gdp's Comments

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Tue, 2 Feb 2010 00:35:17 +0000

Ok, you made a specific citation, in addition to the usual name-calling, ad-hominem attacks and sweeping use of vague generalizations and ambiguous lables. Good. But before your citations are useful for wholesome purposes, some questions need to be answered. If we can't answer the questions, it's WAY too early to be drawing conclusions as to their significance. 1) What, exactly, are Zinn's actual words [a source citation would be helpful] 2) What is the context of those statements? 3) What - with those words that that context - was he trying to convey? - NOT according to you, but according to him? 4) In light of what he was trying to say, and in light of the facts of the world, (a) how true or false are his claims; (b) how coherent or incoherent are his arguments; (c) how significant or trivial are his points. You've finally contributed something of substance, from which a quality discussion can begin. But it seems like you're running away like a thief, with an ill-won conclusion, before the discussion has fairly begun. Come back!

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Tue, 2 Feb 2010 00:26:12 +0000

Why should I do that? It's not something either you or I believe in. If you think it should be done, do it yourself. What's your point, except conflict for the sake of conflict? I'm not interested.

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:13:06 +0000

No, it's not. "Socialism" and "Marxism" are not simple, monolithic block-concepts that can be useful for such simple, unambiguous classification. For *some* purposes, they may be useful that way, but much more likely is that sloppiness, error and confusion will be the fruit. We should be careful to choose tools that are appropriate to the job.

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 22:56:38 +0000

So you're not going to bet, huh? You'll just just do a niftly little deflection, and change the topic. Why? Do you lack confidence in what you have said? Well, I understand; you should.

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 22:52:45 +0000

No you don't. I've called your bluff several times, and you always avoid my challenges. You're bluffing. You're not serious, but playing intellectual games. (I play too, but I'm serious, and I offer to back up anything I say, if you can challenge it with questions that are specific and detailed enough to get a toehold in. But you consistently avoid my challenges, and consistently fail to offer your own serious challenges. Maybe you don't know what I'm talking about? Well, that's a problem. Consider doing something about it.

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 22:46:51 +0000

Instead of speaking for me, you could have asked me, to ensure your comment's accuracy. But you didn't bother, you just supposed "probably" whatever you wanted to. The facts couldn't have mattered to you, could they have? You would have been wrong. I would have corrected you - in a friendly spirit, for your having so graciously asked. [sigh] My fantasy. Your delusions.

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 22:41:59 +0000

Nice threat, "Skippy", but so far it's hollow. If you can do it, then go ahead and do it. If you can't, then quit fooling around with all the noisy huffery-puffery. It's not as impressive as you may think in the moment when you press the "Submit comment" button. Ok, I'm sorry, I was exaggerating. It's not impressive at all.

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 22:18:50 +0000

"his historical and political diatribes against the USA" Really? Give me ONE example. Never mind. You can't. Howard Zinn NEVER made a diatribe against the USA, and you, in embracing Horowitz' charge of "intellectual fraud" against him, join Horowitz in that very crime. And the crime of hypocrisy. Now, you may ask, how can I possibly say, categorically, that Zinn *never* made a diatribe against the USA? Wouldn't that require my having read and listed to ever sentence he wrote or spoke? Technically, yes: I cannot make such a categorical claim without such comprehensively total familiarity with his every word. But we have other was of knowing. I know, for example, that such a diatribe would have been jarringly out of character for him, and it's simply inconceivable (in the real world, not the world of logical possibility) that he would have been guilty of one - even if he were very drunk! It's just not him. To elucidate a possible point on which you may be confused: Zinn made numerous diatribes, not so much against the American government *in toto*, but against policies and deeds of the government, and the institutional structures and procedures that led to the perpetuation of baneful policy. But he urges us - you included! - to resist the government's impulse to conflate America-as-a-whole with itself, such that criticizing specific policies of the government can be equated, simply, with attacking America. Yeah? Earlier I wrote a post on the attacking-America confusion (or rhetorical device): http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/spitting-o...

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 21:35:41 +0000

You misunderstand what Zinn was trying to do. He never pretended to be offering a comprehensively adequate history that would make standard histories irrelevant. "A People's History" was written to counterbalance the standard texts which were almost universally assumed to present such a comprehensively adequate account -- and assumed so in error. To be clear: standard histories (centered a top-down perspective and elite-powers orthodoxy of legitimation) are totally, totally biased. That does not categorically invalidate them (they contain a lot of useful history, nonetheless), but the perspective is seriously imbalance. Biased, in other words. Those who accuse Zinn of bias are absolutely right. But in *accusing* him, they reveal that they don't quite understand what he was trying to do and why. (In fact, he is very open about his biases, on friendly terms with them, able to talk freely about them - or was. ARE YOU???)

