[...] Paul’s ideology of liberty only insofar as we’re willing to console ourselves with a false self-righteousness that barely conceals base self-interest: The first great task of the first self-consciously “American” Americans was the accumulation of [...]
and reflecting on your reflection I've been reflecting on Faulkner altho remembering much less than I would like to remember I do remember something about the Snopes and running for office altho I can't really be more specific than that maybe you remember something
The Snopeses have always been there. No sooner did Faulkner come upon his central subject—how the corruption of the homeland, staining its best sons, left them without standards or defense—than Snopesism followed inexorably. Almost anyone can detect the Snopeses, but describing them is very hard. The usual reference to “amorality,” while accurate, is not sufficiently distinctive and by itself does not allow us to place them, as they should be placed, in a historical moment. Perhaps the most important thing to be said is that they are what comes afterwards: the creatures that emerge from the devastation, with the slime still upon their lips.
dude, you could easily get on twitter and respond to these tweets directl.y... "they" have made it impressivly easy to sign up, tweet your tweets, and the majority of sites have made it easy to tweet links to items of interest, too. I'd either re-tweet you as appropriate, set up a joint list, or give you your own box... alternatively I could send or re-send you a registration at the blog so you could comment on the Wall...
Is rather silly to consider describing Romney as what he is, a moderate, is 'negative, but then that's in the same vein as the EU refusing to certify water as able to satisfy thirst.
No, but I have seen a Boxing Day card featuring Madame Brutal: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gbj2Lggn_0E/TvirvhTOU6I/AAAAAAAACpg/gZlOhlh0Tlo/s1600/B-CRmg2kKGrHqFl8EyjC5GUrBM9pIQJF-Q_12.JPG
...to make the game less absurd, you have to translate "RP in office" as "extreme ideological candidate of his general type... say his son in four or eight years." As with any extreme scenario, you have believe that extraordinary events have rendered the consensus underlying the system untenable - a Depression-level worsening of the economic situation, one or more catastrophic setbacks overseas, assassinations and major scandals taking out all credible representatives of the major parties....and so on... all at once...
But I don't think you have to go quite that far to imagine a popular movement - perhaps as likely to originate on the left as the right - and something less than apocalypse combining to make major reductions in overseas bases and the end of NATO conceivable, in the context of major reductions in defense expenditures Foreign aid, I dunno - not without lots of other crazy stuff happenig first.
and Ron paul wouldn't be in power even if, by some horrible turn of events, he were to be in office. there wouldn't be any Congress that would close down all of our foreign military bases, cancel out of NATO, and end all foreign aid.
The problem with Paul, and this is true, of many of his spokespersons like Michael Scheuer, the head of the Bin Laden unit, is that they elide the difference between understanding a Bin Laden, and agreeing with him, So Scheuer agreed with the Gamaa Islamiyah, that Egypt was not a nice place, but was perfectly willing to send the likes of Talat Quassem back to Cairo and Damascus, Al Filisitini Mukharabat. al Amarah.Now I'm given to understand that the fellow who actually ran the Renditions Branch, a second generation Company man, was nowhere as naive, and he understood 'when needs must'
Now if Paul were actually in power, would he actually follow through with his policies, or would he yield to reality. Judge Napolitano, does exhibit the same callousness, re Lincoln's slaughter of 600,000, in his CPAC speech almost three years ago, It's an academic exercise to say, the Civil War shouldn't have been fought, but Jim Crow tells me otherwise
It's always a marvel to hear someone link Ron Paul and common sense.
Congress is poised to pass the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) authorizing up to $50 million in unconstitutional foreign aid. The bill passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee with a bipartisan agreement to nearly double the President's requested amount. It is always distressing to see officials in our government reach across the aisle to disregard Constitutional limitations.
I did though, enjoy the post. Although, if I were your editor (having no pretense of being that) I might suggest "as the organic needs of the individual stand to the ego in psychoanalytical frameworks" detracts from the overall Faulknerian feel of the piece.
