Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Cut Out That Signifyin' Jive, or Don't Make Me Come Down There!

Good news / bad news. The bad news is, I slept a little late again. The good news is, I dreamt about cruising around with Rush. He was behind the wheel, and we were headed over to Malibu, and then over to LA for a function of some kind. Nice guy.

So, just what signifies, anyway? What I mean is, in standard semi-idiotics, you've got your signifier (the word) and signified (what it points to, or that to which it refers). It's very much like the dynamic between Bion's ♀ and ♂, or container (i.e., signifier) and contained (signified). Let's just say "word" and "thing."

I'm simplifying here in order to be abusive, but those naughty French folks responsible for deconstruction turned reality upside down by suggesting that the signifier did not point to any objective reality, -- any ontologically real signified -- but instead creates the signified. This obviously blows a huge crater in the middle of reality. However, as a consolation, it means that The Tenured™ get to usurp unprecedented power, since they are the ones who now interpret reality with their endless verbal games of deconstruction.

Here again, this is one of the master keys to understanding the postmodern left. In order for leftism to be effective, it must first dissolve the sacred covenant between word and thing -- which is where truth resides -- and replace that bond with mere power.

This is the magic through which they can make the Constitution mean anything they want it to mean, or redefine marriage, or say that the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists, or that rough interrogation intended to save lives is torture, or that Israel is responsible for Muslim terror, or that Boy Scouts are bigots, or that there is a constitutional right to abortion, or that Porkulus is stimulus, or that terrorists are freedom fighters, or that Gitmo is a gulag, and on and on and on.

< insert standard diatribe here >

The point is, we know better. No, we are not Platonists per se, but we do know that objects take precedence over the words we use to describe them, that the purpose of language is to be adequate to reality, and that reality has many objective gradations and dimensions which can be disclosed and memorialized through the proper use of the word.

Yes, poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world, but they are not the tyrannical dictators of the world. They disclose the rule of cosmic law, not the anarchy of goofy French linguists.

This, I think, is the nub of the crux of the gist of problem. There is no question that reality is "ambiguous" and subject to multiple interpretations. However, that should not be taken as an excuse to believe that all interpretations are of equal value. Nevertheless, this latter belief is the hateway drug into the various pneumapathologies of the left, e.g., multiculturalism, moral relativism, the "living Constitution," etc.

Again, if there is no objective way to arbitrate between competing versions of reality, then it comes down to a matter of raw power. Or, as Obama put it, "I won."

This is obviously how political correctness has slithered its slithery way into every corner of reality. In the world of political correctness, it is always 1984. Take the example of Miss California. Because even beauty pageants are run by tyrannical leftists, all points of view are of equal validity. However, if you voice the incorrect truth, then you are punished. You see? Perfect nonsense -- not the liberating kind, but the oppressive kind, AKA hell.

And it is hell, quite literally, for hell is anyplace that is beyond the rule of reason -- where reason, quite simply, does not apply. It is a world in which a person cannot simply say, "b-b-b-but a man can't marry a man. It's impossible."

Actually, it is possible, so long as you create an impossible world. And the world of the left is most assuredly an impossible world, since it is literally detached from its source, its archetype, its origin, and therefore its purpose. To put it even more simply, the "absolutely relative" is an ontological impossibility, and is therefore guaranteed to generate absurdity.

Are we all together so far? Anyone missing? Let's do a head count. One, two, three.... There's McCraven off by himself again, brooding in the back. Skully! Where's Skully! What? There are no liquor stores out here. Someone go get him and bring him back.

Now, HvB notes that truth "does not lie in the appearances as such," but nor does it lie "behind" them, for this "background" never actually appears to us. It is like O, which never shows itself -- never could show itself, since it contains us, not vice versa. However, you know it when you're in it. To evoke a palamine, you might say that you can know its energies, but never its essence. But as one draws closer to it, it is as if its essence spills more and more of itself into, or "through" one, i.e., O-->(n).

Yes, you could say that there is no O, but this is not the same as saying that there is nothing but Ø. Rather, to coin a phrase, (n) is O's witness to itsoph.

Again we return to the idea of the "transitional space" between objects and nervous systems: "Truth can be found only in the floating middle between the appearance and the thing that appears. It is only in the relation between these two things that the empty mystery becomes a full, perennially self-replenishing mystery" (HvB).

