Comments for ideological criminal http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn dvanhorn's bhlog Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:39:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 Comment on Dominionists and the rise of fascism by dvanhorn http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2007/02/16/dominionists-and-the-rise-of-fascism/#comment-2260 Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:32:12 +0000 http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2007/02/16/dominionists-and-the-rise-of-fascism/#comment-2260 An email from my father: Thank you for the autographed copy of Hedges book. I am about 60% of the way through it and find it interesting but I doubt that his prediction of the USA becoming a "Christian" nation through a takeover from the dominionist kooks and others. It's sad to read about these extremists but I believe there are too many rational people and moderate Christians to ever let this happen. His slamming of corporate America smacks of the kind of rigidity and ideology that he condemns the Christian Right for. There is no question that fundamentalists around the world who preach hatred and intolerance of "infidels", who justify killing innocents in the name of god, and who look forward to the apocalypse, pose the greatest threat in my lifetime. An email from my father:

Thank you for the autographed copy of Hedges book. I am about 60% of the way through it and find it interesting but I doubt that his prediction of the USA becoming a “Christian” nation through a takeover from the dominionist kooks and others. It’s sad to read about these extremists but I believe there are too many rational people and moderate Christians to ever let this happen. His slamming of corporate America smacks of the kind of rigidity and ideology that he condemns the Christian Right for. There is no question that fundamentalists around the world who preach hatred and intolerance of “infidels”, who justify killing innocents in the name of god, and who look forward to the apocalypse, pose the greatest threat in my lifetime.

]]> Comment on Dawkins, The God Delusion by Damien http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2007/02/13/dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-2155 Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:13:53 +0000 http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2007/02/13/dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-2155 I think that "imagine" was in the beginning. Later he says that the suicide bombers in Britain had no secular motivation -- no lionization and support for their families, in fact abandoned a wife and toddler -- *unlike* the kamikaze bombers, the Tamil Tigers, or the Palestinians. So there he'd seem to acknowledge that secular forces can also produce suicide bombers -- but in the case of the British ones, when there's no worldly support, and the bombers themselves say they expect to go to Paradise, we should take them at their word. (The Palestinians would seem to be a dual-cause case: some worldly support, such as Saddam Hussein's money to families, but also videotaped testimonials to the religious nature of their martyrdom.) The British attack might also not have had a clear goal of compelling withdrawal, but I don't really know details. I think that “imagine” was in the beginning. Later he says that the suicide bombers in Britain had no secular motivation — no lionization and support for their families, in fact abandoned a wife and toddler — *unlike* the kamikaze bombers, the Tamil Tigers, or the Palestinians. So there he’d seem to acknowledge that secular forces can also produce suicide bombers — but in the case of the British ones, when there’s no worldly support, and the bombers themselves say they expect to go to Paradise, we should take them at their word.

(The Palestinians would seem to be a dual-cause case: some worldly support, such as Saddam Hussein’s money to families, but also videotaped testimonials to the religious nature of their martyrdom.)

The British attack might also not have had a clear goal of compelling withdrawal, but I don’t really know details.

