Friday, July 18, 2008

How 'Stealth Ideology' Helped Bush Shred the Constitution

In his short reign of terror, Bush accomplished what no terrorist could ever have accomplished by any means including those crimes called '911'. Bush will have left our Constitution in an ash heap. His tragic legacy can be summed up in three clauses: he destroyed the separation of powers and ruled by decree; he denied every citizen every right that is associated with being an 'American; he waged war upon a deliberate and treasonous fraud and is, thus, criminally responsible for the deaths of some 1.5 million innocent people! Bush infamously stated: 'The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!" In his wake, it is not even that! It is ashes up in smoke, a fading memory.

Bush's rise to power was made possible by the strong support given him by America's religious right or more accurately, the 'religious wrong'. Of the many crimes that may be attributed to Bush alone, let us consider the endemic dishonesty that may be found among his early supporters --the proponents of a focus-group ideology called 'Intelligent Design'.
The Conservative Movement, as its progenitors like to call it, is now mounting a full-throttled attack on Darwinism even as it has thoroughly embraced Darwin’s bastard child, social Darwinism. On the face of it, these positions may appear inconsistent. What unites them is a profound disdain for science, logic, and fact.

...

The modern Conservative Movement has embraced social Darwinism with no less fervor than it has condemned Darwinism. Social Darwinism gives a moral justification for rejecting social insurance and supporting tax cuts for the rich. "In America," says Robert Bork, "‘the rich’ are overwhelmingly people – entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, etc. – who have gained their higher incomes through intelligence, imagination, and hard work."

...

The only consistency between the right’s attack on Darwinism and embrace of social Darwinism is the utter fatuousness of both. Darwinism is correct. Scientists who are legitimized by peer review and published research are unanimous in their view that evolution is a fact, not a theory. Social Darwinism, meanwhile, is hogwash.

--Robert B. Reich, Of Darwinism and Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism does not follow from "Darwinism" and, worse, it attributes to Darwin positions he never took. Interestingly, the term "survival of the fittest" was never used by Darwin. It has been variously attributed, but Hofstadter seems to attribute that phrase to rail road men:
Railroad executive Chauncy Depew asserted that the guests of the great dinners and public banquets of New York City represented the survival of the fittest of all who came in search of fortune. They were the ones with superior abilities. Likewise railroad magnate James J. Hill defended the railroad companies by saying their fortunes were determined according to the law of survival of the fittest.

—Hofstadter, Richard; 1959; Social Darwinism in American Thought, Braziller; New York.
Hofstadter identified Social Darwinsism not in terms of any school that used the term to describe it ... in tterms of the usage of key prases such as "natural selection', "struggle for existence", and "survival of the fittest". After Hofstadter the term "Social Darwinism" was used not only as a general description for abuses of biology by the Nazis and other, but also as a means of sustaining the established separation between the societ science and biology. Despite the decisive defeat of fascism in 1945, the use of the term rose inexorably and exponentially for the remainder of the twentieth century. It acquired mythological attributes, referring to a pre-1914 era when its use was assumed to be prevalent. At least as far as the Anglophone academic journals are concerned this assumption is false.

--Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Social Darwinism in Anglophone Academic Journals: a Contribution to the History of the Term, p430
Elsewhere, the term is attributed to Herbert Spencer who clearly inspired a generation of radicalized, latter-day robber barons and, bluntly, few of them evince the "...quality of mercy" so immortalized with but a few words by Shakespeare:
[Herbert] Spencer said that diseases "are among the penalties Nature has attached to ignorance and imbecility, and should not, therefore, be tampered with." He even faulted private organizations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children because they encouraged legislation.

Social Darwinism and American Laissez-faire Capitalism
An equally fallacious corollary to "Social Darwinism" is often phrased this way: the rich are rich because they are better, work harder and are more intelligent. George W. Bush put it more crudely: “The poor are poor because they are lazy!” In the same vein, the conservative economist Joseph A. Schumpeter likened recessions to a "douche" leaving us to wonder just who is "douched" and how? More importantly: who gets to make those life and death decisions? It is difficult not to conclude that New Orleans after Katrina is but the disastrous consequence of this kind of "blame the victim" thinking.