This is a critical idea, because it transcends the bipolar notion of signifier and signified, and introduces the transcendent third into the mix, and it is within the dynamic space of this transcendent third that truth "takes place," so to speak.

To cite an obvious example, this is the "space" where religion "takes place," for it is the space in which we encounter God. When one engages in this multifaceted thing called "religion," whether it is through prayer, or meditation, or lectio divina, or blogging, or eating bacon, one is specifically attempting to enter and deepen this space that exists between us and God. We are endeavoring to create an open system between us and our source, so there can be a free exchange of energy, information, subtle emotion, and other valuable prizes.

Right? Right.

Excuse me. Future Leader just woke up and broke the trance. That's what I call a "spellcheck." He checked the spell.

Back again. Okay, we now have the idea of this intersubjective third, or transitional space, where the human rubber meets the road of reality. But right away you can understand that this can equally be a road to hell that is paved with good intentions. For obviously it is the space of freedom -- the freedom highway, as it were -- but it is supposed to actually lead somewhere, not merely be a land of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Rather, it is supposed to lead in and up. We know this, because this space itself is "in and up" in relation to animals. In ether worlds, the hard part was finally entering this space, which took 14 billion years. We have it relatively easy, because all we have to do is sprint from one end of it to the other. But God made it even easier when he decided to personally come down and show us how it's done, since too many people were just brooding at the bottom of the space, or using it to wander off to the liquor store and suchlike.

Better stop. Long day.

72 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,
I only read so far, your opening statemenet about good news / bad news and the dream . . .

This (am heard) "normal bitch" wants to ask, "How come you were not driving the Boat?"

Theofilia ;)

4/28/2009 08:17:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"This, I think, is the nub of the crux of the gist of problem. There is no question that reality is "ambiguous" and subject to multiple interpretations. However, that should not be taken as an excuse to believe that all interpretations are of equal value."

That's a fact, Jack! And Bob! For instance, if we don't base our interpretation with coonsideration for the meaning and intent of Reality as it relates to Truth (Or, the Author's intent, ie O), then our interpretation is a lie, is it not?

4/28/2009 08:41:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, the "death of the author" is an inevitable consequence of the death of God.

4/28/2009 08:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Skully said...

"Skully! Where's Skully! What? There are no liquor stores out here. Someone go get him and bring him back."

Always when I'm drinkin'! I jest cannae catch a brake, I tell you what. Now I gotta listen to this jive talkin'...oh, g'mornin' Doc Bob. Mighty fine day, ain't it?

4/28/2009 08:47:00 AM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

Yes, the "death of the author" is an inevitable consequence of the death of God.And so many Good authors are only appreciated after they've died. . .

In our recent history of "killing God" the void left behind has made Truth that much more desirable. And the price steeper.

wv: drata - erratic diatribes

4/28/2009 09:05:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Speaking of Palamas, wasn't there a book about the Yoga of Hesychasm? And if so, would it be raccoomended reading?

4/28/2009 09:12:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

And as an aside again, I ♡ Michael Caine.

4/28/2009 09:18:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

(Never mind - I found the Y of H, downloadable here)

4/28/2009 10:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Nine Questions About Torture the Left Will Only Answer With Signifyin' Jive.

4/28/2009 10:13:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

They can’t answer those questions.
Can’t even considerum.
Ts’against they religion.

4/28/2009 10:28:00 AM  
Blogger Sal said...

Back again. Okay, we now have the idea of this intersubjective third, or transitional space, where the human rubber meets the road of reality. But right away you can understand that this can equally be a road to hell that is paved with good intentions. For obviously it is the space of freedom -- the freedom highway, as it were -- but it is supposed to actually lead somewhere, not merely be a land of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.Matt 7:13-14 "Enter by the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who enter that way. How narrow the gate and close the way that leads to life! And few are those who find it."

Just givin' NoMo a break...

Julie- favorite Michael Caine movie? "The Man Who Would Be King"

4/28/2009 10:37:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Great film. Directed by the great John Huston.

4/28/2009 10:41:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

"Huston had planned to make the film since the 1950s: originally with Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable, then Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, and then Robert Redford and Paul Newman."