Maybe it is the Americanist notion that you can escape by imagining you have escaped/are in the process of escaping, even while continuing to participate materially. Yet you cannot cease participating without ceasing to be, which is the most selfishly irresponsible form of moral self-reassurance and merely notional escape.
Maybe the objective would least of all to justify oneself or anyone else, but to live "with all your heart and all your might" your part of the collective confession.
Or maybe best not to ask the unanswerable question...
Or maybe I shouldn't have started answering when I have chores to perform...
Oh, and in respect to what sticks to me ideologically, my so-called "militant pacificism" was holding out for Paul until the scandal. So there you are right. I wasn't going to vote for him but I was pulling for him as the only politician out there speaking against war so unequivocally on a common sense level at least. I wanted him to be heard on that point. Now he screwed it all up by not only being a knucklehead in the past but making it clear that he's a knucklehead now even in the common sense way that Bob described in his first comment.
Naturally, I would like to see this piece as a video. The silhouette style would work again perfectly. But remind me why I can't even separate myself ideologically from this Americanism? Yes, I know my taxes go to American expressions of Americanism, and that I participate in the racism and everything else no matter how much I distance myself from it through spiritual practice, so I know the separation I seek is ideological, but everything is ideological, including so-called physical reality, so why can't ideological separation establish a real separation from Americanism? My guess is that it goes something like "whatever I say that I don't say bouncing off me, sticks to you for a little bit and then bounces back to me" in some Hegelian way.
I haven't spent a lot of time thnking about this, but this stood out to me. People paid for these newsletters. The first rule of writing - know your audience.
Paul took the $. If he didn't know what was in them he's a fool. Big enough reason by itself to not vote for him.
Maybe Sullivan, should reconsider;
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/paul-endorser-homosexuals-should-be-executed/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SayAnything+%28Say+Anything%29
[...] Paul’s ideology of liberty only insofar as we’re willing to console ourselves with a false self-righteousness that barely conceals base self-interest: The first great task of the first self-consciously “American” Americans was the accumulation of [...]
too bad we lost strangelet's attention, Madame Brutal woulda been a good avatar for her.
bobsalom bobsalom!
tho maybe you can help tie it in to the theme of the post, at least as well as Madame Brutal would.
and reflecting on your reflection I've been reflecting on Faulkner altho remembering much less than I would like to remember I do remember something about the Snopes and running for office altho I can't really be more specific than that maybe you remember something
But I did find this from 1959 Irving Howe
Well If you could, I note that was actually Dreazen, who's been known to put words in General MacChrystal's mouth every once and again,
dude, you could easily get on twitter and respond to these tweets directl.y... "they" have made it impressivly easy to sign up, tweet your tweets, and the majority of sites have made it easy to tweet links to items of interest, too. I'd either re-tweet you as appropriate, set up a joint list, or give you your own box... alternatively I could send or re-send you a registration at the blog so you could comment on the Wall...
Is rather silly to consider describing Romney as what he is, a moderate, is 'negative, but then that's in the same vein as the EU refusing to certify water as able to satisfy thirst.
That certainly deserves it's own possibly NSFW thread.
http://groovyageofhorror.blogspot.com/search/label/FUMETTI%20Madame%20Brutal though you have to scroll to the bottom to get the story uh straight
that's damned impressive...WTF is it?
No, but I have seen a Boxing Day card featuring Madame Brutal: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gbj2Lggn_0E/TvirvhTOU6I/AAAAAAAACpg/gZlOhlh0Tlo/s1600/B-CRmg2kKGrHqFl8EyjC5GUrBM9pIQJF-Q_12.JPG
have you seen the original birth certificate....the one from South Africa?
