Thursday, August 02, 2007

More signs of a complete disconnect with reality ...

Mark writes:
We initially went to war to destroy them and take out Osama bin Laden. However, that just war got put on the back burner so that we could pursue some other grand End to Evil strategy that had basically nothing to do with September 11 and our inital causus belli. The Taliban is therefore still around, as is Osama bin Laden, who is, we are assured, no longer relevant.

Short of a major and preemptive military invasion into Pakistan, both are likely to remain with us for at least the immediate. I would also urge conservatives not to pooh-pooh Obama's actual proposal on this too much since it may well come to that. However, anyone who has been even remotely following the discussion on Iraq would be aware that regardless of why Mark believes we went to war, we are actively fighting Osama's jackboots there as well. Allowing the enemy to regroup, whether in Pakistan or in Iraq, would be a Very Bad Thing.

Is it not possible to oppose both?

As I and others have noted before:
Yes, there is a Brave New World faction in the West, whose chief representatives are, perhaps, the transnationalists of the Davos type. It has little or nothing to do with the neocons. The Brave New Worlders have not prospered in recent years. Part of the story is the foundering of the European Union project; part of it is the defenestration of cultural and media elites in the US. The Brave New World is not fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Brave New World not only could not fight a war; it could not survive in a world where war were possible.

Reilly earlier made his point this way:
As C. S. Lewis once remarked, there is wishful thinking even in Hell, so we need not take seriously Mullah Kreikar's analogy of Iraq to Soviet Afghanistan. Most Iraqis have a vested interest in the Coalition remaining for a year or two. The parts of the country that lend themselves to guerrilla activity are not the areas where the population is likely to be hostile. There is little prospect of a technological fix for the insurgents, as US Stinger missiles were against Soviet helicopters. The list of differences could be lengthened. However, the outcome of the war in Iraq, as of the Terror War in toto, depends on a similarity: whether the people see the future being offered them as desirable, or at least tolerable.

American confidence on this score is so great that it is rarely even questioned. Consider this assessment by Philip Zelikow, made on the Jim Lehrer News Hour on August 8:

But on the plus side, since we are all being very downbeat about this, let's just notice that in late 1940s, we were competing against a major ideology that had taken power in much of Eurasia, was about to seize power in all of China and had enormous appeal in large parts of the world. Here we are in a struggle of ideas against the foe who says their goal is to recreate a caliphate through blood and fire. If that's the battle of ideas, I think that we are in a good position to win that.

To this I would say that, if the contest is between the Caliphate and the Federalist Papers, we have little to worry about. On the other hand, if the contest is between the Caliphate and The Sopranos or Sex in the City, I am not at all sure that the Caliphate may not have the greater appeal. The problem is not simply anti-moral popular culture, but the collapse in elite morale that made the popular culture possible. The clothes, music, architecture, even the religions of Western countries can be exported on their merits. However, a political culture that embraces the reasoning of Lawrence v. Texas cannot be exported except at bayonet point.

One the points that Mark continues to remain ignorant of is that with the exception of individual cases like Christopher Hitchens or Glenn Reynolds, the people who are pioneering these transhumanist concepts tend to be the ones least interested in fighting the war on terrorism.

Behold the power of Michael Ledeen!

This is Mark, agreeing with my argument that it is not so much Ledeen as what he represents:
It is precisely "what Ledeen represents" that I am criticizing ... It is of *far* greater consequence to you that I am impolite to Ledeen and his repellent moral reasoning than that his repellent moral reasoning underlies all the excuse-making that has been made for the Bush Administration's policies of prisoner abuse, torture and murder.