It is not surprising, then, that Spencer's influence continues, not in the field of biology, but in economics, specifically those theories most often associated with the right wing: the American apologists, William Graham Sumner and Simon Nelson Patten.

No doubt, Spencer’s ideas received a major boost after Darwin's theories were published, but unfortunately the issues have been muddled ever since, The application of "adaptation" and "survival of the fittest" to social thought is known as "Social Darwinism". Social Darwinists have fallaciously confused Darwin's description of an observed phenomenon with an ethical commandant.

Of late, critics of Darwin have taken a new tact, a 'stealth ideology' that it is hoped will pass for science among those who think science is nothing more than ideology expressed with big words. The stealth ideology is called 'intelligent design'. Intelligent design was thus packaged. It is stealth ideology designed (not so intelligently) to pass itself off as science. But it was found out and exposed.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

—Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
An issues clarification is in order. The case was not about whether one has a right to believe, indeed, teach "intelligent design". It was about whether or not the state has a right to teach religious dogma in state and locally supported schools.

It was not so long ago, that opponents of evolution had, in fact, passed laws that prohibited the teaching of real science in the public classrooms. That attempt was made in Tennessee where a law was passed on March 13, 1925 which forbade the teaching, in any state-funded educational establishment in Tennessee, of "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." The case has been called a 'a watershed' in the history of the creationist-evolutionist argument.

The issue was forced. Scopes broke the law intentionally so that it might be challenged in court. The trial attracted one time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, famous for his 'Cross of Gold' speech on behalf of an agrarian population that had favored the free coinage of silver and, for the defense, the champion of liberal and labor causes --Clarence Darrow. At a time when many trials were called 'the Trial of the Century', this 'Scopes Monkey Trial' might well have been. --H. L. Mencken, "THE MONKEY TRIAL": A Reporter's Account


Edward R. Murrow: Darrow, Darwin and Dayton, a video by Len Hart

Future discoveries will modify our view of Darwin, but that does not discount it. Our view of Einstein is already modified but he is, in no way, discounted. Moreover, no one has ever sued because Einstein is at odds with a particular dogma. It is certain, however, that no future discovery will confirm "intelligent design" —a logical fallacy on its face and quite beyond any confirmation of any kind!

'Intelligent design' is religious dogma but it's modern proponents have not the integrity of William Jennings Bryan who simply admitted his religious bias upfront. I disagree with Bryan. But he at least had the integrity to admit and defend his bias. Modern proponents of ID, by contrast, have no such intellectual honesty. Bryan did not pretend that his ideas were 'science' or 'scientific'. He did not try to re-package or spin his religious dogma. He didn't try to wrap it up in a fancy package or worse, a cloak, and try to sell it for something that it was not. Proponents of ID are liars and shysters, modern snake oil salesmen, practitioners of a 'stealth ideology'!

While Judge Jones struck deep into the heart of the conspiracy, Mill's objections may still be applied to so-called "faith based initiatives" and other voucher programs. They amount to nothing more nor less than the state finance of parochial schools. With regard to "faith based" initiatives, any federal expenditure in support of religious schools or religious, "faith-based" programs is a prima facie violation of the First Amendment which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Having lost that argument, the religious right now tries to re-frame the debate. It is more recently insinuated that "God" should not be kept out of the affairs of state. But —whose God should be consulted? The fact that Muslims, Christians, and Jews, presumably, worship the same "God" hasn't kept the three "religions" from warring with one another over a period of some 2,000 years. And what of Satanists? Is their 'God' --Satan --to be given equal status? What of those who worship Moloch? Should either Moloch or Satan share equal influence in the conduct of our public schools?

The founders of this nation were absolutely correct. Thomas Jefferson was properly blunt when he espoused a "wall of separation" between church and state. The US Supreme Court and Thomas Jefferson have been very clear on these points:
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'.

--The U.S. Supreme Court, 1947
The United States was NOT founded upon the principles of the Christian religion --though religious toleration is guaranteed in the First Amendment.

