Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[dtb]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
Excuse me if I'm wrong, since I am not a Catholic, but isn't that the only church that calls their guys priests? Aren't the rest reverends or pastors or something?

Yes CATHOLIC CHURCH. Politics in church.

Episcopalians call their guys (and gals) priests.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Actually I was discussing them as political theories and philosophies, without reference to any particular regime.

Fascism is not coterminous with National Socialism, and we're not talking about your "Right."

S_A_M

My "Right" has been the subject of several editorials posted on these boards the last few days. I did misread your statement that Bilmore was responding to though. I thought "cylinder" like where the two ends meet (which seems to happen in the real life perceptions of the extreme left and right... Gulags/Concentration Camps). In terms of theories, I like the mirror concept (inverted image) you just posted better. The disconnect between the perceived/characterized "right" and "left" and the theory explains how the characterizations have become so completely perjorative to large parts of the public.

Which is all to say, the editorialists are right. The citizens of the Right need to evict the pretenders because they are tearing the place up.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But I know what you are, and I'm hardly the smartest person on these boards...

Are you still talking?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Actually I was discussing them as political theories and philosophies, without reference to any particular regime.

Fascism is not coterminous with National Socialism, and we're not talking about your "Right."

S_A_M

Apropos of your conversation about fascism, I refer you to "What Was Fascism?" by Adrian Lyttleton in the Oct. 21, 2004 issue of the New York Review of Books (on-line version for subscribers only, alas), a review of The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton. It starts:

Why is fascism such an elusive object of inquiry? As Robert Paxton notes at the outset of his study, the image of fascism has a deceptive clarity:

• Everyone is sure they know what fascism is. The most self-consciously visual of all political forms, fascism presents itself to us in vivid, primary images: a chauvinist demagogue haranguing an ecstatic crowd; disciplined ranks of marching youths, colored-shirted militants beating up members of some demonized minority....

But it has proved uncommonly hard to define the nature of fascism, to determine how widely the notion can usefully be applied, or what differentiates it from other political movements and regimes. Historians are mostly in agreement that fascism was a phenomenom of pan-European significance. One of the first important comparative studies of fasicsm, Ernst Nolte's Three Faces of Fascism, wrote of interwar Europe as the "epoch of fascism." But attempts to define fascism have led to such confusions, contradictions, and overlooking of obvious differences that some historians have given up the attempt in disgust. Even grouping together the two major regimes commonly described as "fascist," Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy, is far from uncontroversial.

An interesting review, and it sounds like a good book. Buy it from Amazon through lawtalkers' link, and let me know whether it's worth reading.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
Are you high? Let me tell you what the priest said last week in husband's church. "i don't want to get into talking about politics, but just for the record, stem cell research is wrong and abortion is wrong and the church is against it. I'm not telling you how to vote, but you should vote for Bush because he is against these things."
In church. On Sunday.

Hell, they've been pulling that shit here in PA since the mid 80s when Casey, a pro-life candidate, was running for governor.*

* To Casey's credit, he bucked the political machine by refusing to endorse the death penalty, and would not sign a death warrant in office. Of course, the people who cry about stem cell research today don't mention iraq or the death penalty. Their latest trick to get around the contradiction of favoring the DP while opposing stem cells/abortion os to characterize abortion and stem cell research as "non-debatable", "urgent" and "foundational" (a word with no real meaning) and the war and DP as "debatable". Interesting. The gibberish explanation offered makes no sense, but the long and the short of it is, "We don't care as much about dead Ameircan and Iraqis, or the moral issues attendant to executing people as we do about preventing people from being able to use stem cells and stopping pregnancies."

I applaud the Church, I really do. Its a hell of a thing to say "Damnit, we've got no ground to stand on here, but we still expect you to listen to us."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
Are you high? Let me tell you what the priest said last week in husband's church. "i don't want to get into talking about politics, but just for the record, stem cell research is wrong and abortion is wrong and the church is against it. I'm not telling you how to vote, but you should vote for Bush because he is against these things."
In church. On Sunday.

That statement can cost the church it's tax exemption.

Usually, every four years, the IRS attacks one church encouraging voting for each candidate in order to make an example. But I haven't heard about it happening this year.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Sorry -- repeated a post.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Apropos of your conversation about fascism, I refer you to "What Was Fascism?" by Adrian Lyttleton in the Oct. 21, 2004 issue of the New York Review of Books (on-line version for subscribers only, alas), a review of The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton. It starts:



An interesting review, and it sounds like a good book. Buy it from Amazon through lawtalkers' link, and let me know whether it's worth reading.

I may. Walter Laquer had a good book on the subject, but its a bit long in the tooth now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
Excuse me if I'm wrong, since I am not a Catholic, but isn't that the only church that calls their guys priests?

Well, the only one other than Orthodox, most Episcopal or Anglican churches, and a few other denominations (Coptic, etc.). Generally, any Christian denomination that has a sacrifical mass or its equivalent uses the term priest (plus Anglican's, who aren't into trans.). Some of the Western protestant churches still use the term, but most rejected it as part of rejecting transubstantion.

