic, Günter Grass) and a "loyal dissident." The New Yorker insisted that she "spoke out strongly" against a government that applied brute force to those who did speak out, strongly or otherwise, while failing to note that she never resigned her party membership.
If Wolf counts as a "dissident," if loyalty to a state that excelled only in terrorizing its subjects counts as possessing an impressive "conscience," if releasing a novel critical of the system after the collapse of communism can be deemed "strongly" registering complaint, what words are left to eulogize Václav Havel?
Read the whole thing here. Moynihan reviewed some Cold War books for Reason in November 2009. My report from Havel's funeral here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Orwellian.
Gambol Lockdown = freedom.
City-Statist prison bars between people = individualism.
Cutting down all the forests in the Saudi and Sinai peninsulas to smelt metal = production.
Cutting down the vast cedar forest of Mesopotamia and turning into the Iraqi desert = development.
American Indian Holocaust genocide = Land of Liberty.
Collectively killing off the Indians, collectively building vast systems of roads, collectively constucting vast irrigation systems, collectively draining wetlands, and collectively creating the government grant Land enTITLEments to elite with enough money = private property.
East German Stasi got nuthin' on the average Orwellian Libertarian.
*raises leg*
*poooooooot*
Did you learn that from a Leonard Piekoff cassette tape?
Uh, yeah. We libertarians go around doing shit the Stasi was too squeamishy-pussified to even consider.
Fuckin' moron.
Do the Indian Holocausts not count if they were Indian on Indian?
See "Commanche" for multiple examples of this commonplace phenomenom. I don't think you can call them "city state" LOL
I agree wholeheartedly. I'm really interested in learning more about this anarcho-primitivist movement you've been pushing, but I just don't know where to turn. Can you e-mail me some more information so I can really know how we're meant to live? E-mail's in the header.
Jason, you're a fucking loon. That is all.
That sure is a handsome woman.
Not when I get done with her.
At this point with the media, registering a mild complaint with anyone about anything makes you a "dissident", and especially if you happen to be on the same TEAM as the person writing the piece.
It's meaningless, just like the media as a whole.
It's meaningless
Bunny Ranch guy to start Sci-Fi themed brothel:
http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2.....ning-soon/
Holy shit. I wonder if they'll have registered companions.
Fuck Dennis Hof, and fuck the Bunny Ranch. It's a scam involved in screwing men out of their money. First thing they do when you get there is make you drink (2 drink minimum at $12 per beer to enter, but they don't tell you until you're inside). Then they have their cop buddies outside the gate pull every car over as they leave. It's their way of getting you to stay so they can put the hard sell on.
And don't think about leaving without buying some overpriced junk in their gift shop. You do that, and Carson City's Finest are likely to give you a roadside safety test.
Trust me. The place is bad, bad, bad.
You paid to get fucked, now you're mad?
I just paid to go out and see it, and maybe stop in the gift shop. They don't tell you any of the rules until they have their hook in you and you can't opt out.
Their use of the police in their scam was just icing on the cake.
And Casinos aren't going to keep giving you free drinks if you aren't gambling. If you aren't going to BR for the pussy I don't see what's wrong with making you pay to be there.
So for people who go to this brothel, they get free drinks during intercourse? Vegas is a strange place.
This dude is going to make a ton of money.
Orion Slave Girls.
Like I said, he's going to make a ton of money. Think of the market: nerds with high salaries that get laid once a decade.
"Look at it this way. Considering the type of people you are and the environment you're in, you have to admit the strong possibility this may be the only chance you ever have in your entire lives...to have sex."
Brilliant doesn't do that idea justice. Three words Star Trek Lookalikes.
Princess Lay me.
R2 DO YOU.
And here's Seven of Nine. If you want to be assimilated by her, that will be $790.
I prefer Six of Nine myself.....well maybe not at a whore house....
Face Huggers!
Face Huggy Bear?
Yeah, but I expect the fanboys would expect a level of familiarity with the source material which is above the ability of the brothel to provide. Ie, if she's dressed as a Klingon, she'd damn bloody well better speak Klingon.
I eagerly await blog posts by fanboys who partake of the brothel's service, but lament its many SF franchise continuity errors.
"The girl who blew me was clearly wearing the dark acolyte harness from Season 3..."
Heh.
Close, but what they'd really do is, insanely, refuse to have sex with the incontinuitinuous women.