In the America envisioned by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison (who authored our "Bill of Rights), all Religions should be tolerated but none should receive preferential treatment by the established governments —local, state, or federal.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

--U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, First Amendment
The language is plain and unambiguous: "Congress shall pass no law..." etc etc.

An "...establishment of religion" is defined as follows:
...a church that is recognized by law, and sometimes financially supported, as the official church of a nation. Also called state church. Cf. national church.
Therefore, it is a violation of Constitutional law should tax revenues find themselves in church coffers. "Faith based charities"—like “intelligent design”—are therefore religious in nature.

Surely that fact is not lost on the Bush administration which clearly refers to them as "faith based". A program cannot be, at once, "faith-based" and "secular". But that is precisely the issue that Bush folk have tried to have both ways. What is a faith based organization apart from its affiliation with an established church? And what is a church if not a place where religion is practiced?

Jefferson's language ["wall of separation"] is unambiguous:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

--Thomas Jefferson, in his historic Danbury letter, January 1, 1802
George Washington also chimed in on the issue:
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."

--George Washington, Treaty of Tripoli

And it was James Madison --author of the First Amendment, indeed, the Bill of Rights --who penned the very words: "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, It ill never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

--John Adams
John Adams was a primary rabble rouser, witness to and instigator of revolution. He was a mover in the founding of this nation and, in a position to know whether or not it was founded upon Christian principles. It was not.

A final point needs to be made about the Preamble to that document George W. Bush called “…a goddamned piece of paper!” According to the "Commentaries" of Joseph Story, the Preamble to the Constitution establishes the vert source of U.S. "sovereignty’, the people themselves.
We the people of the United States ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That means that these 'United States' belong to us. 'We' --the people --literally and by law --created them. They belong to us --not George W. Bush, an illegitimate usurper at worst, a caretaker at best. And, in that role, he has likewise failed us utterly by subverting the Constitution which establishes as a principle of supreme law that the people are sovereign. The nation thus belongs to the people. It is, therefore, our right --as Thomas Jefferson himself told us --to overthrow any regime and any federal authority which presumes to rule outside the rule of law!

Bush who serves at our pleasure, displeases us! We may, therefore, declare him 'fired' and, should he refuse to leave, he may be thrown out on his ass by force! The people of England understood this principle if the people of the US do not! When King Charles was determined to have placed himself above the law, he was beheaded for his hubris. I will be content to leave the Bush's fate to the judgement of a bona fide court which should --by right and by law --hear the case that our own King George Bush II is guilty of capital crimes.
Why I moderate comments

  • SPAM: 'comments' that link to junk, 'get rich' schemes, scams, and nonsense! These are the worst offenders.
  • Ad hominem attacks: 'name calling' and 'labeling'. That includes the ad hominem: 'truther' or variations!

Also see:
Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

Subscribe

GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Add to Google

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Add to Google

Add to Technorati Favorites

Download DivX

Spread the word

21 comments:

Ed Encho said...

What Can I Say Len....you have been like a true Texas Ranger in the last few months in smoking these varmints out of their holes.

Keep pouring it on, everyone else is doing likewise in attacking every little breach in the defenses of the fascist death star.

EE

Anonymous said...

Fuzzflash sez...

Len, superb and timely update and reprise of your Dec.14, 2005 EC post on the Malaise Amerikana which concludes...

"Social Darwinism, clearly, is one of many ideas that have harmed mankind. It has provided a rationalization for the perpetual and quite deliberate impoverishment of large segments of our society and, insidiously, it has done so with a baseless theory that is fallaciously associated with Darwin.

In simpler terms, the philosophical basis for the American right wing is this:

"Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons...then let them die and decrease the surplus population."

—Scrooge"

Loved the Ed Murrow voiceover and the ever so apt shots from "Inherit The Wind". They don't make movies like that anymore which is a travesty in its own right! Still with minds forged on MSM and MTV many a modern attention span simply couldn't handle the complexities.
--------------
Say, c.david p., know where one can purchase a set of inexpensive yet functional ear plugs?
------------------------
And to give credit where it's due, ed encho,(dig your blog, man) maestro has been fighting the good fight and smokin' the goddamn varmints out for a tad longer that a few months.

