what is all this pseudo intellectual crap that is being borne out as opinion when its apparent that all that is to be learnt from these comments is “Oh look how clever I can be ” without malice , cheers Brian

Dr. Jerz: Yes! It was an emotionally loaded term. That was the whole point. Since the medium of text does not allow for voice inflection, it’s much harder to communicate sarcasm. The whole comment for Stephen was heavily sardonic.

Actually, the “poverty draft” is a term for the phenomenon of sending recruiters purposely into poor areas with promises of education, knowing that the glittering offers will recruit people who otherwise would have no other options. It’s not intended to be emotionally-loaded, but in a sarcastic comment, what does it matter?

In response to the comment about moralistic thinking and dichotomy: I don’t decry dichotomy. Marxist thought was based on one basic dichotomy: bourgeoisie and proletariat. I renounce moral dichotomy. But, I must qualify the term moral. The “Moral” I’m referring to is the phenomenon of how we classify right behavior.

For example, the religious right would call me a “sinner.” I would respond that they are dichotomizing morality, a power device. The distinction is that “sinner” puts moral action into two categories: you’re either good or evil. You either do the right thing or the wrong thing.

This is not the nuanced morality I see. What’s more, when I say: “I hate it when…” I use it as a figure of speech. I tend to mix the figurative with the literal. It adds to the richness of speech. Thus, the expression was not used to perpetuate hate against the person. I don’t hate people, I despise hurtful ideologies. I try to seperate the person from the thought, the human from the action.

For example, I oppose capital punishment on the grounds that the dignity of a human is seperate from any action he or she may have done (which is actually, I have found, a catholic understanding, though it is too late for me to find an example). You can be a good person with bad ideas. So, really, I am not attempting to express opposition on a personal level, but on an ideological level.

The problem is, some people cannot make this distinction, so in some ways I acquiesce to what you are saying.

The grounds on which I approach Marxist thought are actually not moral or ethical. So, I don’t understand when people think I contradict myself when talking about the political right.

So, the example you gave was not a contradiction, but a paradox. My idea of politics is contrary to traditional conservative views. I approach politics from more of an aesthetic/ontological angle.

The object of politics is not to secure stability nor is it to control morality. It is to empower and educate so that people have both the ability and the motivation to make the world more enjoyable and more just. Morality is a by-product.

As far as perpetuating the same dichotomy I decry, I should have made the distinction of which dichotomy I was referring to: dichotomies aimed at making someone, that is, the entire human person, a “bad guy” for the means without taking into account the ends.

As far as the political ideology you described, I know many people that subscribe to that ideology. They call themselves “green anarchists.” I’m not sure that you can label them as either. It is a very nuanced concept. Many people hear anarchist and automatically create assumptions of chaos.

What is an even more pressing question is: are they political if they renounce politics? What about the Rasta movement? They have similar ideas. They call politics and the entire construction of our society “Babylon.” And feel that the solution is to reclaim the homeland of Zion (Ethiopia).

Can an ideology in opposition to political ideology be classified by those standards?

If politics, broadly defined, does not exist in these minds, how can we subject them to the same standards?

An editorial board that rightly rejects the term “baby-killer” as a synonym for “pro-choice” ought also to note that terms like “a hop, skip and a jump from genocide” and “poverty draft” are also very emotionally loaded terms.

If person A says “I hate you because you are X,” and person B replies, “I hate it when you call me X,” then what’s driving running the agenda? More hate, perpetuating the very oversmplification and moral dichotomy that your post decries.

I’m much more interested in discussing cases that don’t fit the cateogries. Consider the survivalists who don’t want to be taxed and want to live only off the land. Are they conservative (because they don’t want to play for government programs) or are they liberal (because they want to live sustainable, non-commercial lives that are not controlled by corporate interests)?

I just find King’s voting record fascinating. Check out this tracker of rep. voting records:

http://www.vote-smart.org/votingcategory.php?canid=H2552103

Stephen: Control is the flagship of conservatism. We were fighting conservatism in the American Revolution, now it seems the opposite is true. But, rather than using blood, sweat and tears, conservatives are fighting progress with more subtle, sly tactics.

Just look at the good/evil rhetoric of the administration. “If you’re not for us, you’re against us.” I HATE when people call me a baby killer for choosing pro-choice. Yeah… Because I’m out telling women that they should get abortions and kill all those rotten brats (sarcasm). WTF?!

But, my favorite: “You don’t support our troops.” Hey, I’m not the one in favor of drafting people from poor neighborhoods (aka: the poverty draft). That’s a hop, skip and a jump away from being genocide. I’m not the one who proposes pension cuts for veterans to support the war.

I think I’ma gonna start using that same self-righteous rhetoric. YOU’RE EITHER PRO-WAR OR PRO-TROOPS!!! Of course, then I’d be a bad guy for using sly tactics to forward the “liberal agenda.”

America, like it or leave it? I think I’m gonna tell that to every person who ever said that to me next time a liberal president, congress, and senate take over the country.

These blatant dichotomies limit people’s choices and enslave them. Control. That’s what this oversimplified moralistic thinking boils down to. Because it’s oh so moral to bomb the hell out of another country but, if two guys want to marry, live together, and God forbid, be granted the same rights and resources as everyone else.

Valuing extreme and restrictive morality over raising people up from oppression, exploitation and persecution takes away from the richness of life and makes life, well, suck. People have to be free to grow in self-actualization. Why is conservatism counter-productive? Because the security it brings takes away the freedom, and thus, the richness of life.

As long as the freedom being raped can be justified, then there will be some fraction of conservatives behind it. Limits control people from sinning, it’s so obvious…

I say the government sets up www.google.usa which only gives us access to Fox News.

Hmm… whatever you may think about Democrats or Republicans, I don’t think there’s a cabal of Independents that organize and jockey for position in a similar way.

Even if charges are filed, the true test to the freedom of the press will come in the courts. From what I’ve read, it looks like Peter King is posturing in order to raise his visibility. (Even the article says “In a letter posted on its Internet site Sunday that the Times said was sent to people who wrote to Keller, the editor said the administration argued ‘in a half-hearted way’ that disclosure of the program ‘would lead terrorists to change tactics.’” — which suggests that this is really King’s fight, not the Bush Administration.)