Its not an analogy, Cavscout.  I explicitely advocate adopting the behavior patterns of a criminal... not equating with a criminal as in an analogy... as a survival technique.

MLK could work publicly because for the most part there wasn't a state sponsored hit squad taking out outspoken opponents of the regime.  Yes, the south did have state tolerated terrorism, and yes, eventually MLK was assassinated by, it must be remembered, a lone nutter not a governmental assassin.  As lone nutters are less universal that a state sponsored pogram of enforcing silence MLK had far less reason to be concerned with his life.

After the first or second murder, you must come to realize you won't be given the TIME to become an effective voice for change and more drastic steps must be taken to ensure you survive long enough to get the message out.  Unless you enjoy martyrdom. It does seem to be a popular activity, from ancient Christians, to that guy in Tianamen square, to a reporters in Russia.

Me? I'd rather like to participate in the change as more than a symbol, to... if possible, live in the better world I help create.  Then again, I'm a monster, and I would create a better world of more monsters... or something.

Quote from: Aos;243933I think the Russia just sees all the hate that the US gets and is totally jealous.

They can't possiblity catch up in the mind of the Left, and thus in the Media. Doesn't matter how many they kill or even who.

Spike, I understand better what you are saying now.  I agree with you in principle.  I just think that it's not really possible to go underground in Russia today.  I mean it's not the Dominican Republic under Trujillo (which I learned all about in the fantastic book The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz that you should all read), or East Germany under the Iron Curtain, but it's close enough.  I think there is such a network of internal suppression going on already in Russia actively looking for anyone who may threaten the Putin regime, that trying to write or communicate anonymously is effectily impossible.

I also think that this level or repression is relatively recent, that things were quite chaotic for a while in Russia and it's only in the last 10 years that Putin has really started to consolidate his power internally.  So a lot of people were probably not ready for the kind of reprisals he has taken.  They are learning, though, and I suspect an underground will start forming soon.

Quote from: gleichman;244871They can't possiblity catch up in the mind of the Left, and thus in the Media. Doesn't matter how many they kill or even who.

now now, don't project

Quote from: gleichman;244871They can't possiblity catch up in the mind of the Left, and thus in the Media. Doesn't matter how many they kill or even who.

I don't know man, they had Stalin who was like the Elvis* of evil dictators. Even at our best we can't compete with that.




*People might argue that Hitler should get this spot, but he was more the Paul McCartney of Evil dictators, with Hirohito as John, Mussolini as Ringo, and Franco as an estranged, but moderately successful George.

Quote from: Aos;244906I don't know man, they had Stalin who was like the Elvis* of evil dictators. Even at our best we can't compete with that.

IMO, I'd agree. And I like your Beatles grouping as well.


But I think many on the Left wouldn't. They'd point how he was justified due to the evils of the West.

Hell, there are even such people on the Right (although they are rare) such as Buchanan who claims that England and the US caused WWII and the Holocaust.

There is some truth to what you're saying, certainly, but there's no accounting for crazy folk at either end of the spectrum.

Quote from: gleichman;244915But I think many on the Left wouldn't. They'd point how he was justified due to the evils of the West.

That was a phenomenon during the '60s and into the early '70s among some of the intellectual elite (the French historian Lefebvre being one of the more notable) but once the real information started coming out, nobody was saying that anymore.  And today, it's not even an issue that Stalin was possibly worse than Hitler.

Come on, Gleichman.

Quote from: walkerp;245001That was a phenomenon during the '60s and into the early '70s among some of the intellectual elite (the French historian Lefebvre being one of the more notable) but once the real information started coming out, nobody was saying that anymore.  And today, it's not even an issue that Stalin was possibly worse than Hitler.

Come on, Gleichman.

Actually Dashell Hammett was pretty bad too. He was a die hard Stalanist.

Quote from: Aos;244926There is some truth to what you're saying, certainly, but there's no accounting for crazy folk at either end of the spectrum.

