Contributors

Monday, November 30, 2009

Most Excellent, Sir...

In a recent thread over at TSM, a commenter named Mastiff left this most excellent post.

A primer in the proper relationship between intellect and emotion, according to Jewish mysticism.

You can imagine the human mind as being made of two components: the rational mind, and the emotional mind.

The rational mind can reason, but cannot impel action. In this model, it takes emotion to do that. A person totally devoid of emotion would starve to death.

If you decide on a course of action with the rational mind, and then lend motive force to your decisions with the emotional mind, then you are doing things the right way. For example, considering the phenomenon of slavery with the rational mind, you conclude that it is a gross offense against humanity. Then, your emotional mind conveys the full force of what that means, driving you with anger and righteous fury to do something about it.

If you decide on a course of action with your emotional mind, and then let your rational mind justify a decision already made (i.e. engage in "rationalization"), you are doing things the wrong way. For example, you want to have sex with a drunk girl. Therefore, you direct your rational mind to justify the decision to have sex ("she knew what could happen, she clearly wants it, she won't remember anyway," etc.), so that your conscience does not interfere with the pleasure of the act. Or less so, anyway.

As we watch President Obama's prime time address tomorrow night regarding his plan for Afghanistan, pay attention to the reaction. Who are the ones that "let their rational minds justify a decision already made?"

I've been thinking quite a bit lately about the classic "liberals lead with their feelings, conservatives lead with thinking" meme. I believe it was Last in Line that first uttered that little ditty on here way back in the day. I think I've heard it said...oh...A BAZILLION TIMES....since then by pretty much every conservative I know.

In fact, it was recently repeated at the gym by an airport policeman I have become friendly with of late. He went on to say that's why most women are liberal because they lead more with their feelings. Of course, right after he said this a woman walked up to him and told him she was conservative and he was full of shit which I found amusing.

I then proceeded to ask both of them who they thought kept the country safer...Dick Cheney or Barack Obama? They both chuckled and said "Dick Cheney, of course!!" When I asked them what their basis for this was, they gave me several "thinking" (not "feeling") gems such as "Obama's weak...he talks to our enemies" and "Cheney's not afraid to do what it takes to win...like put the screws to the terrorists." When they asked me who I thought was a better leader, national security wise, I said President Obama. They laughed and wondered why.

I said that, unlike Bush and Cheney, President Obama is actually going to increase the troop levels significantly in Afghanistan. In fact, he'll have done it twice. I told them that it's been over 8 years and we still haven't caught or killed Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al Zawahari...the two men who lead Al Qaeda...who were responsible for the worst attack in our country's history....an attack which occurred on the watch of Dick Cheney. Naturally, they proceeded to blame Bill Clinton and said I was being "mean" to Dick. After reading them Mastiff's 5th paragraph above and perfectly illustrating how they were the living embodiment of it (as is the majority of the GOP base these days), they then became furious and the woman called me a traitor...walking away saying she couldn't talk to me because I "hated America."

Eh, well...as long as they say "I think you are a traitor" instead of "I feel you are a traitor." That makes it all OK.

18 comments:

rld said...

I'll pay attention to the speech itself, not the predictable critical reaction from the party that is out of power. So I should pay attention to a bunch of talking heads and not the president? Did you blame Obama for not connecting the dots when it comes to the fort hood shooting markadelphia?

sw said...

well you dont say very many good things about this country on here. are we just supposed to assume or something?

dick nixon said...

Wait, are you serious? Did someone actually tell you that conservatives think more and feel less? And liberals are all about feelings?

That has got to be the funniest fucking thing I have heard all year.

Anonymous said...

"That has got to be the funniest fucking thing I have heard all year."

But I suppose you still *feel* corporations can and do use force against you?

rld said...

Looks like you folks who participated in the centerpoint invasion topic are going to be held to your response as well as your lack of examples for a long time. Buckle up.

Anonymous said...

"Buckle up."

So long as Mark continues to make inaccurate, generalized statements of ignorance and accusation, they will continue to be pointed out to him until he retracts those statements.

The current score is, I believe, something like infinity to naught. He sticks to his pattern with the fervor of a hyper-religious serial killer.

last in line said...

Was my post on here some time back really the first time you heard that thought? I'm glad my words on this blog are giving ammo to conservative arguments everywhere. I rock.

Tom said...

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

Sometimes we seem like people on a pleasure boat drifting down the Niagara river, unaware that there are waterfalls up ahead. I don't know what people think is going to happen when a nation that already sponsors international terrorism has nuclear bombs to give to terrorists around the world.

Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for?

Here is a math problem for you: Assume that the legislation establishing government control of medical care is passed and that it "brings down the cost of medical care." You pay $500 a year less for your medical care, but the new costs put on employers is passed on to consumers, so that you pay $300 a year more for groceries and $200 a year more for gasoline, while the new mandates put on insurance companies raise your premiums by $300 a year, how much money have you saved?