4/28/2009 10:43:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

I haven't seen that one; maybe a Michael Caine marathon will have to be in the works sometime.

Switching gears again, I was just trying to find the lyrics to Cab Calloway's Jungle King (unavailable anywhere, of course...) when I came across this. Ever heard of 00 Soul, anyone?

4/28/2009 10:48:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Never heard of 'em, but that spoken intro is stolen from a live Duke Ellington track from the Cotton Club in 1929.

4/28/2009 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Of course, I have heard of Agent Double O Soul.

4/28/2009 10:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Cab Calloway said...

Said the monkey to the lion
on a bright summer day,
Say, man, there's a big cat livin' down the way,
You know, he talks about your folks in a heck of a way,
And he says a whole lotta things that I'm sorta 'fraid to say...

Well, the lion jumped salty, all fulla rage,
like a Harlem cat that slept in his cage,
he meets the elephant up under a great big tree,
And he says
"Look here, big boy, it's either you or me!"

They fought all night, and they fought all day,
Man, I really don't know how, but the lion, he got away,
He came back to the jungle, more dead than alive,
and that's when the monkey started to signify!

You call yourself the Jungle King
You call yourself the Jungle King
You call yourself the Jungle King...
I found out you ain't a doggone thing!

Well, he worked up his temper, when he was jumpin' up and down,
And his foot missed the limb, and his head hit the ground.
Like a bolt o' lightnin' and a streak o' heat,
The lion was on the poor monkey with all four feet.

The monkey looks up from the corner of his eyes, and says
"Now... Mr. Lion... I 'pologize..."
The monkey on his back, he's slick, he studies up a scheme,
He's tryin' to trick the ol' Jungle King.

He said,
"Now bear with me, Mr. Lion, like a good lion should,
Please don't tear me up, and throw me all over the woods! "
Well the lion jumps up, and he squares off to fight,
Oh, but the monkey fooled him - he was completely outta sight.

You call yourself the Jungle King
You call yourself the Jungle King
You call yourself the Jungle King...
I found out you ain't a doggone thing!

4/28/2009 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

:D
I just now listened to a clip of the Willie Dixon song. Pretty close...

4/28/2009 11:14:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Willie Dixon, although he was a great songwriter, was almost as good a businessman. He would claim the copyright on old standard blues songs, and then just collect the royalties. He successfully sued Led Zep over Bring it On Home & Whole Lotta Love, which now list "Page-Plant-Dixon" as songwriters.

4/28/2009 11:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Skully said...

"But God made it even easier when he decided to personally come down and show us how it's done, since too many people were just brooding at the bottom of the space, or using it to wander off to the liquor store and suchlike."

Of course now we have that shining liquer store on the hill.

Right? Right.

4/28/2009 11:32:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Again we return to the idea of the "transitional space" between objects and nervous systems: "Truth can be found only in the floating middle between the appearance and the thing that appears. It is only in the relation between these two things that the empty mystery becomes a full, perennially self-replenishing mystery" (HvB).

Newclear power. It's ReadyOactive, but no half-life.

4/28/2009 11:38:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Arlen Specter is the Chuck Johnson of the Senate.

4/28/2009 11:40:00 AM  
Blogger Sal said...

Huston said that Caine and Connery were always coming in with wonderful business that they'd thought up together.
Plus, it has my birthday buddy C. Plummer as Rudyard Kipling- very nice.
I need to acquire a copy- my dad's self-recorded version from 1986 died the death of improved technology.

4/28/2009 11:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The current plot line of '24' is really ridiculous: A "cabal" of moneyed/military interests plan a terrorist attack on a US city with the plan of blaming it on an Arab terrorist/terrorist group--all with the goal of convincing Washington to act out of fear and seek the help of these same moneyed/military interests to defend the US. Who could think up such nonsense!

4/28/2009 11:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dupree,
Unfortunately, Prager's logic is twisted. How about this, why do conservatives, say, like the Pope, think torture is wrong, even if it is against Islamists?
Arguing FOR torture is such a slippery slope morally. As for why leftists are up in arms, who really cares? As to why the Bush administration consistently LIED about it, well, that does give one pause.

4/28/2009 12:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Skully said...

Anon-

What's twisted is your pansy-ass definition of torture.

