Comments
[Sign Guestbook]
545 Entries
Comments: Doug... There is no silence regarding the regimes you mention...it's mentioned explicitly in the book. In North America authoritarians are politically right leaning, the pathology led to those very regimes you mention. The fact that here they are right leaning makes them no less dangerous. In spite of your assertions that they are "good". If you think that the second round of TEA really wants small government you are mistaken. What they want is a government that does what they want. Cut social spending, increase military intervention, allow and if necessary enforce school prayer, eliminate abortion and other reproductive health restrictions, ban gays (in general). The original TEA was essentially libertarian. The main reason to cut social spending was described to me by a neo-con friend of mine. "If the government quits supporting them then they'll come to church to eat" Want to know what to fear from "wargamers"? Ask those in Oklahoma City. Eliminate government and live in corporate oppression...as I mentioned previously. Or you could live in Somalia.
Comments: Miguel. 3-2-1 Contact! I don't deny the existance of authoritarians and agree that as a measure - following a faith blindly - is an indicator of this group. But I will throw down gauntlets when the opprobrium of Altemeyer is directed at the right while remaining silent on the most murderous governments of the 20 th century - the left. To make fire we need fuel, oxygen and a spark. To create a totalitarian government we need a tyrrant, authoritarians and a spark. But we have sparks all the time - injustices, terrorism, financial crisis, global cooling, global warming, natural disasters, blah, blah. Every few years or so there is enough of a spark and a despot who is willing to give the authoritarians what they want - to take away a liberty (carbon tax, frisking granny at the airport) or do a unreasonable act (building windmills, wiretaps). We always will have these sparks. You can't stop uncertainity. Likewise, I contend that we will always have authoritarians. Altemeyer might try to "learn it out of 'em" but I cannot believe that this effort will significantly alter the population in any significant proportion. Authoritarians will exist as they always have. They are the oxygen and are always present. What else is stopping us from having tyrrany. This bonfire needs the fuel of government. Big governments have the structure to carry out these "supportable" actions. If we had no CIA Obama could not assassinate anyone. No Gestapo; no central committee; no state sonsored right-wing bashers, no World Court. No mechanism for the "majority" to exercise their unjust superority on a minority just because of their numbers. There is a string of pro- big government types here. They all seem to want the best for their country. But why is the answer always bigger government. Europe has had benevolent socialist governments only in their most recent past- but we realize that the sustainability of such support systems is suspect. People get really pissed when these promises are negated, Sparky. Moving towards smaller, more accountible government - limiting the security and liberty police - limit expenditures of the policy de jour - limiting majority suppression of the minority - getting out of prople's lives - all extinguish the ability of the authoritarians from gaining their totalitarian bonfire. Tell me again how we should fear a few overweight older guys playing war games. Their impact would only flame-out.
Comments: Doug... It's not America that necessarily developed the idea of self governance following the (religion induced) Dark Ages. The roots date back to England, for that matter parts of our Bill of Rights were lifted from the Brits. The ideas of Humanism came from the Renaissance and were hotly contested by the church. For some reason you seem to think that faith led to democracy when it was actually the rejection of blind faith and religion that did it.FWIW there is a big difference between leading by example and enforcing your political system on others, and there is no guarantee that a democratically chosen government won't be inimical or neutral to the US, we have destroyed democratically chosen governments as well as others.
Comments: Miguel. BTW. Your referenced code states the method for trying someone in absentia. I incorrectly thought Al Awlkai skipped out on his immigration charge. These charges were later dropped. Yes. I concentrate on the last 100 years. As you point out only recently have humans followed the lead of America and have elected leaders. And if you understand authoritarianism to be problematic for our humanity, I disregard your hunter-gatherer ideal. Does my zealotry of being agnostic ring clear with you?