Btw, Len, with Team Imbecile mumbling about pow-wowing with "Eye-ranian terrsts" there are those amongst us who might observe.....

"There goes the Axis-of-Evil."

Anonymous said...

C. David Parsons, you say:

What if there is a God and I've been persecuting Him? It is a horrible thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.

So people should conduct their lives in fear of an unknown, undefinable and all-powerful being, is that it? A monster under the bed? Perhaps there exists a Great White Rabbit that controls the universe? -- you don't know, do you? (If you claim you do then you're almost certainly mistaken. Scientific knowledge is publicly tested; there is no room in science for "private wisdom". I also spoke to God last week and he says that you're wrong, so there!!)

Why should there be any "marriage" between "an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences"? What has physical science got to do with the concocted ancient history of some small Middle East tribes? You think the Bible is the only book about Noah and the Flood? The biblical authors filched that idea from the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh. The book of Genesis was written about 600BC, one of the last books of the Old Testament to be written. There might, of course, be a "God", but the Hindus would argue that there are thousands of Gods. If schools are to teach religion in a "scientific" and dispassionate sense they would be forced to report to students on Hindu belief systems adhered to by nearly a billion people. Are you prepared to have school readings from the Mahabarata or the Upanishads? What about the Dogon tribes of north Africa? They believe that humans interacted about 6000 years ago with fish-like visitors from a hidden star close to the star Sirius. Recent scientific findings confirm the existence of such a star. So how did the Dogons know about this star that they could not see? By the logic of religious believers this knowledge could only have occurred by a "divine revelation from the fish people". So why shouldn't public schools teach about the "fish people"?

Here is where the rubber meets the road. It has been a fundamental principle of science since the Middle Ages (courtesy of Francis Bacon, I believe) that scientific explanations must be the most economical and simplest ones that describe the facts. That's why science should not be burdened with religious guff no matter how fervently adhered to by particular sections of society.

The Quest for Right series of books, based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, has effectively dismantled the quantum additions to the true architecture of the atom. -- that's nonsense, C. David Parsons. There is no scientist of any repute who would subscribe to such views.

All other particles were added via quantum magic and mathematical elucidation in an attempt to explain earthly phenomena without God. -- and, unsurprisingly, without any reference to Lord Ram, the Dogon fish people or the Great White Rabbit!

It mightn't sound like it, C. David Parsons, but I actually find merit in some religious ideas that may help explain human consciousness or the possible persistence of human memory after death, or in the development of ethical systems. These are worthy issues of discussion, but they can be conducted in a purely secular setting. It is social madness to saddle science and government policy to unprovable ideas about imaginary, all powerful beings. We might just as well worship the Great White Rabbit. It's useless nonsense, dangerous and degrading as public policy in a modern society.

Unknown said...

Fuzzflash sez...

Loved the Ed Murrow voiceover and the ever so apt shots from "Inherit The Wind". They don't make movies like that anymore which is a travesty in its own right! Still with minds forged on MSM and MTV many a modern attention span simply couldn't handle the complexities.

Thanks Fuzz! I saw 'Inherit the Wind' as a kid and was impressed with the fact that a 'mere' movie could stimulate and inform as well as entertained. I am still in love with that idea. Too bad, I didn't have some footage that include Gene Kelly who played a character that was clearly patterned after H.L. Mencken who gave us:

No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

Freedom of press is limited to those who own one.

Those who can -- do. Those who can't -- teach.

Imagine the Creator as a low comedian, and at once the world becomes explicable.

Nature abhors a moron.

Ed Encho sez...

What Can I Say Len....you have been like a true Texas Ranger in the last few months in smoking these varmints out of their holes. Keep pouring it on, everyone else is doing likewise in attacking every little breach in the defenses of the fascist death star.

Thanks, Ed! Indeed, I love you analogy. One day we'll penetrate the death star to its rotten, evil core! And to use my favorite Eagles line, we'll 'stab it with our stealy knives' but this time we really will 'kill the beast'.

Unknown said...

A general comment re: Parsons!

Dazed and utterly confused! Angry without really understanding why! Sad...really.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Len,

The recent most frightening assault is the Christian Fanatic take over of the military.

The scary 12th century rhetoric is employed.