]]> Comment on Dawkins, The God Delusion by Dominionists and the rise of fascism at ideological criminal http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2007/02/13/dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-2153 Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:51:58 +0000 http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2007/02/13/dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-2153 [...] Hedges believes the people involved in this community to be good, earnest, and hard working people, but overwhelmed by personal despair, tragedy, and loneliness. In many ways, I see Hedges as a perfect supplement to Richard Dawkins. He is everything I found lacking in Dawkins. Whereas Dawkins is somewhat of a geopolitical ignoramus, Hedges has a deep understanding and firsthand experience. Whereas Dawkins’s religious prowess is unsophisticated, Hedges’s is not. And whereas Dawkins sees the cause for belief to be mystical, irrational, and superstitious, Hedges can explain why people embrace these things, with a basis in socioeconomic factors. On the other hand, the subject of their criticism is largely the same, and both are fighting for a tolerant society that values reason, science, diversity, etc.; their goals are largely in common. Dawkins sees “moderate” religious institutions and the unfounded respect—the off-limits status of belief—as partly to blame for allowing such bigoted and irrational movements to survive, while Hedges likewise claims that government, higher education, religious and charitable institutions have wrongly allowed the dominionists room to grow. Dawkins, like Hedges, identifies many of the same characteristics that Eco lists, and both see the dire consequences of this movement coming to power, but it is only Hedges who appeals to a convincing historical analogy. [...] […] Hedges believes the people involved in this community to be good, earnest, and hard working people, but overwhelmed by personal despair, tragedy, and loneliness. In many ways, I see Hedges as a perfect supplement to Richard Dawkins. He is everything I found lacking in Dawkins. Whereas Dawkins is somewhat of a geopolitical ignoramus, Hedges has a deep understanding and firsthand experience. Whereas Dawkins’s religious prowess is unsophisticated, Hedges’s is not. And whereas Dawkins sees the cause for belief to be mystical, irrational, and superstitious, Hedges can explain why people embrace these things, with a basis in socioeconomic factors. On the other hand, the subject of their criticism is largely the same, and both are fighting for a tolerant society that values reason, science, diversity, etc.; their goals are largely in common. Dawkins sees “moderate” religious institutions and the unfounded respect—the off-limits status of belief—as partly to blame for allowing such bigoted and irrational movements to survive, while Hedges likewise claims that government, higher education, religious and charitable institutions have wrongly allowed the dominionists room to grow. Dawkins, like Hedges, identifies many of the same characteristics that Eco lists, and both see the dire consequences of this movement coming to power, but it is only Hedges who appeals to a convincing historical analogy. […]

]]> Comment on Dawkins, The God Delusion by dvanhorn http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2007/02/13/dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-2152 Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:27:05 +0000 http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2007/02/13/dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-2152 One interesting note I came across relevant to the fallacy of Dawkins’s “Imagine [...] no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers” argument: Ali Abunimah points out in his book One Country (p. 156), the “groundbreaking study by University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape called <em>Dying to Win</em>, examining all suicide attacks worldwide since 1980 (460 were included in the study), revealed that every such bombing campaign had a clear goal that was secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from territory that the suicide attackers viewed as their homeland.” Again, I’m sure that religion plays a role in some of these attacks, but it cannot be stressed enough that in each case there are political causes at work and unless they are address, suicide attacks are sure to continue. One interesting note I came across relevant to the fallacy of Dawkins’s “Imagine […] no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers” argument: Ali Abunimah points out in his book One Country (p. 156), the “groundbreaking study by University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape called Dying to Win, examining all suicide attacks worldwide since 1980 (460 were included in the study), revealed that every such bombing campaign had a clear goal that was secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from territory that the suicide attackers viewed as their homeland.” Again, I’m sure that religion plays a role in some of these attacks, but it cannot be stressed enough that in each case there are political causes at work and unless they are address, suicide attacks are sure to continue.

]]> Comment on Stone, Prime Green by dvanhorn http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2007/02/05/stone-prime-green/#comment-2148 Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:10:43 +0000 http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2007/02/05/stone-prime-green/#comment-2148 Having now read Stone's Children of Light, I can say I no longer have higher hopes for his fiction. It was one of the most hollow novels I've ever read. Remarkable, perhaps, for having such a quality in spades. Maybe I'm reading the wrong things. I'll give him one more chance with something early like A Hall of Mirrors or Dog Soldiers. And that's it. Having now read Stone’s Children of Light, I can say I no longer have higher hopes for his fiction. It was one of the most hollow novels I’ve ever read. Remarkable, perhaps, for having such a quality in spades. Maybe I’m reading the wrong things. I’ll give him one more chance with something early like A Hall of Mirrors or Dog Soldiers. And that’s it.

]]> Comment on Letter to my brother by Adam http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2006/09/03/letter-to-my-brother/#comment-2146 Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:31:21 +0000 http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2006/09/03/letter-to-my-brother/#comment-2146 "no education is worth paying for with your humanity." We need more Big Brothers like you, man. “no education is worth paying for with your humanity.”