Comments: Doug... US Rule 43 prohibits absentia trials and codifies the 5th Amendment learning...it's COOOOL...you should try it
Comments: Yet again we see the syllogism incorrectly solved by Doug... Large governments can be used as tools of oppression, but that statement is insufficient to assert that they will. On the other hand capitalist free market hands off government DOES allow economic oppression. It has every time we let the pigs to the trough. The drug wars in Mexico are capitalist market struggles, the back lash against free market in the former USSR is a direct result of the predatory nature of (pure) free market. The rise of unions...capitalism. The wholesale destruction of our habitat...capitalism. The job of capitalism is to extract wealth, any thing else is coincidental. =========================== Every large theocracy ever has been oppressive. From the Egyptians, to the Vatican, to the 100 years war, to the church schools on the AmerInd reservations, to the LDS, to the Dark Ages to Iran, to Saudi. You keep talking about the last 100 years...it's worth noting that our history is a little longer than that. In fact the very progressive idea that people should govern them selves is new. I suspect that you are merely a religious zealot, incapable of setting aside your views of god and viewing the pragmatic truth of a modern world, I would suggest that you live with the Amish, it seems to suit your perspective. ===================================== As for extra judicial activity, this is nothing new or different than all governments have done for thousands of years...Gitmo was a failure, not because of it's existence, but rather because of the fact that the admin claimed it was the right thing to do. Does it make it moral? NO it does not, but is it necessary? Sadly perhaps it is as long as religious zealots threaten the US. perhaps you don't remember this: When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal. Richard M. Nixon That was the beginning of the unitary executive...as proposed by Strauss.
Comments: Gary. In the area of wiretapping. Who's policy do you like best GWB or BHO? Which is worse: assassinating an American or waterboarding a captured enemy combatant? These are the pillars which Altemeyer built his conclusion that GWB was the most authoritarian, and worst president. You see being a hypocrite is also a measure of being an authoritarian lackey. Don't sweat the petty things.... I will restate that the worst authoritarian states in the last 100 years have been left-wing. I contend the main reason that Altemeyer fails is to not recognize the role of the size of government within the scope of religion and conventionalism with respect to authoritarianism. Let's examine a few extremes big vs. small government; liberal vs. conservative philosophy. A big government with a liberal mindset is communist or fascist based on religious intolerance. A small government with a liberal mindset could be either "social democrats" or religious pacifists. And so forth. When you matrix (Can you think in more than 1 dimension - left right) out the preference for the level of government intrusion into your life, you see that the worrisome forms of government with respect to authoritarianism are the large, intrusive forms. Small forms of government do not have enough "mass" or "inertia" to bring about the forms of authoritarian control which big governments regularly accomplish. Big governments allow authoritarians to fluorish. I propose here is where Altemeyer's conventional thinking fails him. Without recognizing the role of government's scope. He overlooks the predominant political thrust of the Tea Party - limited government. You see small, conventional government could be "secular communities" or "humanist" based on their level of religious tolerance. Pet the sweaty things... I realize that your level of thinking only allows you to criticize. So, go ahead and have at it. It's too bad that you can't add anything substantive to the conversation. Blah. Blah. Blah. Tell me all 'bout them Nazis who wanted limited government. It's sad you can't formulate and discuss anything new. Yes. Science has stopped progressing.
Comments: Miguel. People who place themselves outside the jurisdictional control are able to be tried in absentia. How many American citizens did King Bush II target for assassination? How many American reporters have the Obama administration filed charges against to force them to reveal their sources? You will find out that Obama has set another dubious record. Wow. You saw this 2 weeks ago. The story is going on a year old.
Comments: Doug. You keep projecting your own "either, or" binary style of interpreting politics when you just assume that liberals must support Obama's lack of a backbone when it comes to challenging the US security apparatus. The Democrat Party isn't full of left-wingers and liberals simply because that party happens to form the political opposition to the GOP. It's not that simple, although your desire to simplify complex matters in that fashion is telling. A black and white, "either/or" way of interpreting matters that effect your world-view is also the tactic used by those wishing to avoid the ambiguities that seem inherent in greater complexity. Complexity leaves open the possibility of learning something that might betray the certainty they presently hold on a given matter. And needless to say, this is yet another behavior typical of high-RWAs ( regardless of whatever you found during your self-assessment). If you would instead simply stop and internalize the fact that 99% of the liberals who write articles commenting on policies like rendition, torture, assassinations, you would also then know that the vast majority of liberals also happen to be of the same mind as Greenwald. So once again.... being a Democrat does NOT equate to being a liberal. And being a liberal does not equal support for Obama, for his policies - nor that they must also oppose everything put forward by members of the GOP. The3 world of the liberal is far more complex than that. Unfortunately, complexity also being something that appears to frighten away substantial numbers of high-RWAs...except perhaps for those in the South.
