[lit-ideas] Re: JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM. (was Re: Re: Historians & Bush)

  • From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:48:57 -0600

Andy wrote:
>> A.A.  Except it's true.  Johnson was a pro-Southerner.  He was essentially 
>> trying to keep the pre-war status quo; slavery by another name.  He impeded 
>> all efforts to integrate the slave population into the society.  That's the 
>> cause of our race problems today. <<

No, racism is the cause of our race problems today.  Johnson may have been a 
racist, but he did not cause America to be a racist nation.  Certainly he did 
nothing to lessen the racism of his time, but to blame today's white racism on 
Andrew Johnson is a sadly simplistic way of interpreting our current situation. 
 No racist I know -- and I know a ton of them -- relies on Andrew Johnson to 
support his bigotry.


>> A.A.  Events have roots.  Unless you believe that events happen in a vacuum. 
>>  WWI led to WWII, or do you not believe that?  Bush took al Qaeda and 
>> metastasized it.  You think that has no long term consequences? <<

Everything that happens has its origins in something or things that happened 
previously -- I think that's probably true.  Determining what those origins are 
is what historians and philosophers argue endlessly over and never with 
resolution, at best, a preponderance of opinion emerges but even that varies at 
various times.  What will be the consequences of Bush's war in Iraq?  Only time 
will tell -- and never definitively.  Like you, I fear for the future, but that 
fear is an interpretation based on an enormous amount of personal ignorance 
about the world -- still, it's my interpretation -- interpretation, not fact.  
My interpretation, that's all I have to go on.  I keep trying to re-evaluate my 
interpretations in accord with the call to honesty and conscientiousness, that 
is, whenever they are able to stir me from the comfort of my prejudices and 
lethargy.   


>> A.A. Clinton left a surplus when he left office. <<

Clinton eliminated the budget deficit, in fact left a "potential" 5 trillion 
dollar surplus (assuming everything went according to schedule -- which Bush 
derailed).  But when Clinton left office we were still a debtor nation by 
several hundred billion dollars.  If I'm not mistaken (I probably am), we 
became a debtor nation during WWII and found out that the world didn't end 
because of it.  I'll leave it to you to Google up the "facts".


>>A.A.  Fact.  The ones who survive are either lucky, or they're good.  They're 
>>also far more sophisticated than they were.  They've countered us at every 
>>turn.  The military admits they can't win against them. <<


"Lucky or good" -- already you're hedging your bets.  Can't win against them 
militarily?  Of course we can.  We can obliterate the whole country with a 
handful of hydrogen bombs.  I read recently that Nixon seriously considered 
doing that in Vietnam when the military told him there was no way to win there 
fighting the kind of war we were fighting.  All we have to do to win in Iraq is 
to take that step into monsterhood.  Cheney wouldn't have any compunctions 
about doing that, I'm afraid.  Hopefully George does, and if he does, hopefully 
no one assassinates the SOB.


>> A.A. Yeah, so?   51% (or more) of this country believes in Creationism over 
>> Darwin too.  Does majority rule and Creationism it is?  The majority of this 
>> country is absolutely, utterly clueless as to what goes on.  Ignorance is 
>> bliss.  Because a lot of people believe something only makes it popular, not 
>> true. <<

Maybe so.  But, of course, 51 % are just, if not more, convinced that you're 
clueless.  The point is, not who has the most people in their camp, rather that 
there is NO AGREEMENT as to what the facts are.  The FACTS are whatever support 
our prejudices.  I'm prejudiced, you're prejudiced, everyone's prejudiced and 
has facts to prove that they're RIGHT, not prejudiced.


Well, the rest is just more of the same.  I hope this helps Andy see that what 
he's presenting as fact is not fact, but rather his interpretations of events 
that he's learn of through the press and other media -- not always the reliable 
sources.  This is all I'm getting at.  I like to rant as much as the next 
person, but sometimes I know that I'm ranting.  For instance, if I said: "A 
vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." I'd know that was just venting my spleen 
over the values that most of the people in this country seem to hold in 
opposition to mine.  I'd know that a vote for Nader is a repudiation not only 
of Bush but of the direction that the Democratic wants to take this nation as 
well.  I'd know that no one would take me seriously when I said such a thing.  
It would just make me feel better, my way of nuking the whole fucking world 
that disagrees with me.  There's some satisfaction in that.  As there is in 
cursing. 


Basta, zut, enough!

Mike Geary
Memphis





  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Andy Amago 
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 8:27 AM
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM. (was Re: Re: Historians & 
Bush)


  ---- Original Message ----- 
    From: Mike Geary 
    To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Sent: 12/6/2005 8:35:34 AM 
    Subject: [lit-ideas] JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM. (was Re: Re: Historians & Bush)



    Phil Enns wrote:
    > Mike Geary wrote:
    > 
    > "All depends on the interpretation, I guess."
    > 
    > Interpretation of which facts I was referring to, right?


    I'm not sure which facts you are/were referring to.  My position is, I 
think, that something is a fact only because we interpret it as a fact.  We 
need look no further than the Bush Administration's justification for the war 
in Iraq to see the 'truth' of Nietzsche's dictum.  It was a justification based 
on the interpretation of all those WMD "facts" garnered by the best 
intelligence agencies in the world.  Oops.  OK, seems those facts were 
interpretations of other "facts".  