I had thought most of them just went away at the fall of the Soviet Union when it just became way too clear how bad things were there. I don't really think they gave up their support- they just stopped talking about it.

But really they just shifted slightly. On to Che and Castro for example. Or Michael Moore's claims at how wonderful life was in Iraq before the evil US toppled it's government.

While people like Buchanan on the Right are ignored and slammed by the Right and Left both, on the Left Michael Moore gets invited to sit with former presidents at their conventions.

There may be no accounting for such crazy people, but one would at least wish they'd be seen for what they are. And we have quite a few of them here as well.

I hardly ever talk about politics at length, but here's some worthless opinions-

One commonality between the left and right at the current time in the US is that both sides feel that they are somehow losing- and to a certain extent that is correct.  People who want change never get as much as they want, people who want to preserve things as they are can never fully accomplish this goal. In the past both the left and the right took heart in what they could accomplish. Sadly, since the 1960's it has become fashionable in the US to see oneself as a victim of one sort or another. These feelings of loss and victimhood lead to bitterness and radical thought. All this coupled with a media that both people on the left and right agree is irresponsible and obsessed with sensationalism leads to the rise of people like Moore and his right wing counterparts. I don't think that the bulk of people on either side* are ready to buy 100% into what most of these extreme types say. I have met ditto heads of both stripes, and they are uniformly idiots. And we do have both kinds here as well, sadly, neither in any sort of shortage, I'm afraid.
I believe that the true purpose of politics is to build consensus. We've lost that here in the states, traded it in for name calling and victimhood, which make us all feel superior to one another but ultimately accomplishes nothing and leave everyone, regardless of their politics, out in the cold.
Keep in mind, though, that I'm a self confessed idiot.
I'm also an a-religious, pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro sex ed, semi-socialist academic involved in the study of human evolution (the paleolithic to be precise). So voting is always a sort of loss for me.
"All I know is that I know nothing"


*I think the two party system creates a huge part of the problem by enforcing a false dichotomy.
P.S. If I were involved in the US governement right now, my main focus would be figuring out how to get Russia and China mad at each other again. Idle hands being the devil's workshop and all.
P.P.S I've got about 400 pages of reading to slog through, and some exams to grade so I may not be able to give any response my immediate attention. I apologize in advance.

Quote from: Aos;245027One commonality between the left and right at the current time in the US is that both sides feel that they are somehow losing- and to a certain extent that is correct.

I have something of an advantage over most here in that I've lived to see nearly a half century of American history, and my father covered a half century before that in the passing of his experiences to me (he was a FDR democratic btw).

And what you say above has always been the case in one way or the other.

The difference since the 60s however has been that rather than being at odds with each other- one side is at odds with America itself. Previously both sides showed the traditional American virtues (this is what made the Civil War such a crying shame). Now however the Left seeks to destroy those values completely.

Quote from: gleichman;245060The difference since the 60s however has been that rather than being at odds with each other- one side is at odds with America itself. Previously both sides showed the traditional American virtues (this is what made the Civil War such a crying shame). Now however the Left seeks to destroy those values completely.

Just to further support Aos's analysis, I feel that the Right seeks to destroy traditional American values.

Quote from: walkerp;245064Just to further support Aos's analysis, I feel that the Right seeks to destroy traditional American values.

You seek the death of people everywhere. How's that American?

I'm sorry walkerp, but a mere handful of years ago- you'd be widely stated as a nutcase. And if those American values hadn't decayed due to the Left- that would be the case today.

Quote from: Aos;245016Actually Dashell Hammett was pretty bad too. He was a die hard Stalanist.

Who even as a disabled veteran with TB pulled strings to get into the Army during WWII. And an excellent writer. Neither of which makes him a saint, but a person.

Same with Mickey Spillane. I'm no commie, but I despise his politics, and he had decidedly retrograde racial views, but he's a damn good writer, too. Doesn't make him a saint either, but a person, and not some marker in a game.

On preview: Unlike gleichman who holds childish and ahistorical views.