In response to news of President Obama receiving the Nobel Prize for peace, an e-mail from a reader recalled a black classmate's comments upon graduating from high school many years ago. When asked to list the advantages and disadvantages of being black, the black student facetiously listed as an advantage "being praised for infinitesimal accomplishments."

No one likes to admit having been played for a fool. So it will probably take a mushroom cloud over some American city before some Obama supporters wake up. Even so, the true believers among the survivors will probably say that this was all George Bush's fault.

Stepping beyond your competence can be like stepping off a cliff. Too many people with brilliance and talent within some field do not realize how ignorant-- or, worse yet, misinformed-- they are when talking like philosopher-kings about other things.

Government pressures on mortgage lenders to accept less than the full amount they are owed may win votes for politicians, since there are far more borrowers than lenders. But how much future lending can be expected when the lenders know that politicians are ready to intervene at any time to prevent them from getting their money back?

People who are urging us to do things to win the approval of other countries seem to put an excessive value on other country's approval, as distinguished from their respect that we can lose by such bowing to "world opinion." Do the world champion New York Yankees try to curry favor with teams that are also-rans?

blk said...

"Even so, the true believers among the survivors will probably say that this was all George Bush's fault."

Here we go again. Haven't you guys been paying attention?

The current mess in Afghanistan and Iraq is Bush's fault, but it goes back to Reagan and Bush the Elder. Most recently, Bush was the one who ignored the Powell doctrine and put far too few troops in Afghanistan in 2001 when bin Laden was still in the country. He let Al Qaeda escape from Tora Bora.

Bush was more interested in invading Iraq, so he lied about Saddam's involvement with 9/11 and Iraq's nonexistent WMDs. He took resources that should have been dedicated to winning the real war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and started a bogus war in Iraq.

Now we've wasted nearly a trillion dollars on Iraq and the only thing we have to show for it is an emboldened Iran. Yeah. That's right. Invading Iraq put Iran's allies in Iraq in charge of the Iraqi government. For years we cynically backed Saddam because he was the lynchpin against the Iranians. Now the biggest enemy we have in the middle east is Iran, and they are vastly strengthened because we eliminated their age-old enemy and delivered Iraq into Shiite hands.

And it goes back even further than that. Reagan funded Al Qaeda (including bin Laden) and the Taliban during the Eighties through Pakistan to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. The CIA spent hundreds of millions of dollars radicalizing Muslims in the Asian Soviet republics. At the same time Reagan was publicly supporting Saddam, shipping war materiel to him in his war against Iran, Reagan's minions were secretly selling missiles to Iran, and giving the proceeds to right-wing death squads in Central America. This is isn't something I'm making up: it's why Ollie North went to jail. Of course, Bush's father preemptively pardoned all the high-level decision makers involved with Iran-Contra when he left office, to prevent them from making any deals that would implicate him or Reagan.

And, of course, the reason bin Laden attacked us on 9/11 was that we had military bases in Saudi Arabia. Why did we have those bases? Because that's where we invaded Iraq from in the Gulf War. Why did we invade Iraq? Because Saddam was emboldened to invade Kuwait because of our support for him in the Middle East. Support that Reagan had renewed after the US had broken off relations with Iraq in the Sixties because Saddam was a butcher. Support Reagan continued to provide even after Saddam used poison gas against the Iranians and his own people.

And, of course, our problems with Iran stem from our meddling during the Fifties when we installed the Shah, overthrowing a democratically elected government that was threatening to nationalize Iranian oil production against the wishes of American and British corporations.

These foreign countries and terrorists aren't just making up these complaints about us. We've done terrible things to innocent people in other countries to further our economic ends. By denying these facts we simply harden their resolve. It's not unpatriotic to admit your country made mistakes: it's called "honesty." And that's supposed to be one of our core values.

juris imprudent said...

Because Saddam was emboldened to invade Kuwait because of our support for him in the Middle East.

That's naive if not just outright silly. He had conducted a disastrous war against Iran - a fight that we certainly didn't oppose. Kuwait was easy pickings in comparison. He may have well misjudged what he could get away with, but hardly could have conceived that he had our support.

Support that Reagan had renewed after the US had broken off relations with Iraq in the Sixties because Saddam was a butcher.

Hmm, where did you get that from? It seems the U.S. supported the Ba'ath as anti-communists pretty much through the 60s and 70s. Saddam was influential in the 70s and became formal leader in 79. So how was it that our policy in the 60s was driven by what we knew about Saddam then?

Tom said...

Like I said.

Mark Ward said...

Tom, you do make some good points but I still don't see why it's "bad" to say that it was Bush's fault when it actually was. This isn't a partisan attack..it's simply a fact. The situation in AfPak was largely created by Bush and Cheney's complete lack of focus on the region. They were more concerned about Iraq.

