Monday, June 18, 2007

As Mark's Two Minute Hate Continues Apace ...

His incoherence and inability to muster a coherent argument is becoming more and more apparent by the day. I'll be looking forward to his anathema sit against the entire Republican Party when they fail to nominate Ron Paul. Of course, Mark argues that he doesn't support Ron Paul, he just links to his supporters' website while at the same time disparaging Mitt Romney's pro-life credentials and seeing little difference between Romney and Giuliani.

It is this type of willful ignorance and delusion that makes it so troubling for Mark to held up as some kind of luminary when it comes to social and political commentary (which he is, according to the awards he wins). In contrast to Giuliani who has publicly embraced a pro-abortion platform, Romney has done everything in his power to reach out and actively court social conservatives. Now some have questioned his conservative credentials or the sincerity of his conversion, but I personally doubt that Mark even gave either even a passing thought before denouncing Romney. It's just like he had no issue with smearing Fred Thompson's pro-life record last week because of he attempted to articulate a federalist view of abortion, but when it comes to Ron Paul's maximum interpretation of federalism to the point of wanting to abolish the Federal Reserve, Mark is willing to grant him all manner of leeway. Like I've noted before, all of his past virulent criticism of libertarianism and the GOP embrace of the free market gets swepts under the bridge when it comes to Ron Paul. And yet he gets all manner of self-righteous when this pattern of behavior might lead one to suspect that he supports Ron Paul. As I said last time: puh-leez.

Moving right along, I see that both he and Rod are all taken in by Seymour Hersh's latest expose on the Abu Ghraib scandal. As anyone who has bothered to read past Mark's denunciations of Victor and myself is likely already aware, we both regard what happened at Abu Ghraib as being nothing short of disgusting and unpardonable. While a number of the items raised by Hersh in his story have not appeared in the US prosecutions involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal, there was more than enough that was wrong with that prison that my threshhold for believing all manner of sick acts were committed there that I have little to know problem believing what Hersh describes occurred. That said, Hersh's track record here leaves a lot to be desired. Then again, Mark is generally quite credulous when it comes to latching onto sources critical of the Bush administration - witness his breathless endorsement of a massive US-UK attack on Iran timed to coincide with Good Friday.

I also see that Mark continues to hold Michael Ledeen responsible for everything and anything bad that occurs in Iraq. I still see burning an electronic effigy as the most likely place where this is going to end up.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Then again, Mark is generally quite credulous when it comes to latching onto sources critical of the Bush administration - witness his breathless endorsement of a massive US-UK attack on Iran timed to coincide with Good Friday.

Not to mention his more recent call for Bush's impeachment over an article in WorldNetDaily* about the impending Bush dictatorship. To Mark's credit, he still listens to some people and retracted that post later.

*Otherwise known as "Paranoid Rants About The Impending U.S. Dictatorship 'R' Us". WorldNetDaily has the virtue of being a shorter name, I'll admit.

Martin O'Shea said...

A graphic novel which explores the response of the Church to suffering within its scope is available from: www.forbiddenplanet.co.uk

There's also a preview at: http://www.all-creatures.org/fol/ann-theleast.html

Whilst the book challenges certain attitudes and dogma it remains a Catholic (if underground) comic.

All the best,

Martin




The Least Among Us ISBN 0-9552945-0-9

Christopher said...

Funny Martin, I saw the exact same comment on my blog, with no relation whatsoever to the post. Regardless of the potential merits of your graphic novel, commercial spamming is not going to endear you to your audience.

Victor said...

BTW ... did you know that Ledeen backs Communism too? (http://markshea.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html#6191162068509441390). I sure didn't.

I mean if Mark is just gonna make shit up (which is where he is now), he can surely be way more creative and funny than this.

Christopher said...

Hey, what's a few neglected and abused Iraqi children when you can lay the deaths of 100 million at the feet of Michael Ledeen?

Anonymous said...

Mark wasn't saying that Ledeen supports Communism or is responsible for 100 million deaths, only that Ledeen shares the underlying philosophy of the Communist apart from Communism's accidental features like state ownership of everything and the color red. That philosophy, for lack of a snazzier term, is Evilism.

So, according to Mark:

1) Communist butchers believed in Evilism, which allowed them to kill 100 million people.

2) Michael Ledeen believes in Evilism, as can clearly be seen from his work.

3) Therefore it is a good idea to link to this article about Communism killing 100 million people with a Ledeen quote expounding Evilism.

Victor said...

Yes, but because "evil" is (1) not an ideology or a program; and (2) comes in so many mutually incompatible flavors, "evilism" is not a meaningful term of political discourse. You might as well use the equally capacious term "politics" and so smear everyone who practiced politics from Pericles to Hillary with every sin ever committed in the name of "evilism/politics."

I am right in assuming that the ridiculousness of this child-like Shavian thought [sic] process [sic] that had to be you point, correct?

Victor said...