James Mattis (of the Corpse) "Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

Lt. Col Ralph Kauzlarich: "When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don't believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more — that is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don't know how an atheist thinks. I can only imagine that that would be pretty tough."

But, what better time to pound in the indoctrination than when the young men are under the stress of Boot Camp? You could even title your Religious Brain-washing 'God's Basic Training'! The First Strategic Objective being: Evangelize and Disciple All Enlisted Members of the US Military.

Unknown said...

grunge, if I have not put a link to your fine blog on my blogroll yet --don't give up on me! I think we should swamp links and I will get a link to you pronto.

It's been really busy last couple of days.

Thanks for your comment and for bringing that to our attention. Increased 'fanaticism' of a fundamentalist or superstitious type seems always to accompany the slide into a 'dark age'. I don't know which causes which. But they certainly go together.

Anonymous said...

I have an Army issue field bible from 1917 with a mimeographed handwritten message from General Pershing that goes straight into a biblical rant about crushing the evil Hun, who is the tool of Beelzebub ( Ba'al Zebub), Pershing goes on that it is every good Christian's duty to God and country not to fail in the field against this enemy of mankind.

Pretty spooky stuff, but apparently this kind of religious jingoism has been apart of our military history and culture for some time. Mind you this is the same Gen Pershing that ordered young subordinate Douglas MacArthur to haul machine guns and light cannon up a hill to shoot down the same American veterans as they paid a visit to Washington a few years after the war, to collect their promised DUE...which they received in lead. Don't you just love how our religious military leadership takes care of the American veteran.

Any how, the most recent crop of whack-jobs are part of a Dominionism type Christian Reconstructist movement, some of the articles I have read say the epicenter of it is found within the Air Force. It is sad, and scary that this element has so much power these days, I only hope that sound secular management cleans this mess up, or we will continue to be led in over our heads, there is only one thing more dangerous then a religious zealot...And that is: Another religious zealot.

Personally, I view most all religious dogma, systems and rituals as hocus pocus...all of it, I think it is certainly one's right to have or develop personal or group spiritual connections with the expanding universe around them...but please, by all means keep your religions and personal belief systems out of the realm of governance and civil law, period. Tom Paine and his ilk of enlightenment were/are currently light years beyond most of the current confused humans and systems of governance that inherited this earth, currently leadership squanders the knowledge that has been brought to light typically to promote their own versions of belief systems and goals. That is not what the founding fathers had in mind, not then, not now, not ever.

benmerc

Unknown said...

bemerc sez...

Mind you this is the same Gen Pershing that ordered young subordinate Douglas MacArthur to haul machine guns and light cannon up a hill to shoot down the same American veterans as they paid a visit to Washington a few years after the war, to collect their promised DUE...which they received in lead.

My father was a WWI vet and NEVER got his bonus! As he was discharged from the US Army, he was seriously ill --possibly Malaria. The US didn't give a shit. At the 'Bonus March' you speak of, Gen. George Patton lead a cavalry charge into the midst of the veterans! If you know of a complete and authoritative history of this heinous bit of American history, please share it with this forum.

It's time the truth be told about how the right wing has made of mockery of 'truth, justice and the American way'!

As a one time mayor of Houston said to a press conference attended by yours truly: 'There is something rotten in Houston!'

I think that whatever it is that was rotten in Houston at that time is still rotten and it is the same 'entity' that is rotten in the United States and has never been 'riper' or more virulent than it is today, under Bush, with liberty and justice for NONE but the very, very rich and evil.

Anonymous said...

Len,

That particular information came out of Howard Zinns "The Peoples History of the United States" early edition, yeah I forgot about old blood & gut's involvement. I guess they ended up ripping off most of the Vets, as your dad was, it was the "bonus" you refer to, that I talk about, the WWI vets really got the shaft early on, but the ones that suffered through it typically got better treatment later on (if they lived long enough).

As you know the #1 Boogy-man of the right-wing, FDR, was the first president that really tackled the problem of getting veterans the help they needed...he started building several large hospitals before we even got into WWII, he gave a damn, one of the few that did. It is ironic right-wing "patriots" (typically the ones that do not serve) to this day disparage FDR and most of his legacy, but then the right wing has all but disappeared irony and satire over these last few years. Of course that is the least of our worries concerning those shit-hooks.