The term also gets used in a lot of non-Christian religions, like Shinto Priests, but I suspect that's a translation issue more than anything else. And I suspect your husband wouldn't listen to a Shinto Priest in a Church.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's a funny week for bilmore to roll out the "seed corn" metaphor, since that's how a lot of bloggers were talking about the Army's decision to deploy the Eleventh Armored Cavalry Regiment to Iraq.

That is bad, bad, bad.

The decision really highlights how overextended our military is -- despite various denials.

I just don't see how we can keep going after the Axis of Evil and shore up Afghanistan with our current force structure or any conceiveble reshuffling of existing assets.

I think we're going to have to leave Iran (the true al Quaeda supporter) and NK pretty much alone. (i.e. We can't pretend that we'd "Iraq" them.) We don't have a credible conventional military threat at this juncture (wrt land forces) to use against any country larger than, about El Salvador.

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That is bad, bad, bad.

S_A_M

We talked about this maybe 6 weeks ago here. The same thing is happening with the Louisiana training base and I think at least one other (besides Ft. Irwin).

That said, I'm not sure they are wholesale replacing the units. I think they are leaving parts of the original training units behind.

Either way, even the National Guard is saying its bad, bad, bad.

Hello

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Well, the only one other than Orthodox, most Episcopal or Anglican churches, and a few other denominations (Coptic, etc.). Generally, any Christian denomination that has a sacrifical mass or its equivalent uses the term priest (plus Anglican's, who aren't into trans.). Some of the Western protestant churches still use the term, but most rejected it as part of rejecting transubstantion.

The term also gets used in a lot of non-Christian religions, like Shinto Priests, but I suspect that's a translation issue more than anything else. And I suspect your husband wouldn't listen to a Shinto Priest in a Church.

And don't forget the Wiccans. (thanks Gwinky). Thanks for the update.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Apropos of your conversation about fascism, I refer you to "What Was Fascism?" by Adrian Lyttleton in the Oct. 21, 2004 issue of the New York Review of Books (on-line version for subscribers only, alas), a review of The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton. It starts:



An interesting review, and it sounds like a good book. Buy it from Amazon through lawtalkers' link, and let me know whether it's worth reading.

I have a European inter-war political-history book I read around 1999 that basically puts Mussolini out there as the OG fascist, and Hitler as an adaptation. If I remember and have a chance this weekend, I'll read the relevant chapters. Now that you mention it though, Robert O. Paxton sounds sorta familiar.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
And don't forget the Wiccans. (thanks Gwinky). Thanks for the update.

I'd say "STP", but I'm not sure it will work. For some reason I'm more focused on your posts these days.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here's a good response to the bizarre Charles Krauthammer op-ed that Club posted excerpts of a couple of hours ago:

• Proving once again that nobody even remotely connected with the president's re-election effort can stay positive for any length of time, the ever-angry conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer today tossed a real screwball into the discussion: John Kerry's going to sell out Israel!
  
  This is, shall we say, a rather counter-intuitive argument. Kerry, after all, has a twenty-year record in the Senate of unflinching support for Israel; even Zell Miller wouldn't dare claim otherwise. Two of Kerry's grandparents were Jewish. His one significant difference of opinion with the incumbent on Israeli-Palestinian issues is that he has promised to become more personally involved.
  
  Krauthammer's reasoning can be boiled down to this: Kerry wants to make nice with Europeans. Europeans don't like Israel. Thus, Kerry will "sacrifice Israel" in order to make his Euroweenie buddies feel all warm and cuddly inside. Open and shut case, all right.
  
  To be fair, Krauthammer isn't necessarily singling out Kerry for abuse. As his long-time readers know, he pretty much suspects everybody, including most Israelis, of a conscious or subconscious willingness to betray Israel. Perhaps this is just an occupational hazard of being a psychiatrist-turned-pundit. Or maybe it's an example of the old saying that if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But Krauthammer's argument is not exactly bolstered by his bitter tangent blasting Bill Clinton for his willingness to negotiate with Yasir Arafat. I know it's been a while, but if I remember correctly, Clinton agreed to deal with the blood-stained old kleptocrat precisely because that's what every Israeli government of the period wanted him to do. And Clinton was, and remains, very popular among Israelis, who haven't quite bought Krauthammer's line that the 42d president was working hard to sell them down the river.
  
  In any event, GOPers would be well advised to stick to the positive case for Bush's Middle East policies, as part of a positive case for Jewish support. Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the American Alliance of Christians and Jews recently argued (in a piece optimistically entitled American Jews Will Support Bush!) that support for Israel "springs from the heartland of the United States as a reflection of the deep commitment to Judeo-Christian values felt by so many people in the United States. President Bush personifies that commitment which is starting to make so many Jews feel comfortable with his party." Yes, it's yet another argument that seeks to identify Bush with qualities properly attributed to the country as a whole--a claim that would be a bit more compelling if he were not a deeply divisive president waging a deeply divisive campaign for re-election. But at least the Rabbi isn't trying to smear John Kerry--and by implication, every Democrat--for anti-Zionist sentiments so secret that they don't even exist.

New Donkey (italics in original; links omitted)