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:18:40 +0000

Why should anyone talk about it, including anyone on this page? It is, after all, total baloney: malicious, delusional, factually-ungrounded baloney churned out from the imaginations, prejudices, and rampantly aggressive wishful thinking of the people on these pages and others like it on the 'net. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise, COME ON: IT'S ABOUT TIME! We all need to GET REAL, and stop playing this juvenile play-pen game of pretend-rational discourse, with blue circles, green triangles and red squares, in a world of vast complexities of shape and color. STOP DEPENDING SO HEAVILY ON LABELS (which are often mental crutches), and start paying attention to details - REAL detalis, not the ones you want to believe in no matter what. it's embarrassing, really. Come on, let's stop embarrasing our race. The human one. Snap out of it!

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:09:08 +0000

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/spitting-o... I'll copy/paste what I wrote elsewhere on this page, because it applies perfectly here: There's a certain common kind of fallacious reasoning that you *seem* to be invoking here, tho your argument isn't exactly clear. It goes like this: GENERAL FORM: A is widely accepted to be discredited (as far as we're concerned) . B is widely accepted to be associated with A (as far as we're concerned). Therefore: B is discredited (as far as everyone should be concerned). IN THIS CASE: A: Marxism/Stalinism/Communism/totalitarianism/socialism/etc. are...discredited. B: Howard Zinn is widely accepted (amongst ourselves) to be a Marxist/Stalinist...etc. Therefore: C: Howard Zinn is discredited, period. Do I have the reasoning wrong? Is it not very *squishy*? Very *bad*? As for the "factual" assumptions: I hold that the assumptions of (B) are plainly and egregiously wrong. And I challenge anyone to show otherwise. Come on - you're not too busy to expose me, if you can.

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:17:13 +0000

Dear Mr. Vet, You shower me with inapplicable stereotypes, telling me things about myself as if you had a clue, when it's punch-in-the-face obvious that you don't. It's not admirable, it's not respectable, it's not helpful - it's not even funny. It's just mean and stupid. Sorry. Please read the comments I posted to you a few minutes ago, above: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/spitting-o... And, again: please try to do better. Or just do something else.

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:08:36 +0000

Btw, you said: [The premise you seem to put forward is that if we had only known there would be an insurgency we wouldn't have invaded Iraq."] Not at all! From at least 1992, Iraq had been on the NeoCon Invasion to-do list, and it was a priority from the earliest days of Bush's Presidency. 9/11 made it practically inevitable (what a huge opportunity of justification, not to be wasted!). Insurgency or no insurgency! The Bush Administration would have refrained from invading if they had known that there would be the insurgency? Even tho it's their own criminal negligence (and other factors of their culpability) that did so much to foster it? There seems to be a problem with the logic here. If they hated the prospect of an insurgency so much (the bloodshed, and loss of innocent life), then it's reasonable to assume that they would have heeded the warnings from many (including high-level military officials, and within the State Department), and developed at least a half-assed post-war plan -- instead of just cancelling the invasion.

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:57:25 +0000

I'm afraid you misunderstood my point - perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I said: ___________ http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/spitting-o... "And by the way, indirect responsibility for crimes is absolutely possible: thru proxies, for example, or thru the negligent implementation of policies with predictable harmful consequences - as, say, with the insurgency in Iraq..." ___________ I didn't give it as an example of decimation, but of "indirect" responsibility for harmful outcomes actually effectuated by others: the US gov't not only failed to develop a post-war plan for implementation, but actively refused to consider a plan that had been carefully developed by a State Dep't group. The failure of post-war planning (along with other factors) was predicted to have the result - and *did* have the result - of fostering the insurgency, which resulted in further death and suffering beyond imagination. It was, at best, a crime of gross negligence on the part of the U.S. government (not me; I don't know about you). I used Iraq as an example because it's recent and prominent, and so safe to assume that you're somewhat familiar with it. But if you want decimation, per se, that's on the menu, too. May I suggest East Timor, in 1975, when 1/3 of the population were slaughtered by Suharto's forces, using U.S. military hardware, and with the connivance and support of the U.S. government (Kissinger gave the decisive "wink"). Oh...you're not familiar with that case? Then perhaps that means that it didn't happen, or that it just doesn't *matter*. Or perhaps there's...something...for you to learn? Why don't most Americans know anything about it? There are reasons. They're worth investigating. Have to!