I mean, how can you get it up with such a glaring error? If they could just overlook little things, they wouldn't have to go to a brothel to get laid.
I'm pretty sure this is correct. So I recommend geek advisers for each girl.
"Hi, my name is Martin. I'm the VP of Space: 1999, Season 2 Continuity. My colleague, Zeb, specializes in the first season. Frankly, my girls are better and more accurately dressed, but don't tell him I said that."
I've got dibs on Firefly. The green chicks from Star Trek and Slave Girl Leia never really did it for me.
I disagree with the general consensus that this is a great marketing idea.
I don't think the sci-fi nerd market is a good hooker market. Nerds are in general too fastidious, and too plain old SCARED, to walk on the wild side that way.
The hooker market is more an extension of the "guy with tattoos who goes to cheap strip clubs" Howard Stern market. It's a completely different customer.
The fact that nerds don't get laid a lot actually counterintuitively makes them a bad target market for this service. Hookers are pretty fucking scary to anybody who isn't at least a little bit used to wiping his feet on women (i.e. nerds).
I don't agree, but even accepting your position as true, there's always geek porn as an alternative. Geeks do use their bunks, as I understand such things.
Frau Blucher![horses whinny]
Why isn't this thread about Ron Paul?
FACT: Ron Paul has testicles that can lift 350 pounds.
Not when I get through with him.
But, see, she was a lefty. You're always through the looking glass when dealing with the NYT and its ilk when the subject is lefties.
Speaking of the NY Times:
Catholics are angry they can't take $2.9 billion of federal money and discriminate against gays on adoptions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12.....IjlhdRgFMA
Their freedom of religion is being trampled.
Jeezeus tittyfucking Keereist, that's where we've come to as a nation. If you can't get your dirty mitts into the working man's wallet then you're being discriminated against.
Fuck those guys with a splintery crucifix.
And this gay moron:
Tim Kee, a teacher in Marion, Ill., who was turned away by Catholic Charities three years ago when he and his longtime partner, Rick Wade, tried to adopt a child, said: "We're both Catholic, we love our church, but Catholic Charities closed the door to us. To add insult to injury, my tax dollars went to provide discrimination against me."
You're the dumbasses who joined an organization that thinks buttfucking lead to eternal damnation.
The Apostle Paul said his prison butt-buddy Onesimus was useful.
Everybody but protestant christmongers recognize it as a nasty greek pederasty joke.
The Catholic priests get it. Oh yeah, they do.
Of course, there's the argument that they also have a First Amendment right not to be discriminated against by the government for their religious beliefs.
If the government is going to be contracting, it can't discriminate against (potential) contractors on the basis of their religion.
Right?
And, of course, there's the fact that they are also being ordered to provide insurance coverage for birth control, etc., regardless of whether they have any kind of a contract with the feds. Essentially, the feds have said that a Catholic organization my not offer health insurance consistent with its beliefs.
The only reason shrike posted that, is because he hates religion.
I would have pointed out "hey, for once someone doesn't take federal tax dollars", and been positive about it.
Yes, I hate religion but I also hate discrimination and federal handouts - and "faith-based" handouts most of all.
So it hit the Holy Trifecta.
Even more than bank bailouts or Trump hairplug subsidies?
Eh, you're 2 for 3. Religion and handouts suck, but discrimination is inevitable.
The only reason shrike posted that, is because he hates religion.
Well shrike is perfectly ok when the government spends trillions on his Keynesian cult.
He does not hate religion...just the kinds that involve Jesus....well i guess only the kinds that involve Jesus and conservatives...he is ok with the Jesus "cults" that Clinton, Obama and Pelosi are involved with.
I liked it when he randomly screamed bloody murder about Southern Baptists then didn't comment for like a month when we pointed out that Clinton (and Martin Luther King jr) were Southern Baptists.
Good times.
Good call, Joshua.
It's not uncommon for what seems to be a clear Establishment clause position to run afoul of Free Exercise rights. Shit ain't easy, especially when the government is involved in everything.
Come on it is obvious what it means. Just ask Ron Paul.
John, don't make me roll up the Constitution and beat you with it.
LOL.
No, it's not complicated at all.
The catholic church has NO constitutional right to taxpayers' money.
Sorry, but those buttfuckers have millions of rubes financing their operations and they don't need my cash.
The complication is that the government isn't really supposed to do anything that discriminates against religious beliefs or viewpoints. Spending money is a government action.