4/28/2009 12:13:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

The Pope serves a billion customers, most of whom live in oppressive hell holes, not the United States. You get the picture.

4/28/2009 12:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sticks and stones Skully--tell it to Ronald Reagan.

4/28/2009 12:27:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I think we can all agree with Taranto that enhanced interrogation should be safe, legal, and rare. And waterboarding is surely safe, if KSM can stand it for 183 times.

4/28/2009 12:27:00 PM  
Anonymous word veri said...

Reserving mercy for the most evil amongst us while allowing the innocent to be slaughtered is a grave insult to all that is good, true and beautiful, and further makes a bitter mockery of the idea of mercy.

4/28/2009 12:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Indeed, one way Satan manifests is as pure mercy.

4/28/2009 01:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Word veri,

Can you only think in one grove?
I say try them and put them to sleep, when convicted.
Where are all these innocents that are being murdered you are referring to? Or are these the theoretical ones that were saved?
Meanwhile, we murder millions of innocents every year by virtue of abortion.

4/28/2009 01:08:00 PM  
Anonymous word veri said...

Can you only think in one grove?Of course, jivestle. The evidence is in my name, which is an abbreviation. Here's the full version:

Word verum, sine mendacio, certum et verissimum;)

4/28/2009 01:35:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Speaking of The Great Satan, remember when they, I mean he, used to be funny?
Those were the nights…

4/28/2009 02:14:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

RE interrogation, since everything but this twist has been applied and still it will have no affect on some fakers, I mean people, how’s about this: KSM could have coughed up the info at any time before or during the 183 times. Especially before it.

Related I should add, this notion we’re somehow scooping up girl scouts on the battlefield is pure BS, on top of insult. That’s what the terrorist does -- scoop up girl scouts. We know girl scouts don’t have terror plotting info. So does the terrorist know this. He is not trying to stop destruction, he is trying to bring as much of it as possible.

4/28/2009 02:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Mr Carson said...

The Pope is a conservative? Small government, low taxes, free markets, all that? I didno thet…

He thinks torture is wrong? That’s great. We STILL agree.
OK. Back to interrogation… now where were we…

RR

4/28/2009 02:40:00 PM  
Blogger sehoy said...

GB: "The Pope serves a billion customers, most of whom live in oppressive hell holes, not the United States. You get the picture."

me: Amen.
Short, sweet and to the point. I'm going to steal that and use it.

thanks

4/28/2009 03:46:00 PM  
Anonymous And Now... said...

This is just cool; miniaturized heroes in action!

4/28/2009 04:33:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Thomas Sowell takes Obummer to task:

Survival Optional"Those who choose to live outside those laws, whether terrorists or pirates, can be-- and have been-- shot on sight. Squeamishness is neither law nor morality. And moral exhibitionism is beneath contempt, when it sacrifices the safety of those who live within the law for the sake of self-satisfied preening, whether in editorial offices or in the White House."

4/28/2009 04:51:00 PM  
Blogger Mike O'Malley said...

On 4/28/2009 12:02:00 PM
Anonymous said...Dupree,
(1)Unfortunately, Prager's logic is twisted. (2)How about this, why do conservatives, say, like the Pope, think torture is wrong, even if it is against Islamists?
(3)Arguing FOR torture is such a slippery slope morally. (4)As for why leftists are up in arms, who really cares? (5) As to why the Bush administration consistently LIED about it, well, that does give one pause.
Let's take that apart because it seems little more that a string of tendentious error.

1)- Notice how Anonymous dismissed Prager's reasoning out of hand. Anonymous gives no reason, no evidence and no argument. However, Anonymous associates a single characterization with Prager: "twisted"!

2)- The Pope is not a conservative. Pope Benedict is a Communtarian and a Classical Liberal. Beyond that I doubt that there are many who know enough to provide a more specific classification. Moreover, Anonymous provides no source so we can not check.

3)- It is unclear how "arguing" for torture is a "slippery slope morally" in its own right. First one would have to determine that "torture" is right or wrong and if wrong, under what conditions. (More on this point later as I find what is not brought to the table of our discussion interesting).

4)- Why the left is up in arms is significant because the Left may well be engaging in a more destructive and greater evil under the cover of promoting human rights. Criminalizing political difference and scapegoating a leader are moral wrongs and quite dangerous to civil society and to the polity.