The Bible mentioned, I found at a local dump when I was a kid (one of the only things I have left from my youth in the form of a physical possession). I grew up near a VA hospital, my dad and others in my family are vets (some disabled) I sold plenty of newspapers as a kid to soldiers that went as far back as the Spanish American war...also remember seeing my first Vietnam vet curled up in a ball in the corner of the room in the psych ward (the good old days when a paperboy was allowed to go anywhere...even if he was only 12yrs old) I was 12-13 yrs old, this kid could not have been but 4-5 years older then me...he was a wreck...my working experience at the V.A. was an eye opener...after all of the conversations and all of the visuals, I came away from the whole experience with a pretty good idea of not wanting to get involved with a military career.

I had/have uncles, that were in the Battle of the Bulge & the south pacific battle of Midway...they got a good dose of "war"...when you gotta go, you have got to go, but at all cost avoid it if possible.

benmerc

Anonymous said...

thanks for helping to keep our language sane. Darwinism, like any other "-ism", is a classing of a belief system, and is always far more simplistic than any human could be.

How often to you actually hear an evolutionary biologist using the word "Darwinism"? They understand his ideas as a step along a path, but his work offers little to the modern biologist.

"Darwinism", like socialism and communism, are crappy noun forms of our language. I guess it helps idiots with weak perceptive skills "class" and "block-out" the reasons why people do what they do.

Unknown said...

benmerc...

That particular information came out of Howard Zinns "The Peoples History of the United States" early edition, yeah I forgot about old blood & gut's involvement

And I had forgotten about Zinn's treatment of it. I have that book --clearly I am in need of re-reading it. Much is owed to Zinn for setting the record straight. Of the many histories of the US, Zinn's is THE one that MUST be read if you can read only one.

As you know the #1 Boogy-man of the right-wing, FDR, was the first president that really tackled the problem of getting veterans the help they needed...he started building several large hospitals before we even got into WWII, he gave a damn, one of the few that did.

The right wing will never forgive FDR for dealing effectively with such problems nor his handling of the depression. He will never be forgiven the creation of Social Security. And as long as there is a GOPPER with political power, the futures of retirees not lucky enough to be among an increasingly tiny elite will always be in doubt.

Since FDRs time, the GOP Has worked mightily to destroy SS; the party is especially resentful because their own man --H. Hoover --had completely fucked up and always looks bad when compared to FDR. This compare and contrast must be the source of much GOP teeth gnashing.

Hoover was little better or even worse than the crooked retards who preceded him --Coolidge and Harding! Typically GOP, Hoover had said that the poor might 'sell oranges from a push cart!" Much later, the current retard would opine: "You're doing a helluva job, Brownie!"

Anonymous said...

How often do you actually hear an evolutionary biologist using the word "Darwinism"? They understand his ideas as a step along a path, but his work offers little to the modern biologist.

Excellent point --it points up a flawed right wing mind set. Evolutionary theory owes much to Darwin but embraces the pioneering work of Mendel as well as work of Watson-Crick and Rosalind Franklin and the molecular biologists since.

It's not just 'Darwinism' about which the right wing cannot think clearly. It's ALL things. The right wing thinks in terms of top down ideologies or doctrine; they cannot conceive or comprehend science as 'process' or method.

For that and similar reasons, the right wing prefers to 'label' and 'classify' and is completely confused by creative and innovative types who simply cannot be stuck in a box and labeled.

Anonymous said...

"Typically GOP, Hoover had said that the poor might 'sell oranges from a push cart!" Much later, the current retard would opine: "You're doing a helluva job, Brownie!" - LH

Len,

Although not a preznit, he "was" one of McCain's top men...Phil Graham's recent assessment of working America as "whiners" because we are only in a "mental recession" and people need to "suck it up" exposes yet another typical gop response and denial to their fuck-ups by blaming the victim, very GOP. The unbelievable idiocy that emerges from the GOP gasbags will never cease to amaze me, and the only thing working folks have to suck up appears to be more bull shit doled out by people of Graham's ilk.

