[olePigeon]

Nifty editorial I read:

------------------

Friday, January 28, 2005 (SF Chronicle)
JON CARROLL
Jon Carroll


_ _My friend Steve Silberman sent me a quote a few days ago. First, read the
quote, then I'll tell you who said it when:
_ _"In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the
point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing,
think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass
propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe
the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being
deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The
totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct
psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make
people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if
the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they
would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had
lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the
statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior
tactical cleverness."
_ _That was Hannah Arendt, in her book "The Origins of Totalitarianism,"
published in 1951. It seems to me to perfectly describe our current
perplex.
_ _It solves a basic problem that has been bothering me forever: The
duplicity of the Bush administration is so transparent, why are more
people not bothered by it? Bush's father said, "Read my lips: no new
taxes," and then raised taxes, and that was apparently enough to get him
booted out of office.
_ _Bush says "weapons of mass destruction" and pretends they're the reason
he's going to war, and there are no WMDs and all of sudden we're
"spreading democracy" using that old democracy spreader the Sword, and no
one seems to care. Indeed, many people seem to believe that we did find
WMDs. Or maybe they are just admiring the administration's tactical
cleverness.
_ _Give it credit: It was tactically clever. It did run rings around the
opposition.
_ _There's wonderful Barbara Boxer, in the Senate with her chart detailing
Condoleezza Rice's lies. Beep! Wrong answer. The world is incomprehensible
anyway, so really there are no such things as lies. Barbara Boxer -- far
too reality-based.
_ _White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan recently berated the press for
continuing to use the word "private accounts" to describe a feature of the
president's new Social Security plan, despite the fact that the president
used the term himself many times. It's just that "private" and
"privatization" did not test very well with the voters, so now it's
"personal accounts." And the press has largely gone along with it.
_ _What does it matter anyway? Everything is possible and nothing is true.
_ _Also now verboten: "the coalition of the willing," perhaps because so many
of the willing have become unwilling. Please adjust your memories to
reflect the new reality. Thanks for playing.
_ _We also have yet another member of the "media" who turns out to have been
paid for her opinions. Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, a vitriolic
opponent of same-sex marriage, was paid $21,500 by the Health and Human
Services Department to promote the president's Defense of Marriage agenda.
Of course, her money pales in comparison with the $240,000 that Armstrong
Williams was paid to shill for No Child Left Behind, but that's just
haggling over price. They're in the same profession.
_ _Perhaps the Bush administration has a stake in discrediting the media.
When everything is possible and nothing is true, the media have no
function. (Not that we exactly make it easy for ourselves -- it took much
of the press two years not to be bullied by the words "Sept. 11" into
printing almost any fantasy the Bush administration was peddling.)
_ _It would seem that Hannah Arendt's words are applicable to our time --
people do not seem to mind being deceived. They believe what makes them
feel safe. And the world turns.

[Curios Meerkat]

Great editorial, thanks olePigeon.

Inspired me to re-read Hannah Arendt.

[bubblewrap]

Perhaps the Bush administration has a stake in discrediting the media.
When everything is possible and nothing is true, the media have no
function.

CBS/60 Minutes.

Truth in the media has been dead for years.

[zigzag]

Now that the election is over, I think even administration loyalists have stopped pretending that the administration has any real credibility. Most everyone seems to have come to terms with the fact that, as with all administrations, nothing they say really matters, it's results that count. And I'm not complaining because I think that's probably as it should be. A cynical view, perhaps, but it really is results that count, and I think we would all do well to stop taking the things our leaders say at face value. The hard part is getting people to concede that their guys play politics the same as everyone else. Once everyone gets past the foolish pretense that their guys are somehow more honest and virtuous than the other guys, it's easier to get real work done.

I couldn't help but laugh listening to Condi Rice say during the recent confirmation hearings that she hoped the hearings could be conducted without her credibility coming into question. I'm thinking: Yeah, if you didn't keep giving people reasons to question your credibility, there'd be little reason to. But in the end it rarely matters, because everyone understands that both sides are playing an ongoing shell game. If Rice does an effective job (which, sad to say, I don't think she's done thus far), all the fibs will be forgotten. Politics.