It's almost as if by saying that Bush was a failure, somehow that is akin to cursing the Lord. Johnson was a total failure and probably conspired to kill President Kennedy. Woodrow Wilson was a terrible bigot and did more to harm the advancement of African Americans then any other president in recent history. These are facts but apparently it's ok when there is a D next to their name.

This line...

"These foreign countries and terrorists aren't just making up these complaints about us. We've done terrible things to innocent people in other countries to further our economic ends. By denying these facts we simply harden their resolve. It's not unpatriotic to admit your country made mistakes: it's called "honesty." And that's supposed to be one of our core values."

is completely accurate and entirely factual.

Kevin said...

"is completely accurate and entirely factual."

Nope. You obviously don't understand what "factual" really means.
What you said was factual was actually opinion and speculation. You are speculating about what hardens their resolve.

Kevin said...

"He let Al Qaeda escape from Tora Bora."

He (although primarily Rumsfeld) let BIN LADEN escape from Tora Bora. The majority of Al Qaeda there were killed or captured. With the exception of catching Bin Laden, the campaign was a victory in every other right - terrorists killed/captured, the Taliban hold on Afghanistan broken and driven from the area. All of this is inconsequential to you people though, because you're so desperate to hold something up as a failure of Bush.

"Iraq's nonexistent WMDs"

More bullshit. Several chemical artillery shells were found. Maybe not enough to justify a war, but to say they were nonexistent is a lie.
As far as I'm concerned, we had all the justification we needed anyway, because Saddam BROKE THE TERMS OF THE CEASEFIRE.

"Now the biggest enemy we have in the middle east is Iran"

not "now" - it's been that way since 1979 - that's why we backed Saddam in the first place, as a counter to them. Saddam proved to be a bad bet, so now there is no counter to Iran.

"Reagan funded Al Qaeda (including bin Laden) and the Taliban during the Eighties through Pakistan to fight the Russians in Afghanistan"

Should we have done nothing, and allow Soviet imperialism to continue unheeded? Is only American "imperialism" bad to you?

Hindsight's great, isn't it, blk?
Soviet communism was an expansionist ideology, and it was pretty obvious that Afghanistan dodn't want any of it. Rather than directly confront Russia and possibly spark a nuclear war, we decided to help the Afghanis help themselves - and this is one of the so-called "terrible things" we have done to other countries?

Mark Ward said...

Kevin, I want you to think about Mastiff's line (emotional and rational mind) and then think about the FACT that Bush himself admitted there were no WMDs.

"so now there is no counter to Iran."

Yeah, I'm not so sure about Iran these days. They are starting to smell like the Soviet "threat" circa 1987. Take a look at this article. I'm going to be talking about it on here soon so this is a preview.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1130/p25s03-wome.html

And this one...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1130/p25s03-wome.html

Kevin said...

The FACT is they found some, whether Bush admitted it or not. The FACT is Saddam had them and was willing to use them, since he DID use them against Iran, as well as the Kurds. So I think we need to just stop with the "no WMDs" bullshit.

Mark Ward said...

I think the point about WMDs was really this: was he going to use them in a way that would rival or surpass 9-11? No, and that's what the Bush Administration was leading us all to believe. I certainly did.

Saddam was not a threat to our national security. AfPak was and still is the number one threat to our national security. After that I would say it's Saudi Arabia (the madrassas), North Korea, Iran and Syria. Iraq would have been at the end of that list. This is just a list of international threats, not national ones, mind you.

Unfortunately, Kevin, there is an extreme reluctance (bordering on psychosis) for the base to admit fault or error at any time. It's almost gotten to be pathological at this point. I know I will never change your mind but the threat from Iraq was never of any consequence. And to say that they were a threat, as Gen. Zinni has said many times, essentially shits all over the men and women of our armed forces who SUCCESSFULLY contained him for 10 years.

Kevin said...

I think the point about WMDs was really this: was he going to use them in a way that would rival or surpass 9-11? No, and that's what the Bush Administration was leading us all to believe. I certainly did.

I didn't address that. If you read my post, you'll see that I didn't consider them justification for resuming the war - Saddam's ceasefire violations was plenty. I was refuting blk's assertion that the WMD's were "nonexistent". Tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth, eh what?

Whether or not he was a threat to national security, he signalled that he wanted to resume hostilities by violating the terms of the ceasefire. He reaped, he sowed. Tough shit for him. He is certainly no threat to national security now, that's for sure.

I am not psychotic, nor have I argued that Iraq was a threat. He stepped up (AGAIN - BY VIOLATING THE CEASEFIRE) and got knocked down.

If you want LESS war, you need to FINISH the ones you're in, especially the ones where your opponent shits all over the agreement to end hostilities. If you ignore stuff like that, you're inviting MORE war, MORE deaths.