    Or take Amago's examples: "Johnson's utterly corrupt policies during 
Reconstruction following the Civil War are the direct cause of our race 
problems in this country."   'Utterly corrupt' -- interpretation; 'the direct 
cause of our race problems' -- interpretation; 


    A.A.  Except it's true.  Johnson was a pro-Southerner.  He was essentially 
trying to keep the pre-war status quo; slavery by another name.  He impeded all 
efforts to integrate the slave population into the society.  That's the cause 
of our race problems today.



    "Bush has unleashed forces that will haunt us for decades or longer." -- 
not just an interpretation, but a prediction based on his interpretation of 
Bush's policies; 


    A.A.  Events have roots.  Unless you believe that events happen in a 
vacuum.  WWI led to WWII, or do you not believe that?  Bush took al Qaeda and 
metastasized it.  You think that has no long term consequences?



    "He took the U.S. from economic superpower to a debtor nation with nukes" 
[well, actually we've been a debtor nation for several decades now]



    A.A. Clinton left a surplus when he left office.  



    "while creating a class of Darwinian terrorists (killing off the dummies in 
Iraq and leaving the best)" -- interpretation.  


    A.A.  Fact.  The ones who survive are either lucky, or they're good.  
They're also far more sophisticated than they were.  They've countered us at 
every turn.  The military admits they can't win against them.    



    And yet Andy says these are facts. 


    A.A.  Yes, these are facts.    



     In another post Andy writes: "But, all his actions as president have been 
severely deleterious to the country." -- by Andy's interpretation, but just 13 
months ago the majority of this country thought otherwise and re-elected him.  


    A.A. Yeah, so?   51% (or more) of this country believes in Creationism over 
Darwin too.  Does majority rule and Creationism it is?  The majority of this 
country is absolutely, utterly clueless as to what goes on.  Ignorance is 
bliss.  Because a lot of people believe something only makes it popular, not 
true.



    And further: "He bankrupted us." -- not an interpretation, just an 
exaggeration.


    A.A. Are you so in denial?  He bankrupted us.  We had a surplus and he gave 
it away to the ultrawealthy.  He's the first president in history to cut taxes 
and wage a war.  He bankrupted us.  


      
    "He proved to the world that militarily we can't win over a bunch of rag 
tag insurgents." -- that's still an open question.  


    A.A.  Open question to whom?  Not to the military who says we can't win 
over the insurgents. Bush's victory strategy is an exit strategy.  The plan now 
is to phase out our troops and turn the war over to the Iraqi Army, so called, 
while we give them cover with air power.  One huge problem, though.  Who's 
going to decide what to fire on?  Not only is the Iraqi Army penetrated, 
there's also a civil war going on.  Who's going to be targeting what?   
Something not talked about is that over 2.5 million pounds of bombs have been 
dropped on Iraq since this war began and it's been utterly ineffective.  To 
come close to securing Iraq they'd need at least 850,000 troops.  We have 
something like 160,000 there now.  Maybe you can tell us the size of the U.S. 
Army, but I don't think there are even 850,000 troops in it.  The White House 
is clutching at straws.  Alm ost three years after the invasion, they have a 
plan.  Sort of.    



    "He galvanized the Muslim world against us" -- they were galvanized against 
us long before Bush came along -- 


    A.A. Whatever they felt then is much worse now.  Plus they now know we're 
not invincible.  There's not a thing we can do to them.  It's a huge morale 
boost for them.



    though Bush hasn't, in my opinion, done anything to ameliorate their 
historical grievances against most of the Western cultures; 
    "and created an elite breed of terrorists in the process." -- 'elite'? 



    A.A. Yes.  The ineffective ones get killed.  The better ones survive and 
group together.  No matter what we do, they do it better.  The military admits 
all they do is play whack-a-mole against them.   In fact, there's a worst case 
scenario floating around that the insurgents will eventually form battalions.  
Worst case scenario, admittedly, but it's on the table.



      
    "He did absolutely nothing to prevent (strengthen levies) Katrina."  Nor 
did the State of Louisiana or the City of New Orleans or the Corps of Engineers 
or anyone else. 



    A.A.  Like piss poor Louisiana can do anything.  Bush cut funding to the 
Corps several times, the way he did to the CDC.  The Corps of Engineers 
repeatedly warned him to address the issues and he would not.




    Before Andy accuses me of supporting Bush, let me remind him that I harbor 
nothing but ill-will for this administration and one of my greatest joys is to 
watch Fox News Sunday and hurl obscene invectives against Hume and Kristol and 
Wallace and send them all emails that make Andy's rants seem reasonable.  The 
FACT is we're all proverbial blind men feeling an elephant.


    A.A.  Yeah, yeah.  You got your man and now you want to pretend he's not as 
bad as he is.  Go for it.  The facts are out there for anyone who wants to know 
them.  Unfortunately, that leaves out Bush.  He doesn't listen to anything he 
doesn't want to hear.  That is a literal truth.  


    Andy Amago



    Mike Geary
    Memphis
    and that's a fact.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 12-2005