Actually, reading anonymous's comment again, I'm not sure that I was ironic/sarcastic. I mean this ...


Mark [said] ... only that Ledeen shares the underlying philosophy of the Communist apart from Communism's accidental features like state ownership of everything and the color red.


... reads disturbingly serious.

What "underlying philosophy" would that be?

It cannot be "evilism," particularly coming from a man who loudly insists that he realizes that nobody practices evil for its own sake. On these very terms, there can be no essentialist ideology as "evilism," distinguished only by accidental opinions like nationalism, history, property, religion, classes, institutions and all the rest of the things that distinguish the various ideologies from one another, whether good, bad or indifferent.

Nor can the "underlying philosophy" be "the end justifies the means," because that presupposes that there are in fact ends. Consequentialist philosophy is not an ideology in itself for that very reason. Even on Shea's kindergarten caricature terms, consequentialism does not, cannot, tell you what consequences are desireable (only that, once you've determined that, all means are acceptable).

State ownership of everything is not an "accidental feature" of Communism (certainly not as the color red is accidental). If anything can be called its "underlying philosophy," collective property ownership would be it.

paul zummo said...

What I think anonymous is getting at is the political thought process known as stupidalism. It's the art of making non-sensical public statements and drawing terribly inapt analogies in an effort to impugn the character of someone you don't like.

Anonymous said...

Paul Zummo's right, more or less. I wasn't intending to launch a serious defense of Mark's thought processes, just make a semi-tongue-in-cheek stab at what they must be. I thought my classifying state ownership and the color red as being equally accidental to Communism would've tipped you off.

kathleen said...

HA. Wednesday 6/20-now shea is trying to imply that Justice Scalia is less of a brilliant deep-thinking catholic than shea is -- well, in fact, Shea is implying that Scalia is an outright idiot, unable to tell the difference between reality and 24. utterly laughable. shea's ego (reinforced by his knee jerk prejudice against cradle catholics, esp. those with surnames ending in vowels) has rendered him delusional.

Seamus said...

I also see that Mark continues to hold Michael Ledeen responsible for everything and anything bad that occurs in Iraq. I still see burning an electronic effigy as the most likely place where this is going to end up.

If you aren't blinded by Shea Derangement Syndrome, you might note that Mr. Shea has acknowledged error on that point. (I can't get the link to post correctly, but it's at Catholic and Enjoying It for today, posted at 7:27 am.)
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html#6948876752850943075

kathleen said...

Seamus, i wouldn't say that Shea "acknowledged error". instead he conceded a fairly obvious point that one would have to be a complete idiot not to concede. the fact that he made or suggested that argument in the first place, therefore, is itself problematic. and in turn, the suggestion that pointing that out indicates someone has Shea Derangement Syndrome makes your comment quite problematic as well. (though i personally will cop to Idiocy Derangement Syndrome)

Seamus said...

Seamus, i wouldn't say that Shea "acknowledged error". instead he conceded a fairly obvious point that one would have to be a complete idiot not to concede.

The "fairly obvious point" is that he was wrong. He conceded that. That's what I call "acknowledging error." Maybe folks over here use a different dictionary.

Seamus said...

the suggestion that pointing that out indicates someone has Shea Derangement Syndrome makes your comment quite problematic as well

I didn't accuse anyone of having Shea Derangement Syndrome. I said that *if* people weren't blinded by the syndrome, they'd note that Shea had acknowledged error. I admit I was baiting people, but you rose right to the bait--and pretty quickly, too.

I would think that being so reluctant to concede anything in Mr. Shea's favor that you don't even admit that he's admitted he was wrong (and how else do you read the words "mea culpa"?) would constitute a textbook example of Shea Derangement Syndrome.

kathleen said...

"I didn't accuse anyone of having Shea Derangement Syndrome."

um, i know. that's why i said you made the "suggestion" (you might want to read the comments you copy and paste). talk about rising to the bait.

Seamus said...

Oh, I don't think I need to suggest any more.

Shea Derangement Syndrome is in the same category as, and is no more attractive than, Ledeen Derangement Syndrome.

Marc Lewandowski said...

That was weird...

kathleen said...

I think I have Seamus Derangement Syndrome.

Anonymous said...

The Blackadder says:

Seamus is right. Mark did back down from implicating Leeden at all in the death of the kid, though as of yet he does not seem to have backed down from implicating him in the deaths of the 100 million victims of Communism. I don't have Shea Derangement Syndrome, but I do seem to have developed a bad case of Chronic Shea Fatigue Syndrome. Trying to argue with him can be a wearying and often not very productive enterprise.

Victor said...

Anonymous:

My apologies.

Though in my semi-defense, I will say that what you correctly say is too ridiculous for a serious person to credit (that state ownership of all property is a minor detail of Communism compared to what unites it with fascism, socialism, caudillism, clerical fascism and some other modern ideologies) is not far from what is said with a perfectly straight face by some libertarians and (clerical fascism aside) Catholic paleocons.