I assume that he is talking about consequentalism rather than anything that Ledeen has, you know, actually written on the subject. As has been noted, Mark appears willing to accept consequentalist arguments against the use of torture, such as the one that we should not do it because it is not effective. However, that still doesn't explain Mark's level animosity towards Ledeen given that he isn't the only conservative advocate of consequentalism, nor is he by far its loudest voice when it comes to the issue of torture. My short explanation for this would be that because Mark believes that Ledeen advocates the killing of prisoners, he considers no charge or invective against the man to be too severe. At this point, Ledeen to Mark is less of a person with a set of actual positions then he is an abstract representation of why Mark, really really hates neoconservatism and the Bush administration.

This is sort of like his labeling of Gonzalez as "corrupt" because of the Torture Memos. I think that there is more than sufficient grounds to criticize Gonzalez or Ledeen, but Mark because dislikes both of them (in the case of Gonzalez he has openly stated that this is for reasons quite different from why he is currently in hot water), no claim is too outrageous or unwarranted. That is every bit as consequentialist as the arguments that he purports to be criticizing, which is both deliciously ironic and extremely hypocritical. I would even go as far as saying that Mark has basically embraced a utilitarian mindset when it comes to Gonzalez or Ledeen in which he will accept anything (within reason) to try and undermine them because they are both Bad People.

Also, while I think that Paul's comment was unwarranted (a point he himself made), this stream of dialogue looks like more of the behavior of a jilted ex than a Catholic apologist:
But Mark, why can't we have a civilized conversation about how you are a stupid judgemental liar?
Zippy | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 5:05 pm | #

Zippy:

You forgot "mean". Chris and the Girls at the Coalition Sewing Circle are very concerned about meanness. It's so important not to be mean to people who advocate murder. If not for my meanness and the horrible witness I offer as a so-called Catholic apologist, Ledeen might be a saint today. Mean People like me stand between him and his struggle for sanctity. The girls at the Coalition, by gossiping for Christ, are making a mystical contribution to the holiness of the world and helping guys like Ledeen find the love of God by affirming him in his well-meaning attempts to strengthen the common good through war crimes. If I knew the first things about *real* Catholic faith and love I would know this and stop picking the poor man apart just because he advocates cold blooded murder and tries to pass it off as "thinking more deeply". When you are a heartless lying bastard like me, you constantly are trying to take the speck of murder out of other people's eyes while not attending to the log of impoliteness in your own.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 5:17 pm | #

Yes, Mark, you are right about my omission and I don't condone my omission, but lets stay on-topic here. Just what is it that makes you such a stupid mean judgemental liar?
Zippy | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 5:36 pm | #

Many things, really, Zippy. I mean it's so hard to choose. For one things, there's my complete allergy to even minimal truthfulness. I lie about absolutely everything, just for fun. There's hardly anything I like more than leading people astray, even when it comes to trivial facts. In fact, I'm lying right now.

This is, of course, related to my staggering ignorance. I don't know a damn thing and I don't want to know. Facts are hard and complicated and I think we're better off without them.

Then again, there's my neurotic terror of all disagreement. The mildest difference of opinion fills me with a tyrannous need for approval and a violent urge to shout down the smallest independent thought. My readers live in continual fear of me and only the bravest have ever dared to disagree with me.

Coupled with this is my demented hatred of everything about America and, in particular, George W Bush and my total and complete inability to see anything wrong with any aspect of the Church whatsoever.

Gosh. I'm evil for so many reasons. I'm sure there are more, but being the completely unreflective guy I am, I can't think of any at present. Just remember "Mark is evil" and you will prett much have the gist of it.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 5:54 pm | #

Apparently, according to Christopher's brother in Christian dialogue Paul Zummo, not only is all of that true but you are also a sodomite. Though he's too mature to just say so.

Oh the things one can discover by reading the Learned Letters of the Consequentialist Brain Trust.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 6:15 pm | #

It would appear (though I could be wrong) that Paul has just indulged himself in the greatest sin known to the mind of Chris: sarcasm.

I eagerly anticipate the moment when the Girls of the Coalition (led by Chris) condemn Paul's horrifying crime.

