One more time, i guess.
I've been recently reading what i would charitably call my Republican counterparts. In other words, people who sort of fill my roll except on the Republican side of the political pie. More or less.
Anyway, they're pretty interesting. Not very insightful, but interesting. For example...
"Nazi" is short for "nationalsozialistische" or "National Socialist" ..
That sort of analysis apparently is supposed to be clever. But it's not. For instance, there's also the "People's Republic of China" yet not many people (outside the Chinese government) would categorize it as Republican in either the US mode-of-government sense or the US political party sense.
Similarly, Saddam Hussein called Iraq a Democracy--even held elections, too--but not too many people would say this was an accurate name and, again, not to many people would categorize it as equivalent to either the US governmental model or political party either. At least, i would hope not.
It's a mode of argument so dumb i have to give it a new name just to describe it:
Argumentum ad Their Names Sound Similar So Obviously They Must Be The Same!
Well, i wouldn't really have to give it a new name. But it's more amusing that way.
Lest you think that's just a witty (or not-so-witty) tagline that covers actual analysis with a hook: it isn't. Let's read on as the author of the post i linked "dissects" one of my personal favorites, Orcinus...
Right in the first paragraph the author already follows up the tagline with another bit of nonsense:
The Leftist origins of Fascism don't get a mention, in fact, so one knows immediately that the article will be low on scholarship. And its chief scholarly source for the nature of Fascism is in fact R.O. Paxton, the "historian" (much lauded in the N.Y. Times, of course) who said Hitler was an "antisocialist" -- when the very name of Hitler's political party was (translated) "The National Socialist German Worker's Party"! I think I have already at this early stage said enough about the article concerned to dismiss it for the claptrap it is but I cannot resist having a bit more fun with it.
At least the author admits this is some sick idea of "fun" and not an actual attempt at analysis. Orcinus's extensive documenting of the similarities between the old-style fascists and the present "movement Conservatives" that have more or less taken over the Republican party aside: i think i've already dealt with the argument presented here.
How about the "sub-title" of the weblog?
Leftists have a desperate need to prove that they are right. Conservatives are just interested in the facts
To which i could respond "Leftists are interested in the truth. Conservatives are just interested in making everyone obey them."
It may or may not be more or less accurate than "DissectLeft"'s line, but it would be approximately equivalent as far as truth or factuality would go. The only difference is that i give you both DissectLeft's line and my own, whereas DissectLeft neglects to even more than a couple lines of Orcius's extensive criticisms.
Anyway, onward and... well... downward i guess. I'm not really into extensive political criticism right now. It's kinda late and i'm irritated at my computer.
SOME THANKSGIVING THOUGHTS FOR LEFTISTS
1. Kerry really won the election-- Unfortunately, Bush and his rich cronies stole the election again- damn it!
The jury is still out on this one, as they say. In this case, the jury is literally still out. As in "don't count your Presidents before they're sworn in". Not that i'm expecting (or even, really, hoping) for that sort of outcome. But it's nonetheless a possibility, albeit an incredibly slim one, at this stage.
2. Obama the "Rising Star" beat Alan Keyes by an absurd margin.
There's gotta be a better name for him than that. But yes, a 90% margin of victory could be accurately classified as "absurd". But hey, Keyes ran on those all-American values of "QUEERS ARE EVIL", among other things, so i'm sure it'd be amusing if i could see the Republicans analysing his loss.
3. Terry McCauliffe is no longer actively destroying your party from within.
4. Howard Dean may get a shot at leading the DNC to yet another Presidential election victory in 2008- barring another Republican electorate robbery.
5. Being that the Republicans still retain power in Executive, Senate,and House- you get to do what you enjoy most- whine and blame Bush for everything that goes wrong.
Hey, it's a noble political pasttime to blame the other party for everything that goes wrong. Even when, as the Republicans currently do, you control the Executive branch, the Senate, and the House. "Obstructionist" and "activist liberal judges" anyone? But hey, i wouldn't want anyone to... i don't know... actually take responsibility for anything ever now would i?
6. The likelihood of a conservative being appointed to the Supreme Court will give you a once in a lifetime opportunity to conduct tasteful Pro-Abortion rallies. Perhaps, a wire hanger can be your new party logo.
I'll believe this when i see it.
Meanwhile, you conservatives can go right on conducting your tasteful "Pro-You can't get an abortion ever, even when your unborn child is killing you from within" rallies. I suggest graphic photos of mothers whose internal organs have been popped and bones broken by their ectopic pregnancies. Very "in" this year.
7. With Bush in office- your taxes will remain nice and low. Be honest, you weren't buying that raising taxes nonsense from Kerry anyway.
See: Tim Pawlenty's Minnesota.
(For those of you not "in" on this one: Pawlenty made a "No new taxes EVAR" pledge and, by God, he's going to stick with it. Even when it involves spending Minnesota into insolvency when it was, previously, doing fine fiscally. Hey, he can just raise fees and other "stealth-tax-increases" that predominantly affect the poor and claim political victory! Who cares about single mothers anyway?)
8. Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw retiring gives the liberal media machine a rare opportunity to find more effective partisan hacks- capable of forging documents, and getting away with it, if needed.
What "liberal media" now? Are sure this was Thanksgiving 2004? On the planet Earth?
9. The Republican Senate does not have a filibuster proof (60 member majority), yet.
Thank God for small mercies...
10. When the U.S. military successfully exterminates the Iraqi insurgency- you can say it was Clinton's military that won the war in Iraq.
Hahah! That's a good one!
"When the U.S. military successfully exterminates the Iraqi insurgency"... oh man, that's great.
Sort of like they did in Fallujah, eh?
That line denotes a changed source for mocking.
The new one can be found here. I'm going to skip most of those as they're boring and/or already done, etc.
But that one...
Why change your behaviors to satisfy moral values when you can change moral values to satisfy your behaviors?
A. Good question!
B. That's what I was thinking!
C. I dunno.
D. Because we don't want to end up back in the caves, flinging our excrement at one another.
Conservative answer: d
My answer: e
(For those who missed it:
"E. Hey, it worked for the Republicans!")
Since traditional moral values have, for centuries, served and sustained civilization relatively well, they should be:
A. Honored and protected.
B. Chopped down like giant redwoods in an old growth forest.
Conservative answer: a
My answer: Hahah! Served and sustained civilization for centuries! Man, i never knew "conservatives" where such comedians! Oh man, that's pretty funny.
Yeah "Let's go lynch some niggers/queers" was great. Let's bring that one back, how about? I mean, it's only half gone... and yet, it has so much more "serving" and "sustaining" of civilization to give!
Meanwhile, on the front of traditional, moral values like critical thinking, freedom, equality, etc, Conservatives are more than willing to answer b.
Speaking of which, in regards to actual giant redwoods in an old growth forest they're willing to cut those down too. The environment is a natural resource that exists for the enrichment of the timber companies (Yes, Mr. Bush, you do own one) after all.