5)- Oddly, the Bush Administration has been unusually honest. Their political opponents have had no such scruples. For example Anonymous, can you tell us who lied? Was it President Bush or Ambassador Joseph Wilson about those 16 word in the State of the Union message about Saddam's nuclear weapons material procurement?

4/28/2009 05:10:00 PM  
Blogger ge said...

Obama! Obama! Bo-Bobama
Banana Fanna Fo-Fobama
Fee Fie Mo-Mobama! Obama!

Hey, swift flyover of Gotham you authorised there, Kewl! you d'man

4/28/2009 05:45:00 PM  
Blogger Mike O'Malley said...

It is so very odd that no one ever seems to cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding these moral questions.

The Catechism addresses '"torture", of which Section 2297 appears on point and reads:

2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.Notice first how terrorism is an offense that is "gravely against justice and charity", while torture described as "contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity", communicating to the reader that terrorism is the greater offense. Secondly notice that the use of "torture" is proscribed in four instances: "to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred". Use of torture to obtain information to save lives is not addressed, however, indicating that this particular issue is more complex and can not be safely reduced to a straight forward condemnation. Can Anonymous be certain that he would not deem the use of torture appropriate when the lives of his children are at stake?

Also notice that "torture" is not defined, except by example. Harsh interrogation techniques are not addressed, only torture. And as conceded by the New York Times a day or two ago, every one of the harsh interrogation techniques which were approved by the Bush Justice Department were derived from modern methods to which US military personnel are subjected in training. For instance, versions of "waterboarding" are used to train US military pilots. Such being the case, the approved harsh interrogation techniques would seem to fall far short of the examples provided by the Catechism.

As NeoNeocon writes today, "In assessing complex moral decisions in the real world, we must look not only at our acts, but at the consequences of our failures to act. Would it really have been more moral, for example, to have not waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed, if the result had been a successful 9/11 type attack in Los Angeles? A person might answer "yes." But it is disingenuous to assert that such a person is clearly and unequivocally in a position that is morally superior to that of the person who would answer "no."

There are sins of omission as well as sins of commission. Are we morally responsible-and therefore guilty-for failing to stop an attack that might have been prevented by gaining information through a coercive technique such as waterboarding?"

.

One of the reasons I support these Bush era harsh interrogation techniques is my expectation that we will likely in time be hit again and again by terrorists with horrendous unimaginable losses and suffering. At those times it will be a mistake to have over played this extremist anti-torture argument. Because the survivors of those attacks will demand to know if the everything effective was done to prevent those now more likely horrors - (thank you Pres. Obama). If our answer is "yes" then, proscriptions against torture may continue to stand, because real torture will not likely be shown to be more effective that harsh techniques used by the Bush Administration. However, if our answer is "no" then all prohibitions against US use of torture will be discredited and swept away...

4/28/2009 06:00:00 PM  
Blogger Mike O'Malley said...

I'll lift one more quote from NeoNeocon's post of April 27, 2009.

"In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including KSM and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques," says the Justice Department memo. "Both KSM and Zubaydah had 'expressed their belief that the general US population was 'weak,' lacked resilience, and would be unable to 'do what was necessary' to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.'"It seems that on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 52% of the voters in America may very well have proved Khalid Sheik Mohammed right.

4/28/2009 06:10:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Mike, thanks for the well-considered argument.

Secondly notice that the use of "torture" is proscribed in four instances: "to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred".

Speaking for myself, if I thought for a nanosecond that any of those were the reason we resorted to such interrogation techniques, I would be against them as well. For instance, while I think all the harping about Abu Ghraib was grievously, ridiculously and shamefully overblown, I also don't think the soldiers involved were wrongfully tried and sentenced. The news should have focused on the fact that our military believes in justice and will not tolerate that kind of indecency; instead, the media tarred every service man and woman with the brush of ignominy.

There is a distinction to be made, and in fact to me, the argument that the interrogations were emotionally difficult for the interrogators speaks not to the atrocity of what was done, but rather to the fact that our soldiers are by and large good people, who do not take lightly to inflicting pain and discomfort on their fellow man, even when the man is evil and innocent lives are at stake.