Suggestions for fruitful civilized dialogue, Coalition Girls: Be sure and remind Paul what the *original* meaning of "sodomy" is. Then clarify that since neither Zippy nor I are, in fact, homosexual this is nothing other than a shocking calumny. If Paul gives you some song and dance about "using language" and not being literal you be sure and set him straight that words mean exactly one thing and one thing only and there is no such thing as allusion, pun, referential speech or "humor".

Okay Coalition girls, synchronize your menstrual cycles and get clucking. Paul needs to be set straight!
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 6:39 pm | #

It's useful to note that Mark deleted my ever damaging comment, yaaaawn. Clearly such language cannot be tolerated.

All right, let's get serious. Not that this post will last for longer than the time it takes for Mark to look at the comment's author.

This blog was once a very useful resource, one of the most enjoyable blogs to read in the blogosphere. Over time, the unrelenting contempt for viewpoints that disagreed with mark's own became too much to take. So I just stopped reading (and the blog post that put me over the top wasn't even related to politics, but rather an incredibly cynical blogpost about worship styles, one in which I agreed with Mark's basic opinion, but couldn't take the way Mark just dismissed those that held contrary opinions.)

It's not the sarcasm, Mark. Sarcasm is the essential tone of the blogosphere. In fact, sarcasm is probably one of my favorite things about the blogosphere. Come on, I'm from New York, what New Yorker is going to hate sarcasm.

No, the problem is the contempt - absolute snivelling contempt you show to people that have different opinions. It's like you don't even read what people are writing. This thread is the perfect example. No one's really defending Ledeen here, and yet we're all just "consequentialists" because we happen to disagree with the way you've framed Ledeen's writing. There's no attempt whatsoever to even address the arguments other than through a wave of the hand. Throw some ad hominem, sprinkle off a few tired cliches, and just dismiss others. Lovely. Surely a Christian way of blogging.

And no, my comment on CFF was NOT a Christian thing to write. That's why I stay away from this blog and others like it. Quite frankly it brings out the worst in me. I think you bring out the worst in a lot of people, Mark.
paul zummo | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 6:55 pm | #

Paul: N.B., I'm not a sock puppet. I'm an unshaven clown. YOW! ARE WE HAVING FUN YET!?!?!?!
Zippy | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 6:59 pm | #

Paul, my good woman:

I love that you carefully track the discussion, urge the Coalition ladies to pay close attention, and then come over here to feign boredom--twice!. And that bit about "Yes. It *was* unchristian of me, and that's *your* fault!" That's just great. You ladies at the Sewing Circle stay beautiful. 'Kay?
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 7:10 pm | #

Psssst. Donald. Mark's tone has always been one of satirical hectoring and abuse. That is part of what has made CAEI what it is. Just ask the gay brownshirts, stem cell cannibals, those in favor of offing useless eaters, the lidless eye, virginity-and-children-despisers, and the evil party. Among others.

What has changed is that when torture went on the list of things being satirized - and the irony of this is really quite beyond words - the exquisite sensitivities of a few CAEI regulars to the idea that torturing prisoners isn't acceptable were violated, and Fun Mark suddenly became Nasty Mark in their eyes.

Oddly, it wasn't even Mark's condemnation of the unjust war in Iraq or the annual Hiroshima/Nagasaki dissent party that sent Victor the Impaler of Anti-Concepts and his passive-aggressive pal Fair and Balanced Christopher off in a huff. It was torture. Sure it is OK for Mark to criticize torture in the abstract, but his usual writing style is just unacceptable on that particular subject.

That is pretty interesting.

So now of course he's Nasty Mark on all the favorite Republican issues he's criticized. But it isn't the spoon that bends: it is you that bends.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 7:46 pm | #

There is no spoon.

There! Somebody had to say it!
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 7:50 pm | #

Oddly, it wasn't even Mark's condemnation of the unjust war in Iraq or the annual Hiroshima/Nagasaki dissent party that sent Victor the Impaler of Anti-Concepts and his passive-aggressive pal Fair and Balanced Christopher off in a huff. It was torture. Sure it is OK for Mark to criticize torture in the abstract, but his usual writing style is just unacceptable on that particular subject.