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:30:22 +0000

Btw, you asserted: "You come from a position that the U.S. is evil and therefore everything it attempts to do is done with malice in mind." Q: How did you learn such a thing? A: You didn't. And it is hugely and significantly wrong - prejudicially wrong. And prejudice prevents quality contact, worthwhile relationship. IN FACT, I have never been comfortable with the concept of evil, because I can't quite get clear on what it is supposed to mean, and I've never met anybody who *does* use the word "meaningfully" (in a quarter-century of questioning the word) who could, under scrutiny, explain it coherently. (I bet you didn't know that about me, did you?) More: I avoid coming to definite judgments about others' motives unless I have sound, objective grounds for doing so. I may speculate and wonder (I allow myself to be unsure). But I avoid facile and unjustified conclusions about others' assumptions and motives, of exactly the sort you made about me and mine. No, apologies don't fit with the truculent tone of this forum, and I don't expect one. But please: try to do better. K?

NewsReal Blog : Spitting on Howard Zinn's Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:09:41 +0000

Dear VN Vet - You're telling me things about myself that seem to be stereotypes you acquired long before you met me here. They're wild guesses, and they're just plain wrong. Not just wrong wrt me: I think you should seriously question their usefulness as stereotypes (they may be very useful, but not for worthy purposes). That I "hate" the U.S. On the contrary, I've traveled extensively throughout the U.S. largely because I love so much about it: I've visited most States many times, and the only one I've never visited is Delaware (no offense, if you're from there). I like Louis Armstrong, and Rogers and Hammerstein, and Don McLean; I like the Grand Canyon, the giant trees of Northern California, the comfy, rustic quaintness of Maine; I like the great melting-pot of cultures in the cities, and all the wonderful cuisines that are available as a result; I like the principle of representative democracy (however poorly it is effectuated); I like baseball, and football, and basketball; I like Bill Moyers, and Rachel Maddow, and Howard Zinn. YES - THEY ARE AMERICAN!!! If you disagree, then I suggest that your concept of America is flawed, constricted, strangled. Nobody gave you the right to define what is authentically American for anyone but yourself. So you're not justified in telling others that they *hate* America, just because they don't like some of your dogmas. Nor are you justified in making such accusations on the basis of their critically analyzing the behavior of the American Government (however much you may love the government) and finding it flawed, even morally objectionable, and criticizing it in the hope of improving it. Just as I'm criticizing your thinking for the flaws I find in it - not to destroy you, but in the hope that you will improve.

Frontpage Magazine : Spitting on Howard Zinn’s Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:22:10 +0000

Zinn-loving Hitlerites? What a delightfully bizarre concept! I bet you belive in square triangles, too! You call yourself "AntiFascist". And you associate Zinn with Hitler. You apparently are unaware that Zinn voluntarily risked his life to fight fascism in WWII, because he so greatly feared and hated it. What would you risk your life for, "AntiFascist"? We know that you would waste your time on a forum like this, slandering proven anti-fascists like Zinn; the proof is in on that. I suggest you get your Thumb out of that pudding. I mean, out of your a**.

Frontpage Magazine : Spitting on Howard Zinn’s Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:07:24 +0000

Is it any coincidence that "Vlad" rhymes with "sad"? Perhaps, since I could also characterize your comments as "delusional fantasy", but that doesn't change your name to "Vlusional Vlantasy". Nor does it make it the case that, if you changed your name to Vlensible, your remarks would be any less nonsensical. So, ok, this "What's in a Name" theory is going to have to go. You should go, too. Go to this link: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/30/spitting-on-ho... If that link doesn't work for you, you can take yourself to the location. It's my comments (a few pages above) to "interact". They apply to you, too. Dear me! What a mess! What a terrible, terrible mess of brains!

Frontpage Magazine : Spitting on Howard Zinn’s Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 14:56:58 +0000

You and David are too "evil", 2maxpower. Zinn was kind. And you don't know what you're talking about. http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/30/spitting-on-ho... (Btw, I personally have no use for the word "evil", and only ever use it rhetorically, or in reflecting back or adapting someone else's usage.)

Frontpage Magazine : Spitting on Howard Zinn’s Grave?

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 14:54:05 +0000

Tyron - Please feel free to enjoy my comments above to "interact": http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/30/spitting-on-ho... They're for you, too!