4/28/2009 06:24:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Even if we had "tortured" those three terrorists, it was as morally different as cutting someone for the purpose of surgery is from the cutting someone for the purpose of stealing their jewelry.

4/28/2009 06:30:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Which is worse - inflicting discomfort and pain on someone who knows they aren't really going to be harmed (and certainly not killed), or engaging in behavior that you know will literally put hundreds or even thousands people in fear of imminent agonizing death?

I know where I stand on that one.

4/28/2009 06:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,

I have a challenge for you to consider. Humor is a wonderful thing, and we all have God to thank for the many genres of humor that enabled by the human personality. However, subsequent to sufficient experience of personal gifts for particular genres of humor, and our experience of various highs and "tickles" that come with our exercise of said gifts, it is possible to develop an attachment to the genre that stunts our spiritual growth.

My challenges is this. In your own words of course, I challenge you to following exercise. Write a note along the lines of,

"Dear God,

I so appreciate the gift of humor that you have seeded in me and that I have brought forth and ridden to great joys in this lifetime. I know very well that I am particularly well endowed in the "ridicule" genre, and give this gig great air time in communicating many of your truths in ways that connect with the unique audience you've called me to vibe with and draw closer to you. God, I also understand that like all great ball players and stage acts there comes a time to turn in the uniforms of various games and the instruments of favored performances in order that we face new challenges, develop new talents, and grow anew. God, if my exploitation of the the ridicule genre is no longer serving your intentions for, in, and through my life, then I invite you to cleanse me of the need for associated highs and tickles, and to make room for the growth of some new dimension of my repertoire.

Love,

Bob"


After writing the note, step outside and light it on fire as if it to send its contents irrevocably to the heavens, and thus risking the possibility that no matter what new life may replace it, the crucifixion of your attachment to ridicule may well result in its banishment from your very being........for ever and ever. Amen.

Something to consider. A double dawg dare, if you will.

"deuces"

H

4/28/2009 07:15:00 PM  
Blogger jwm said...

It's not about torture. It's about taking America down a peg.

JWM

4/28/2009 07:42:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

H:

I have an easier way. Just don't laugh.

4/28/2009 08:05:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

H as in Heckler?

4/28/2009 08:14:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"Here again, this is one of the master keys to understanding the postmodern left. In order for leftism to be effective, it must first dissolve the sacred covenant between word and thing -- which is where truth resides -- and replace that bond with mere power.

This is the magic through which they can make the Constitution mean anything they want it to mean, or redefine marriage, or say that the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists..."

Yep, it is the very place where the leftists heart and soul would be... if lefists could have either....

It is fruit of what Descartes, Hume and Kant did in seperating quantity from quality, action from thought, fact from truth [insert relevant rant against Cartesian doubt, Hume & Kant Here].

Another good OC Day missed out on... so annoying when you have to work at work.

Sheesh.

Ok, wv is getting snide again:
wv:fartive

I mean... really.

4/28/2009 08:20:00 PM  
Blogger jwm said...

Fartive.
Like a furtive fart.
You know- the old SBD.

JWM

4/28/2009 08:36:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

deer aninnymouse,

I have a challenge for you. Seeing as though ignorance, immaturity and downright stupidity are common traits of those who sign themselves anonymously, my challenge to you is this, meet your challenges head on, ask the big guy for help:

"Dear G,
I keep coming up with these idiotic comments. Isn't there anything you can do about this? I know you say that you help those who help themselves, but... I'm helpless... come on... can't you save me from me... anonymously?

Thanks,

Yours,
(you know who I am… even if I don’t)"

4/28/2009 09:09:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Isn't it fabulous how Obama has reconciled with our enemies and put fear into the hearts of Americans? Does any image illustrate so neatly the wrongheadedness of the Obama administration than Americans scrambling in terror from Air Force One?

tw:Ace (From Tantor)

4/28/2009 09:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course power is what matters most. What did you think?

Seize power, and then you won't have to bitch about it.

That's my advice to you.

4/28/2009 09:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Torture is stupid. It doesn't even work. So you masturbate your mind's anger center to satisfaction, and then go wipe your filthy hands on a towel and go home to the wife and kids. Vomit.