Sigh. This is an act of complete futility, but I just want to make something clear before I depart. Mark's comments on torture didn't send me off in a huff. I stuck around quote a while during that whole escapade. Frankly, I didn't necessarily disagree with what Mark said, but the way he completely dismissed contrary opinions. What was especially frustrating was the way Mark got all huffy when people would ask, "What exactly is torture?" Mark snottilly dismissed those who asked the question - but guess what, some of us actually want to know. I am not as invested in the debate, nor do I know as much of the history and theology of the issue, as either Mark, you, Victor, Donald, etc. I actually wanted to find some answers, but that was impossible to find here.

But I stuck around because Mark was still good on the Catholic theological issues. Heck, he's the guy I wrote e-mails to searching for advice, even after this debate raged (I think). But then there was a blog post, and i can't remember what it was about specifically, but it had something to do with liturgical matters. And mark's tone - even though I didn't disagree with the underlying assertion - so peeved me that I vowed to stop reading. And, by and large, though with exceptions, that's what I did. It had nothing to do with torture, it had to do with religious issues, and not on something I disagreed with Mark about. It made me realize just how arrogantly Mark acted and how contemptuous he was of people that finally made me realize to vamoos.

And so I do.
paul zummo | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 8:15 pm | #

And mark's tone - even though I didn't disagree with the underlying assertion - so peeved me that I vowed to stop reading.

And here you are: still not reading. And very, very carefully to boot. With all the Ladies in the Coalition Sewing Circle that Has Nothing to Do with Making Excuses for Consequentialism or Anything. And yawning. Twice. Because you're not obsessed with me or anything.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 8:46 pm | #

"And here you are: still not reading."

Except that paul made it abundantly clear that he has not observed his abstinence with perfect fidelity: "And, by and large, though with exceptions, that's what I did."
Mark Adams | 08.02.07 - 9:21 pm | #

As someone noted earlier in the thread, we were called upon to be as shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves, not the other way around.

Also, since Zippy appears to lack basic reading comprehension on our positions, let me resolve this difficulty for him:
Psssst. Donald. Mark's tone has always been one of satirical hectoring and abuse. That is part of what has made CAEI what it is. Just ask the gay brownshirts, stem cell cannibals, those in favor of offing useless eaters, the lidless eye, virginity-and-children-despisers, and the evil party. Among others.

What has changed is that when torture went on the list of things being satirized - and the irony of this is really quite beyond words - the exquisite sensitivities of a few CAEI regulars to the idea that torturing prisoners isn't acceptable were violated, and Fun Mark suddenly became Nasty Mark in their eyes.

Oddly, it wasn't even Mark's condemnation of the unjust war in Iraq or the annual Hiroshima/Nagasaki dissent party that sent Victor the Impaler of Anti-Concepts and his passive-aggressive pal Fair and Balanced Christopher off in a huff. It was torture. Sure it is OK for Mark to criticize torture in the abstract, but his usual writing style is just unacceptable on that particular subject.

First of all, I think that Mark's blog has deteriorated considerably over the last several years regarding his use of satire, straw man arguments, and invocations of righteous outrage. As a practical matter, I don't think that someone like Blackadder (whose only crime was what, exactly?) would have been asked to leave CAEI given some of the stuff that Marv Wood, I'm Not Spartacus, and Morning 's Minion have posted there on occasion. Secondly, a number of us did object to Mark's use of terms like "gay brownshirts" on the simple fact that it was too polemical.