[bubblewrap]

All administrations are corrupt. All of them.
Even Kennedy was no angel.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Now that the election is over, I think even administration loyalists have stopped pretending that the administration has any real credibility. Most everyone seems to have come to terms with the fact that, as with all administrations, nothing they say really matters, it's results that count. And I'm not complaining because I think that's probably as it should be.

Well, isn't it like saying no matter what, however how, as long as someone wins, nothing else matters? And how about the democratic process?

Your vision seems to hint that democracy is accessory, not even a goal!

A cynical view, perhaps, but it really is results that count, and I think we would all do well to stop taking the things our leaders say at face value. The hard part is getting people to concede that their guys play politics the same as everyone else. Once everyone gets past the foolish pretense that their guys are somehow more honest and virtuous than the other guys, it's easier to get real work done.

What real work is more valuable than the growth of Democracy?

I couldn't help but laugh listening to Condi Rice say during the recent confirmation hearings that she hoped the hearings could be conducted without her credibility coming into question. I'm thinking: Yeah, if you didn't keep giving people reasons to question your credibility, there'd be little reason to. But in the end it rarely matters, because everyone understands that both sides are playing an ongoing shell game. If Rice does an effective job (which, sad to say, I don't think she's done thus far), all the fibs will be forgotten. Politics.

I hear ya.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Well, isn't it like saying no matter what, however how, as long as someone wins, nothing else matters? And how about the democratic process?

Your vision seems to hint that democracy is accessory, not even a goal!

What real work is more valuable than the growth of Democracy?

I didn't mean to say anything about democracy, I only meant to say that results are more important than rhetoric, deeds more important than words. Indeed, I think democracy would be better served if we all said "Ok, nevermind the b***s*** - what are they actually doing, and what are the actual consequences?" Unfortunately, a vast amount of energy is wasted arguing about which political party is more honest and virtuous than the other, which to me is like arguing about which of the Olsen twins is a better actress.

Of course, human nature and partisan politics being what it is, it's equally unrealistic for me to think that people will drop the pretense that their guys are more honest than the other guys. But I do what I can.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Well, isn't it like saying no matter what, however how, as long as someone wins, nothing else matters? And how about the democratic process?

Your vision seems to hint that democracy is accessory, not even a goal!

Democracy is only a means to an end, and if you seek it without some greater goal which can only be achieved through it, then it will inevitably collapse. It should never be an end in itself.

This was the problem with Afghanistan in the 1980s. The US went in with no goal other than to implement democracy (or, more to the point, keep communism from being implemented). With no greater goal in sight, the government they set up was weak, and easily overthrown by the Taliban.

At least with the current situation, there is ostensibly a greater goal: the removal of tyrannical regimes which support (or wish to support) terrorism. Whether or not the Bush Administration believes in this goal, the people of those nations certainly do. If you look at the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, you find people who really and truly care about what's going on. The US elections in 2004 had record turnout, but by most accounts the turnouts from the Afghan and Iraqi elections have been even better than that, and they had to deal with problems like armed insurgency which the people of the US did not.

No, I think democracy is going to succeed in these places. With the exception of the insurgents, the people there -even many among those who support the insurgency- believe in it and put their hopes in it, if only because it's a way out of the current and past situations. I don't know if this was the Bush Administration's intent or not -to be honest, I have my doubts- but just as unintended consequences can bring about great evil, they can just as easily bring great good.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I didn't mean to say anything about democracy, I only meant to say that results are more important than rhetoric, deeds more important than words. Indeed, I think democracy would be better served if we all said "Ok, nevermind the b***s*** - what are they actually doing, and what are the actual consequences?" Unfortunately, a vast amount of energy is wasted arguing about which political party is more honest and virtuous than the other, which to me is like arguing about which of the Olsen twins is a better actress.