Screw that. Subject the accused to the usual tried and true good cop bad cop up all night bright lights lock you up cheese sandwiches for a couple of years should do the trick and you don't have to be kneeling in front of Jesus after you die explaining your stupidity in the torture chamber.

Sheesh. Basic stuff here.

4/28/2009 10:12:00 PM  
Blogger Mike O'Malley said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4/29/2009 03:36:00 AM  
Blogger Mike O'Malley said...

Anonymous said...Of course power is what matters most. What did you think?
Seize power, and then you won't have to bitch about it.
That's my advice to you.
.


And so Anonymous, perhaps in his most honest self revelation (?), returns us to der Wille zur Macht Nietzsche's "will to power", an era of "immense wars of the spirit", and a "necessary" inability to empathize with the suffering of others. Yes the Left has treated us to such "delights" on any number of occasions during the 20th Century.

Indeed...

Ash nazg durbatulûk
ash nazg gimbatul
ash nazg thrakatulûk agh urzum-ishi krimpatul.

4/29/2009 03:54:00 AM  
Anonymous The Good Humor Man said...

Rubber Chicken Alert!Bob is Pro-Laugh


(You hadda be there)


RR

4/29/2009 05:08:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Ah should sigh sew....

4/29/2009 05:13:00 AM  
Anonymous rick@tattoo parlor said...

So how did the Raccoon’s solve the comment window line break prob?
Stupid blogger roonin all me jokes. Well…maybe not all of um.

Anway, keep the answer short, please. Ya know they charge ya by the letter here. Good thing I have short arms.

4/29/2009 05:20:00 AM  
Blogger Dave said...

..subject the accused to the usual tried and true good cop bad cop up all night bright lights lock you up cheese sandwiches for a couple of years should do the trick..Sometimes you don't have a couple of years.

And you can't tell me that the BDS afflicted moonbats wouldn't rabidly attack our former "eco-villain" with any less vitriol should he have only used your methods.

I imagine that it takes quite a bit of standing on your head to turn caterpillars into thumbscrews.

4/29/2009 05:26:00 AM  
Anonymous maineman said...

"Truth can be found only in the floating middle between the appearance and the thing that appears. It is only in the relation between these two things that the empty mystery becomes a full, perennially self-replenishing mystery"

Is this not what we call the Holy Ghost?

4/29/2009 05:39:00 AM  
Anonymous maineman said...

Meanwhile, back to H's persistent efforts to deconstruct, frighten, depress, denigrate, and ultimately rebuild America in his own image, the question keeps coming up in my mind as to whether this is resulting from conscious, Alinsky-driven, Marxist intent or whether the bus is more accurately seen as under the control of Alinsky's mentor.

There's talk on the web about the likelihood that, since Barry obviously knew about the flyover, it was yet another intentional effort to demoralize us, as specified in the Alinsky playbook. You could see the "torture debate" in the same light.

To me, it seems a bit closer to reality to see it as more in the vein of giving McCain the finger right before the election, just the kind of thing one does when hollowed out by leftism and, as a result, a servant of the serpent.

Does anyone have a take on which it is, if even the question is the right one to ask?

4/29/2009 05:52:00 AM  
Blogger Mike O'Malley said...

Anonymous said...Torture is stupid. It doesn't even work. (gratuitous pornographic insults of our host omitted)

Sheesh. Basic stuff here.

4/28/2009 10:12:00 PM
.


Do we not have here evidence of willful self deception? Or is this part of the deceptive rhetoric of the Will to Power?

Obviously, torture works, otherwise it would not have been employed time after time again for intelligence gathering over the millennia.

I seem to recall that less than a year ago no few Left-wingers spent much time saddistically mocking and degrading Lt. John McCain for having broken under torture as a POW. Now, as in the days of Stalin, the new party line has gone out and they sing a different tune.

4/29/2009 05:53:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Maineman,
RE flyover, the King said he was sorry, and that it would never. happen. again.
So I’m thinking, King for life?

4/29/2009 06:48:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Ricky, sounds like a plan to me. Just let me chug this vat of industrial strength Kool Aid...

Before that kicks in and I start chanting to the big O and feeling tingles in the legs (the warning label says not to worry, it's only due to a critical loss of circulation. I won't need my legs anymore, because the holy one will provide ambulation for me), here's how to fix the line spacing problem:

after the last closing arrow (>), put in a space before hitting return.