In theory, a law that is of general application is okay, even if it affects religious practices (e.g., banning human sacrifice is okay, even though it might impinge on someone's religious beliefs), but it can be tricky, especially if the law seems at all aimed at a particularly religion or religions.
Of course, I say that all within current law, leaving aside my views about the government funding any of this in the first place.
No one is advocating that the catholic church, or its members be coerced out of their beliefs or practices (excepting the health care mandate which is bullshit as well).
They were paid to perform a secular service for the government, if they cannot, or will not, perform that service then they lose their contract. I guess we should contract out some of our weapons manufacturing to pacifists who won't make guns because of their beliefs. Otherwise that'd be discrimination.
The complication is that the government isn't really supposed to do anything that discriminates against religious beliefs or viewpoints
Isn't that what giving money to the catholic church, or any religious body, is in the first place?
If the constitution only means what 51% of the 20% of people vote say it is then why fucking have it. Scrap it, and stop the pretense.
Yeah, I don't know why the heck I'm even discussing this, because I don't think they should be getting money, either.
My only point, without really knowing any specifics here, is that it's hard for the government not to end up running afoul of the First Amendment when it's handing out cash with various restrictions that at least appear viewpoint based.
Adoption Services Contractor Issue: No, government cannot discriminate based on the religion of the contractor. Government can require the potential contractors to perform the work to government standards, and that includes allowing gays to adopt. The failure to have qualifying policies is the issue; not the claimed religion.
This logic is no more tortuous than that which you use to justify continuing to exclude gays from full civil rights. It also means that a jewish owned meat packer would effectively be excluded from government pork contracts.
Health Insurance Coverage for Contraception: What government-mandated health insurance? Besides, in libertopia this would be a non-issue for another reason: they'd be free to hire only Good Catholics(tm) who obviously would never use contraception.
My only fear on this is that all of a sudden a lot of organizations would "get religion" to avoid having to cover contraception.
Government can require the potential contractors to perform the work to government standards,
And if the government standards included, say, barring gays, or Muslims, or Mormons, you'd be cool with that? No 1A problem there?
You can't just move the "No Catholics" clause from the "qualifications of contractors" section to the "project requirements" section and get out from under, Tony.
My handle is Tonio. With two oh's. I am not the person who posts here as Tony.
I don't see anything response-worthy in either of your replies.
Think about the jewish butcher who wants the pork contract (dollars) but can't fulfill it. Same thing. Sorry.
RC is a good poster although you have him trapped in a corner.
He is a conservative who calls himself a libertarian - nothing wrong with that.
Oh, pish. I am no libertarian, and certainly carry no brief for any particular group of god-botherers.
I merely point out that, yes, it is easy enough to effectively discriminate against a religious group by adding "performance requirements" that they cannot meet.
The kosher pork butcher is, of course, a non sequitur, as no kosher butcher has ever dealt in pork. But, Catholics have been in the adoption bidness for millenia.
Free exercise and establishment clause issues come up periodically, almost solely as the inevitable result of an ever-more-intrusive state.
You can't just wave them away so easily as saying "Well, its a performance issue." I can put fucking anything in the project requirements; does that make anything I put in there OK?
Oh, pish. I am no libertarian social conservative, and certainly carry no brief for any particular group of god-botherers.
Stupid fingers.
Oh, pish. I am no libertarian social conservative, and certainly carry no brief for any particular group of god-botherers.
Your stupid fingers gave me a fucking heart attack.
There is no "no catholics" clause and you know it. There is a performance requirement.
I would like to respect you more than I do, RC, but your intellectual dishonesty prevents that.
Aplogies for the "Tony".
I observe your flight from the marketplace of ideas with mild satisfaction. Come back anytime.
Show me the "no catholics need apply" clause. Srsly, link to that shit.
Look, anyone can claim to be "catholic". There are congregations (maybe even mini denominations) that are gay friendly. They are not be associated with the pope. These people could easily win a contract. It's not governments job to decide who is a true catholic, or even care.
Your failure to respond to the jewish butcher who wants the pork contract is noteworthy.
jewish butcher who wants the pork contract dilemma
Health Insurance Coverage for Contraception: What government-mandated health insurance?
If you offer coverage at all, you must offer coverage for contraception. Ergo, "the feds have said that a Catholic organization my not offer health insurance consistent with its beliefs."