We need more Big Brothers like you, man.

]]> Comment on The ABR Philosophy by Adam http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2006/12/06/the-abr-philosophy/#comment-2145 Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:29:19 +0000 http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2006/12/06/the-abr-philosophy/#comment-2145 The AB(X) philosophy has never reaped any rewards: Bush's "Anybody But Saddam" tactic didn't work, and the Dem's 2004 response of "Anybody But Bush" obviously didn't end up working out. We as a society have lost any sense of actual ideology, and instead use the media to intensify the focus on a few (not so key) issues. This leads to polarization, which leads to demonization of those on the other side from you, which leads to an AB(X) strategy. Until we regain the full-spectrum view that will allow us to interpret the actions of politicians in meaningful terms outside of the media's tale, we're stuck with the AB(X) phenomenon. Until Americans get off their asses and figure out how things really work, I can't think of a better way for a party to motivate their voting base than that very strategy. Which, as all political problems eventually do, leads to the two-party system. As long as there is a party that is in power and a party that is not (and no other viable choices), the party not in power will employ the AB(X) model. With 24-hour news cycles and the microscope fixed on Washington, there's plenty of mud to sling. Not only that, it's easier to paint a party's opponent as "not the guy" than to paint your party's candidate as "the guy": The latter involves actually saying something meaningful and being held to it. The AB(X) philosophy has never reaped any rewards: Bush’s “Anybody But Saddam” tactic didn’t work, and the Dem’s 2004 response of “Anybody But Bush” obviously didn’t end up working out. We as a society have lost any sense of actual ideology, and instead use the media to intensify the focus on a few (not so key) issues. This leads to polarization, which leads to demonization of those on the other side from you, which leads to an AB(X) strategy.

Until we regain the full-spectrum view that will allow us to interpret the actions of politicians in meaningful terms outside of the media’s tale, we’re stuck with the AB(X) phenomenon. Until Americans get off their asses and figure out how things really work, I can’t think of a better way for a party to motivate their voting base than that very strategy.

Which, as all political problems eventually do, leads to the two-party system. As long as there is a party that is in power and a party that is not (and no other viable choices), the party not in power will employ the AB(X) model. With 24-hour news cycles and the microscope fixed on Washington, there’s plenty of mud to sling. Not only that, it’s easier to paint a party’s opponent as “not the guy” than to paint your party’s candidate as “the guy”: The latter involves actually saying something meaningful and being held to it.

]]> Comment on Aqua Teen Jihadist Force by Adam http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2007/02/02/aqua-teen-jihadist-force/#comment-2144 Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:16:19 +0000 http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2007/02/02/aqua-teen-jihadist-force/#comment-2144 Not only have they managed to make clear the absurdity of the charges, they also raised some good points about feathering. Not only have they managed to make clear the absurdity of the charges, they also raised some good points about feathering.

]]> Comment on View from the Crown Center by dvanhorn http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2006/09/24/view-from-the-crown-center/#comment-6 Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:52:34 +0000 http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2006/09/24/view-from-the-crown-center/#comment-6 For some critical background on the Crown Center, it is worth reading Bob Feldman's article for Electronic Intifada in April 2005, titled "Brandeis University's 'objective' center for Middle East Studies undermined by Israeli and US military connections." http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/11/3740 For some critical background on the Crown Center, it is worth reading Bob Feldman’s article for Electronic Intifada in April 2005, titled “Brandeis University’s ‘objective’ center for Middle East Studies undermined by Israeli and US military connections.”

http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/11/3740

]]> Comment on Masked and Anonymous by dvanhorn http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2006/08/04/masked-and-anonymous/#comment-5 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:31:29 +0000 http://ballistichelmet.org/dvanhorn/2006/08/04/masked-and-anonymous/#comment-5 There is certainly a fair dosage of ego in this flick, and like I said, I thought the whole thing was silly the first time around, but I think it's worth a second chance. There is certainly a fair dosage of ego in this flick, and like I said, I thought the whole thing was silly the first time around, but I think it’s worth a second chance.

]]>