Of course, human nature and partisan politics being what it is, it's equally unrealistic for me to think that people will drop the pretense that their guys are more honest than the other guys. But I do what I can.

But with such cynicism, what are we left at with our great ideas and principles?

What's left of our aspirations for a better world, a better life, a better self?

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Millennium:
(...) but just as unintended consequences can bring about great evil, they can just as easily bring great good.

Doesn't leave us with much, does it?

I mean, what are we acountable for, if we have to expect freedom from unintended consequences?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
But with such cynicism, what are we left at with our great ideas and principles?

What's left of our aspirations for a better world, a better life, a better self?

There's a fine line between realism and cynicism, and I'm very fond of crossing it.

Seriously, I think you're reading more into this than I intend. I'm not suggesting that ideals and accountability have no place, only that we not buy the rhetorical crap that politicians on both sides are constantly selling.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by zigzag:
There's a fine line between realism and cynicism, and I'm very fond of crossing it.

Seriously, I think you're reading more into this than I intend. I'm not suggesting that ideals and accountability have no place, only that we not buy the rhetorical crap that politicians on both sides are constantly selling.

On the contrary, I believe you present a very interesting reflection. And I do agree with your last sentence. It's just that you inspired me to dig further.

Thank you for that!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
I mean, what are we acountable for, if we have to expect freedom from unintended consequences?

Who ever expects freedom from unintended consequences? That's most of why they are unintended. This needn't release anyone from any accountability which might arise for other actions. But if we are going to recognize the evil that comes from people's actions -as many of us are quick to do, and I include myself in that list- then it is only fair to recognize the good as well, intended or not.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
This was the problem with Afghanistan in the 1980s. The US went in with no goal other than to implement democracy (or, more to the point, keep communism from being implemented). With no greater goal in sight, the government they set up was weak, and easily overthrown by the Taliban.

WHAT?!!!!!

OK, you seriously need to do some reading about Afghan history because this is all screwed up. First of all, the US didn't "go in" to Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Soviet Union did. The US and the West generally, as well as the Arab Gulf states, provided covert assistance to what was a mostly indiginous resistance to the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, and to the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. The background, of course, was the wider Cold War. Far from having no purpose in mind, the backers of the Mujehedeen had a very specific purpose in mind -- breaking the Soviet Army, and reversing the gains of the Brezhnev years.

The Mujehedeen was a coalition that included as well as Afghans a large number of Arab volunteers, some of which, of course, included people who later showed up in the Taliban, and groups like Al Quada.

But the Mujehedeen also included people who much later showed up in the Northern Alliance, who OPPOSED the Taliban, and who after 9/11 OVERTHREW the Taliban.

The Taliban itself had no US support. Saying it did is simply wrong. After the Soviets withdrew in 1989, there was a civil war in Afghanistan. It occuired largely because there was a power vacuum following the Soviet withdrawal. Far from the US setting up the Taliban, the US and other outside powers simply ignored what was happening there once the Soviets pulled out. The exception was Afghanistan's neighbor, Pakistan. It was Pakistan that backed the Taliban. It was the Clinton Administration (and later the Bush Administration) that was loudest opposing them.

Here is a brief history of the Taliban. They didn't take over Afghanistan until the mid 1990s. How that has been turned into the wholesale deletion and rewriting of 20 years of Afghan history is beyond me.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
WHAT?!!!!! OK, you seriously need to do some reading about Afghan history because this is all screwed up. First of all, the US didn't "go in" to Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Soviet Union did. The US and the West generally, as well as the Arab Gulf states, provided covert assistance to what was a mostly indiginous resistance to the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, and to the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. The background, of course, was the wider Cold War. Far from having no purpose in mind, the backers of the Mujehedeen had a very specific purpose in mind -- breaking the Soviet Army, and reversing the gains of the Brezhnev years.