Besides the religion issue in all of this, isn't there an argument that a government requirement of that nature is viewpoint discrimination?
So if Northrop Grumman stops putting guns in choppers because the board and shareholders don't like war any more they should get to keep their government contracts?
You can't just move the "No Catholics" clause from the "qualifications of contractors" section to the "project requirements" section and get out from under, Tony.
Realize nobody may read this but RC has yet to produce any evidence of this "no catholics clause" chimera in which he so fervently professes to believe. I realize you're a Busy and Important Lawyer(tm) and all, RC. So I'll keep checking back for a while.
You seem to be asserting some sort of mens rea claim that the purpose of the policy was to exclude gay-hostile religious organizations from being adoption services contractors to the government. I see no evidence of this. You got any?
The government's aim was to provide equal protection to all classes of people by requiring its adoption-services contractors to not discriminate against gays.
As I pointed out, there could well be other catholic organizations which are gay friendly and would have no trouble fulfilling the contract. Their lack of organizational affiliation with the pope is not the government's concern.
The kosher pork butcher is, of course, a non sequitur, as no kosher butcher has ever dealt in pork.
Uh, no, you're misreading, or something. The point was that the butcher wanted the contract but had no intention to actually supply pork. This is an good analogy to the adoption situation. I'll leave this dilemma aside for the moment.
Dude. It's the fucking New Yorker. Expecting anything but a whitewash of her past from them would be akin to expecting the WaPo to endorse Ron Paul.
Why isn't this thread about Ron Paul?
"Zionist Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard..."
Go!
Reminds me of my favorite 'shit! I didn't know they were bad guys?' ex-party member
http://rctlfy.wordpress.com/20.....the-facts/
Never speak of this again.
Reminds me of my favorite 'shit! I didn't know they were bad guys?' ex-party member
http://rctlfy.wordpress.com/20.....the-facts/
Now you've done it.
Timothy, let rather shit-disturb.
It amuses her; besides she's going to bit-slap me, and party with my son
-I'm reconsidering that punishment shit I did with Adam & Eve.
Time for an article on Mitt.
We're waiting for him to get back to first place.
Welchie, are you celebrating the death of California's redevelopment authorities today?
Isn't there some bitch in LA who's out of a job today who you could gloat about in a separate post?
Come on, I want to drink to the unemployment of some evil RDA chick.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....cials.html
Keep hitting refresh on the blog. I'm in Europe, so it's dormir time for me soon, but we have Top Men on it.
That made me laugh. Back when I was on the board for the Cuban Club, I had proposed a Halloween event called Dormir con los Muertos. The building was supposedly haunted, you see.
So it had nothing to do with Latin necrophiliacs? I find that hard to believe.
It makes sense once you realize the the "Cuban Club" Pro L speaks of was a two by four- hence he was "on the board".
Actually, I'm serious. I was the treasurer for El Circulo Cubano in Ybor City some years ago. It's an old mutual aid society with a big building. The building is supposed to have a ghost. I said we should get people to stay all night there for Halloween--with alcohol, of course (can't remember now, but I believe the club could serve alcohol). Can you sleep a night with the scary dead people? That was the idea.
A president of the club was murdered there many decades ago. I think he was the ghost in question.
Was he murdered with a two by four?
I think it was a pistol.
Here's the current website. I was the Webissimo of the old site, which was primitive in the extreme. Naturally, with me as the webmaster.
It's still a cool idea regardless of how he died. You find a good looking lady, have a few drinks, ask her if she just heard something, and take her to your bunk for safety and security.
A cunning plan indeed.
I believe that strategy was used by others. I actually was involved most of the time I was with the club (which also, incidentally, had a Gasparilla krewe--still does, I assume), so I never tested that theory directly.
Your Tampa sounds like a lot more fun than the Tampa I visit a couple times a year.
It's crazy decadent down here. I don't partake of that decadence, but many do.
We need a new word. Pissedoffident?
Isn't that a denture adhesive?
Similar, but more angry.
The fag way to wipe your ass.
That doesn't read very well.
Don't take shit from White Indians?
Poll: Mitt beats Obama
http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....l_matchups
Great peace of writing! OMG lots of controversial comments.
Just curious to know more about GDR nostalgic? What does it mean actually?
Best Regards from Allbest Ideas
Your Lebanon Florist.
Weirdest spam ever!
So when is Moynihan coming back?
Will it help if I promise to be nice to him in the comments if he does?