Though FDR was no angel (Japanese internment, ruthless old style politics, to name a few) FDR was a realist and recognized the hole Hoover had dug, and had a great team of liberal advisers and social thinkers around him, and he pushed their radical advice with some great success. Hoover, on the other hand was a clueless status quo country club elitist that clearly had little empathy for the have-nots, and continued his out of touch regressive economic policies until he nearly buried the country, he was the complete fool. The fact that Goppers still attack FDR is the window into their delusional thinking pattern, lack of self evaluation and denial of accountability...again, the irony with this bunch is they claim to own all of these attributes in positive form, yet do not even understand them.

I have to chime in on the subject of Darwin, although the present discussion is from I realize an associated perspective concerning word use in which I agree, I would like to context him from the ground level. Darwin's journals are cornerstone insights for any one, be it the avocational naturalist or entry level or seasoned field biologist...His organic keenness of observation was amazing, and is something no field person should ignore.

Darwin certainly was not the first taxonomist, but his work appears to be the starting point for rigorous, methodical field biology and the theories that blossomed around some of the original data. But yes, his work certainly has little to do with chasing millions of strands of DNA through computer data bases or the complexities of current organic chemistry or the expanding associated technologies and sciences within...(which my biologist brother has tried to explain to me on a basic level, yet I remain clueless...I work in basic plant community ecology/land management, leave the nomenclature and hard line taxonomy to the lumpers & spliters) Nevertheless, Darwin, in my book was the preeminent thinker of the nineteenth century, just for the fact of how his mind worked, and that he left us not only his ground breaking conclusions, but a glimpse of his raw genius, exposed in his journals.

benmerc

Anonymous said...

If you want more details on Graham:

News Hounds http://www.newshounds.us/2008/07/10/fox_sides_with_phil_graham_on_mental_recession_and_whiners_provides_proof_that_hes_right.php

Fox Sides With Phil Graham on "Mental Recession" and "Whiners" - Provides "Proof" that He's Right
Reported by Melanie - July 10, 2008


benmerc

Unknown said...

benmerc sez...

Darwin's journals are cornerstone insights for any one, be it the avocational naturalist or entry level or seasoned field biologist...His organic keenness of observation was amazing, and is something no field person should ignore.

Thanks for bringing that up, benmerc. I suppose 'theory' is the glamour work and 'theorists' get all the publicity, but behind every theory there is a lot of beaten shoe leather, tedium and grunge. For everyone who lives in the Villa on the hill, there are hundreds (perhaps thousands) who must toil in the vineyards.

Darwin, in my book was the preeminent thinker of the nineteenth century, just for the fact of how his mind worked, and that he left us not only his ground breaking conclusions, but a glimpse of his raw genius, exposed in his journals.

Your keen observations are appreciated, benmerc. And it an honor to have a scientist posting here on the ranch.

And thanks for the links on Graham. This has been a demanding week and I hope to get caught up in a day or so that I can give them a proper read.

Anonymous said...

Fuzzflash sez...

Great news this morning:

"Top war crimes fugitive Karadzic arrested: Serbia
Bosnian Serb wartime president Radovan Karadzic, one of the world's most wanted men, has been arrested, a statement from the office of Serbian President Boris Tadic said this morning.

"Karadzic was located and arrested," the statement said. He was detained and taken to see judges of the war crimes court."
from ABC Online (Oz)

May Karadzic rot in custody for the remainder of his miserable genocidal days.
Next, Vladko Mladic!!

This is not going to assist those in Outfit Imbecile who have any vestige of humanity remaining and who are already experiencing difficulty sleeping. For civilized people, there is no statute of limitations for the murder of innocent men, women and children whether in Mesopotamia, Rwanda, Timor L'Este or Myanmar.
The people of Sarajevo were slaughtered like goldfish in a barrell, an act of barbarism not witnessed in Europe since The Holocaust.

Anonymous said...