4/29/2009 07:26:00 AM  
Blogger mtraven said...

M-O'M said: Obviously, torture works, otherwise it would not have been employed time after time again for intelligence gathering over the millennia.Torture works really well at producing false confessions, support for bad policies, a class of professional sadists, and a strengthed enemy. As an intelligence-gathering tool, not so much:

"The reason why foreign fighters joined al-Qa'ida in Iraq was overwhelmingly because of abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and not Islamic ideology," says Major Matthew Alexander, who personally conducted 300 interrogations of prisoners in Iraq...Major Alexander's attitude to torture by the US is a combination of moral outrage and professional contempt. "It plays into the hands of al-Qa'ida in Iraq because it shows us up as hypocrites when we talk about human rights..."People will only tell you the minimum to make the pain stop," he says....
In his compelling book How to Break a Terrorist, Major Alexander explains that prisoners subjected to abuse usually clam up, say nothing, or provide misleading information. In an interview he was particularly dismissive of the "ticking bomb" argument often used in the justification of torture...

In the aftermath of his experience in Iraq, which he left at the end of 2006, Major Alexander came to believe that the battle against the US using torture was more important than the war in Iraq. He sees President Obama's declaration against torture as "a historic victory", though he is concerned about loopholes remaining and the lack of accountability of senior officers. Reflecting on his own interrogations, he says he always monitored his actions by asking himself, "If the enemy was doing this to one of my troops, would I consider it torture?" His overall message is that the American people do not have to make a choice between torture and terror.
See also here:

"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."
And here's an example of coerced false confession that might be closer to home for you.

4/29/2009 08:30:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Thanks, Julie.

4/29/2009 08:40:00 AM  
Blogger Mike O'Malley said...

I’ll decline the DNC-Sorosian version of “current truth”. You see I’ve read captured Saddamite Iraq Intelligence Service (IIS) files. Saddam had links with AQ. He was very careful to point AQ in our direction so that AQ’s efforts were directed away from his own regime. However, Saddam worked with and provided support to AQ in Somalia in the lead up to “Black Hawk Down”, an AQ operation conducted in cooperation with local jihadists. Saddam was connected to the World Trade Center bombing of February 1993, and Saddam was one of the two state sponsors of the Taliban, host to AQ in Afghanistan. There were operational and support links, but not many. This is just the sort of situation that one might find if Saddam were cultivating AQ to conduct a proxy WMD attack on the US while maintaining plausible deniability for himself (Saddam). There is unconfirmed evidence of Saddams’ involvement in 9/11 coming from Czech Intelligence. I might be willing to argue that Saddam had no direct connection with 9/11, however any such argument would have to be qualified by pointing out that the IIS conducted discreet but thorough purges of something or “somethings” from IIS files sometimes moments before the IIS records were captured by the US military.

In any case, Saddam’s connection to 9/11 and/or AQ had little if anything to do with our prudent invasion of Iraq in 2003. Please see the Joint Congressional Resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq in this regard.

4/29/2009 10:43:00 AM  
Blogger Mike O'Malley said...

So some people provide false confessions under torture? Are you surprised? I’m not. One need look no further for such examples than those from the Left, in particular Stalin’s Purges and Show Trials (and Beria’s interrogations). But so what? Like any other intelligence operative, any practitioner of this vile art will be aware that he will likely obtain false and inaccurate leads that will need to be winnowed.

BTW: Bush hating former CIA operative, Michael Scheuer had much to say on this topic in the Washington Post three days ago:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403459.html

4/29/2009 10:57:00 AM  
Blogger Mike O'Malley said...

BTW: the Jihadists and what became AQ in Iraq were there before the March 2003 invasion. You didn’t know that did you now? Moreover, they were a vital smuggling link keeping Saddam’s regime alive with Oil-for-Food Program graft during the time that Pres. Clinton was trying to tighten up on the Sanctions. You didn’t know that either did you?

As I said earlier, I’ll decline the DNC-Sorosian version of “current truth” because AQ went to Iraq because that is just what jihadists do when they want to defeat and subjugate kaffir..

4/29/2009 11:09:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home