Comments: Doug... I heard about that on NPR two weeks ago, along with an interesting bit on the history of the estoppel defense of "state secrets". You need to expand your news source horizons. I sent my $20 off to the ACLU. I think that occasionally the government needs to do things that are morally wrong. We kill people every week without trial over seas. This guy has placed himself in the position of being an "enemy combatant". If he were in the US he'd probably end up like Padilla...but he has removed himself from the jurisdiction. The real issue here IMHO is the general expansion of the executive...a process started in the GWB admin. by the neo-cons. While transparency in the current admin is unmatched in history, there appears to be no concerted move to release power back to the legislature. That's why civil libertarians were so pissed at GWB, it was only tangentially about the actions...it was more about the rise of a unitary executive.
Comments: Dr. Altemeyer. To help you keep up with recent developments in the Obama assassination program... Obama is being sued by the father of the American who Obama has targeted for assassination without trial, indictment, or formal charges. The Obama has now filed a claim that the information is a "state secret". In effect Obama's argument is - the President should be able to assassinate any American citizen he wants. He can issue these orders without trial, indictment or formal charges and without judicial review - anytime he claims the decision is based on information deemed by the President as a "state secret". There is to be no judicial review of the reason for assassination and no review as to the information needing to be classified as a "state secret". Greenwald called Obama's desire for these powers "authoritarian". Really, not to Obama supporters - he was supposed to be the righetous dude to save the world after King Bush II. Hmmm, where are the news stories on this? I guess we can blame the right-wing media for breaking another story which does nothing but "blame Obama" for being a person of color (sarcasm). Keep your head in the sand. Your silence is duly noted, as you only attack conservatives while supporting the truly evil left-wingers. http://mobile.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy/index.html
Comments: It seems to me that The Authoritarians is a must-read book as is Dr. John Gray's Venus On Fire, Mars On Ice. I'm wondering if any research has been done correlating the research from these books. i.e. Do Altemeyer's Double Highs have above average testosterone levels?
Comments: Thanks for the links Miguel.  Political campaigning here will probably be government funded soon, so these commercial and other interests will have to convince the people through other means - like logic! Austalians are an extremely cynical bunch. I don't think Americans are much different - you guys need to remove large political donations from lobbyists so your reps can represent their constituencies properly. We also have great political discussions on "Q and A" and "The Drum". If you can watch qanda, you will see like last night when they were discussing euthenasia - the antis received very little applause - only one or two people who sounded like they clapped their hands so hard that it hurt. When the other pov was voiced - huge applause. Exactly the same thing happened with the mining tax. Sarah Hanson Young rebuffed one of our conservatives by saying that the miners can chip in a bit more to the country - HUGE applause. I think that it is safe to say that Australia will not offer support to corporate interests any more unless it suits us. We are willing to listen, but we will not be tricked anymore. If you guys start a quanda show, just make it a little obscure to arrange tickets to keep out the TPers and other dimwits. The panel has people from all persuasions. Glenn Beck (exactly the type of person for this show) would be subjected to mob opinion. Actually, I would dare him to face our qanda - he would get such a grilling. I suspect your mob would condemn this knob outright when he is given enough rope (fyi-expression follows "to hang himself"). I would love to read the tweets if you guys do it - live tweets are displayed on screen which adds to the show's great content.
Comments: Rad... As we know from the pathology all it takes is fear, a target, and a leader to gather these groups int a cohesive violent force. These guys were disappearing in the 90's, 9/11 revived them and the election of our president galvanized them.
Comments: Rad... try this site... talk about yelling in an echo chamber Fox News just donated $1M to the Republican party here...of course with the recent supreme court decision corporations can donate any amount completely anonymously. Check out Koch Industries I would not be surprised to find that their money found it's way to your "mining tax" fight
|
| < Previous 15 | Next 15 > |
Back to The Authoritarians