Len,

As I have stated before, it is the elevated content of your posts and many of your commenter's responses that challenge my own thought process, so I certainly appreciate the lively discussion and debate you continue to generate. I have rarely failed to gain an insight, or revelation from these joint efforts as they unfold, not to mention you possess an uncanny in depth perception and understanding of American politics and culture not seen anywhere these days. We using the net are fortunate you have chose to engage and share your knowledge, in the American Populist's spirit you are so familiar with.

Fuzz...That is great news about Karadzic, if now we can only hope this to be a future global trend...lock up the war criminals, where ever they are. Get the insane out of governance and places of power, none to soon.


benmerc

SadButTrue said...

Yes, Karadzic was arrested, and that's a good thing, but perhaps more significant is the filing of charges by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against President Omar al-Bashir for the genocidal crimes committed in Darfur. This is the first time such charges have ever been directed at a sitting head of state.

The problem is that al-Bashir can defiantly point to George Bush as having declared himself to be outside of the ICC's purview, and follow suit. Crooks and Liars contributor Bill W. blogs about it at C&L, and at his own site. This is a truly exceptional post on a vital story.

Bush has taken the dubious principle of American Exceptionalism codified in ideas like Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine, pumped it up on steroids and applied it to himself in spades. In doing so he defies another American idea, the Nuremberg Principle. Which I blog about HERE. Or you could see it cross-posted to the Existentialist Corral.

Anonymous said...

For your 911 interest, Len. Mohamed Atta and five of the 911 hijackers were partying in Oklahoma City just days before 911. There are reportedly witnesses and receipts. Bills were paid with US military and government credit cards. We know the OKC bombing is a lie and that the same engineers used to assess 911 were the ones used to provide the cover story for OKC.

An FOI request has also shown that the National Transportation Safety Board made no positive identification of the aircraft used in the 911 attacks according to established procedures.

Cheers.

Unknown said...

damien said...

For your 911 interest, Len. Mohamed Atta and five of the 911 hijackers were partying in Oklahoma City just days before 911. There are reportedly witnesses and receipts. Bills were paid with US military and government credit cards. We know the OKC bombing is a lie and that the same engineers used to assess 911 were the ones used to provide the cover story for OKC.

Thanks for the links, damien. I have no excuse now not to brush up on that aspect of the 911 story that is most troubling. It should be common knowlege by now (but sadly is probably not) that some of those key players are alive and interviewed by BBC. Perhaps ALL of them are still alive. I would like to see 911 liar-deniers explain that one. The most disturbing and disillusioning aspect of the Bush coup-debacle-cum-dictatorship is the effect that its had on what little was left of the American intellect. Americans will simply deny the evidence of their 'lyin' eyes' --nothing less than mass psychosis induced by a practiced psychopaths.

People often say that they believe 911 because they saw it on TV! What a stupid reason for believing ANYTHING!!! David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear and walked through the Great Wall of China. That it was on TV makes it so! Recently, some 3DSMax (or Blender) pros did a 3-D animation of soft-bodied aluminum airliners crashing through hard STEEL cladding --and you know the rest! Because it was 'animated', we are expected to believe it really happened that way. For the same reason --Mickey was real and may still be alive.

SadButTrue sez...

Bush has taken the dubious principle of American Exceptionalism codified in ideas like Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine, pumped it up on steroids and applied it to himself in spades.

The real history of the US will rarely be found in the textbooks. A great debt is owed Howard Zinn. Even Winston Churchill's 'History of the English Speaking People'. As the X-files used to say: 'the truth is out there.' Few people bother to dig it out.

benmerc sez...

I have rarely failed to gain an insight, or revelation from these joint efforts as they unfold, not to mention you possess an uncanny in depth perception and understanding of American politics and culture not seen anywhere these days. We using the net are fortunate you have chose to engage and share your knowledge, in the American Populist's spirit you are so familiar with.

Of Native American descent and European descent, I grew up with a contrarian view of US history that I failed to appreciate at the time. Now was I appreciated by my grammar school teachers. Thank you for your kind words. Unfortunately, most US citizens simply swallow the official narratives. Lately, I am re-reading at a very leisurely pace Winston Churchill's "History of the English Speaking Peoples". I hope to write an essay about how his take on the US 'Civil War' is often surprisingly different from the bland accounts recited in Us schools.

paul said...

Charles Darwin:

If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.