Thank you Simey, for a minute there I thought I was going to have to duct-tape my head to keep it from blowing inside out! One more point about the above...IT WORKED!!! I know people like to forget this small piece, but it worked at the time. There are no "friends" on this globe. There are only contractual agreements pertinent at the time. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Period. Those of you picturing world leaders holding hands singing Kumbaya need to get your heads out of books touting communist ideals. Utopia cannot exist. True peace cannot be attained by human-nature. All we can do is try to decrease violence. Most of the world's violence occurs in fascist states, fostering terrorism as a means to influence legislation. What is the only effective cure for terrorism? Democracy. Democracy turns terrorists into common street thugs and eventually eliminates them in mass and rendering the rest of them to lives of imprisonment.

I can see why people don't want to see the spread of Democracy, but it's not because it's not the best ideal for peaceful government. Your ideals (which is precisely why no one will actually repeat them, all they can do is be pessimistic and antagonistic to democracy, spouting no ideals of what they are FOR, only what they are AGAINST) have doomed nations to being conquered and destroyed. They fail to acknowledge the nature of humankind and will always remain ignorant and naive.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
They fail to acknowledge the nature of humankind and will always remain ignorant and naive.

Forgive my "naivety" and ignorance, but, what is the nature of humankind about exactly?

[bubblewrap]

To propagate and consume.

[Lefterer Guy]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Forgive my "naivety" and ignorance, but, what is the nature of humankind about exactly?

Humans excel at two things. ****ing and ****ing over others.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Lefterer Guy:
Humans excel at two things. ****ing and ****ing over others.

Well, I was reading your post with my left eye, and with the right one, was looking at my empty bottle of beer.

Ya darn right.

But seriously,

"L'homme est un loup pour l'homme" (Lamartine)

Man is victim of its own very egotistical preoccupations. Sometimes altruism is murder, and selfishness of one is to the benefit of others. As much as we feed from the remains of our brothers after the conflict, so are we scandalized over details of an esthetical Nature, or willing to eradicate the difference because of divergences of opinion.

One may believe Humanity is good, or Evil. I prefer to say Human beings are obsessed with themselves and end up with the consequences of their actions, and motivation is superfluous rationalization. We can abstract whatever fits our belief from reality, but we can never embrace Reality for what it really is.

Therefore, whatever we say is the fruit of La-La-Land, and the Truth-of-it-all is something we will never reach, unless we satify ourselves with deifications (I am not denying the existence of a God but rather criticize what we have adopted as a True Creator) that merely serves as parameters for artificial boundaries for social good conduct (useful, but artificial, still).

[Sven G]

... Or homo homini lupus, as the ancients (supposedly) said: that's what the status quo would like people to unconsciously "think" (at the same time making them believe, more politically correctly, that everything is OK and we are all going along very well, albeit without really thinking about the real problems we face, in the here and now).

The question is: are we wolves/sheeps or are we human beings, capable of transcending our "new" (sic!) primitivities of any kind?

Basically, we now have the choice of some form of (reiterated) neo-primitivity - or some quantum leap towards a more human present and future.

Personally, I'm for the quantum leap, of course...

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Sven G:
I'm for the quantum leap, of course...

I bet everybody is. Hitler was certainly such a believer.

But somehow, some disagreed with him for reasons they thought were just as valuable.

We all are aspiring for a better world, but no one can guarantee it would be the same. Given the powers of Gods, we would destroy the Universe several times over and each of us would do so with the very strong belief of being totally, unilaterally and undisputedly right.

[Sven G]

Well, Hitler was exactly an example of the homo homini lupus kind of irrationality (due to many things, probably: especially heavy disillusions, in an unfavourable context, and so on).

... Quantum leap from a "sharing of human values" point of view, of course: now, today's problem is maybe that we don't know what these human values should be - because we in some way lack the basics, maybe...?

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Well, Hitler was exactly an example of the homo homini lupus kind of irrationality (due to many things, probably: especially heavy disillusions, in an unfavourable context, and so on).

... Quantum leap from a "sharing of human values" point of view, of course: now, today's problem is maybe that we don't know what these human values should be - because we in some way lack the basics, maybe...?

Something like that, maybe.

Or we are just at this point of evolution when we are confronted to something really bigger than ourselves with powers that go beyond the throw of a rock.