As general rule, once upon a time (and I still think he can do this so long as the issue does not touch on contemporary politics) Mark was willing to leave behind his caricatures when actually discussing these issues. He has in the past for instance been quite willing to move beyond polemic engage in serious dialogue on issues like homosexuality, the culture of promiscuity, traditionalism, stem cells, and the Democratic Party. This was generally a good thing in my view because it illustrated that he understood the distinction between polemic and argument. Even on the Iraq war, he was bound by the issue of prudential judgement to refrain from declaring himself correct in the sense of representing the sole acceptable position of the Church.

When it came to torture and soon spread to all other issues dealing with the Bush administration, however, in my view Mark is completely unable to distinguish between polemic and argument. Oh, and he is willing to embrace all manner of insane conspiracy theories in order to support his arguments. I think that there is ample documentation of this here, given his complete and utter refusal to have any substantive dialogue with his critics that do not include his issuing of anathema sits. When combined with his constant and persistent ad hominem attacks against those who dare to disagree with him while refusing to engage the fact that others like Father Neuhaus and Jimmy Akin (who remain in good company as far as Mark is concerned), then maybe just maybe one can understand why we have such a problem with it. Zippy, for whom there is no argument in which he cannot simply declare himself correct, appears to have trouble understanding this.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

For those who wish to continue tracking Chris's attempt to dialogue with Mark ...

I would refer you to the comments of the earlier entry. I think that the short form as to why Mark behaves as he does when it comes to Ledeen is that Mark has defined the man in his own mind as a representative of all that is evil when it comes to neoconservatives. The fact that he is now bringing Strauss into this is a clear indication to me as to just how far gone he is.

Also, this exchange in relation to this post is very interesting:
Corrupt? Do we have any evidence that he takes bribes or something similar? Or has "corrupt" lost any meaningful content other than as a fancy-sounding synonym for "really bad"?
Seamus | 08.01.07 - 10:04 am | #

Ditto. The firing of prosecutors was clumsy, but not illegal.
Peggy | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 10:11 am | #

Nor is there evidense that he lied. This if from July 29th PowerLine:

Today the Times confirms that Gonzales told the truth. The legal dispute that broke out in 2004 was about the NSA's "data mining" project, in which databases of telephone records were reviewed for patterns suggestive of terrorist cells:

A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.
It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate. But such databases contain records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans, and their examination by the government would raise privacy issues.


What's comical about the Times' reporting is that the paper can't bring itself to acknowledge that this means Gonzales has been vindicated:

If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct.
First, this paragraph of "analysis" is contradicted by the reporting contained in the same article, which doesn't say that the dispute was "chiefly" about data mining. It says it was about data mining, period. Further, there is nothing "narrowly crafted," "legalistic" or "technically correct" about Gonzales's testimony. It was truthful and fully accurate. He said that the legal controversy did not involve the program that was confirmed by President Bush, in which international communications where one party was associated with al Qaeda were intercepted. That is exactly what the Times reported today. The controversy involved a completely different program, which has been rumored but which the administration has never publicly confirmed. Yet the Times cannot bring itself to admit that Gonzales has been vindicated, and the Senators who called for a perjury investigation have been made to look foolish.
John J. Simmins | 08.01.07 - 10:35 am | #

"Corrupt" as in "making the AG office a rubber stamp for enabling war crimes instead of doing what it's supposed to do" (just for starters).

Remember the Torture Memos? That's what soured me on Gonzales.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 11:01 am | #

Remember the Torture Memos? That's what soured me on Gonzales.

So "corrupt" actually *is* just a synonym for "really, really bad."
Seamus | 08.01.07 - 11:11 am | #

Dictionary definitions aside, as Mark likes to remind us in relation to Ledeen, words have meaning. If you accuse a politician of being corrupt, people read that as covering a fairly specific criteria of activity, just as if he had accused Gonzalez of being a deviant. But it turns out that the reason Gonzalez is corrupt is because he just happens to be a bad person on the issue of torture. So because he is a bad person, all other charges against him must be true and all manner of invective may be hurled against him.

I find it very odd that someone so adamantly opposed to consequentialism appears to practice it on such a regular basis.