Well, I thought it was Ayn Rand, and I think in a way it is, even though Rand says it's just short for Randal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-R_OeP6tU&feature=player_embedded
the only comparable to Ron Paul as president would be Charles Lindbergh ....
see Roth's The Plot Against America
(and still I can't believe that Ron Paul named his son KrugerRand)
...to make the game less absurd, you have to translate "RP in office" as "extreme ideological candidate of his general type... say his son in four or eight years." As with any extreme scenario, you have believe that extraordinary events have rendered the consensus underlying the system untenable - a Depression-level worsening of the economic situation, one or more catastrophic setbacks overseas, assassinations and major scandals taking out all credible representatives of the major parties....and so on... all at once...
But I don't think you have to go quite that far to imagine a popular movement - perhaps as likely to originate on the left as the right - and something less than apocalypse combining to make major reductions in overseas bases and the end of NATO conceivable, in the context of major reductions in defense expenditures Foreign aid, I dunno - not without lots of other crazy stuff happenig first.
what's bin Laden saying that you disagree with?
and Ron paul wouldn't be in power even if, by some horrible turn of events, he were to be in office. there wouldn't be any Congress that would close down all of our foreign military bases, cancel out of NATO, and end all foreign aid.
Yeah, I think I like like it better with the sentence you point to excised.
The problem with Paul, and this is true, of many of his spokespersons like Michael Scheuer, the head of the Bin Laden unit, is that they elide the difference between understanding a Bin Laden, and agreeing with him, So Scheuer agreed with the Gamaa Islamiyah, that Egypt was not a nice place, but was perfectly willing to send the likes of Talat Quassem back to Cairo and Damascus, Al Filisitini Mukharabat. al Amarah.Now I'm given to understand that the fellow who actually ran the Renditions Branch, a second generation Company man, was nowhere as naive, and he understood 'when needs must'
Now if Paul were actually in power, would he actually follow through with his policies, or would he yield to reality. Judge Napolitano, does exhibit the same callousness, re Lincoln's slaughter of 600,000, in his CPAC speech almost three years ago, It's an academic exercise to say, the Civil War shouldn't have been fought, but Jim Crow tells me otherwise
thanks for the feedback, will reflect upon it.
It's always a marvel to hear someone link Ron Paul and common sense.
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1729&Itemid=69
I did though, enjoy the post. Although, if I were your editor (having no pretense of being that) I might suggest "as the organic needs of the individual stand to the ego in psychoanalytical frameworks" detracts from the overall Faulknerian feel of the piece.
Maybe it is the Americanist notion that you can escape by imagining you have escaped/are in the process of escaping, even while continuing to participate materially. Yet you cannot cease participating without ceasing to be, which is the most selfishly irresponsible form of moral self-reassurance and merely notional escape.
Maybe the objective would least of all to justify oneself or anyone else, but to live "with all your heart and all your might" your part of the collective confession.
Or maybe best not to ask the unanswerable question...
Or maybe I shouldn't have started answering when I have chores to perform...
Oh, and in respect to what sticks to me ideologically, my so-called "militant pacificism" was holding out for Paul until the scandal. So there you are right. I wasn't going to vote for him but I was pulling for him as the only politician out there speaking against war so unequivocally on a common sense level at least. I wanted him to be heard on that point. Now he screwed it all up by not only being a knucklehead in the past but making it clear that he's a knucklehead now even in the common sense way that Bob described in his first comment.
Naturally, I would like to see this piece as a video. The silhouette style would work again perfectly. But remind me why I can't even separate myself ideologically from this Americanism? Yes, I know my taxes go to American expressions of Americanism, and that I participate in the racism and everything else no matter how much I distance myself from it through spiritual practice, so I know the separation I seek is ideological, but everything is ideological, including so-called physical reality, so why can't ideological separation establish a real separation from Americanism? My guess is that it goes something like "whatever I say that I don't say bouncing off me, sticks to you for a little bit and then bounces back to me" in some Hegelian way.
I haven't spent a lot of time thnking about this, but this stood out to me. People paid for these newsletters. The first rule of writing - know your audience.
Paul took the $. If he didn't know what was in them he's a fool. Big enough reason by itself to not vote for him.