A small circle: Consistently Dogmatic    
 Consistently Dogmatic2 comments
picture10 Oct 2004 @ 05:39, by D

"The demagogic propagandist must . . . be consistently dogmatic. All his statements are made without qualification. There are no grays in his picture of the world; everything is either diabolically black or celestially white... The propagandist should adopt 'a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be dealt with.' He must never admit that he might be wrong or that people with a different point of view might be even partially right. Opponents should not be argued with; they should be attacked or shouted down…”

---Aldous Huxley,
Brave New World Revisited, 1958

The Town Hall Debate
The New York Times | Editorial
Saturday 09 October 2004

(...) One of the uncommitted voters in the audience sensibly asked President Bush to name three mistakes he'd made in office, and what he had done to remedy the damage. Mr. Bush declined to list even one, and instead launched into an impassioned defense of the invasion of Iraq as a good idea. The president's insistence on defending his decision to go into Iraq seemed increasingly bizarre in a week when his own investigators reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction there, and when his own secretary of defense acknowledged that there was no serious evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Even worse, the president's refusal to come up with even a minor error - apart from saying that he might have made some unspecified appointments that he now regretted - underscores his inability to respond to failure in any way except by insisting over and over again that his original decision was right.

Unfortunately, for long stretches of the evening, the format did not lead to such telling responses. On occasion, the arguments were impossible to follow. Heaven help any citizen who relied on last night's debate to understand what is going on with North Korea or who tried to understand the fight about tax cuts on Subchapter S corporations.

Mr. Bush was deeply unpersuasive when asked why he had not permitted the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. He claimed that the reason was "I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you." Mr. Kerry cleanly retorted that four years ago in a campaign debate, Mr. Bush had said importing medicine from Canada sounded sensible.

And the president was utterly incoherent when asked about whom he might name to the Supreme Court in a second term. His comment about how he didn't want to offend any judges because he wanted "them all voting for me" was a joke - but an unfortunate one, given the fact that the president owes his job to a Supreme Court vote. (...)

[< Back] [A small circle]



10 Oct 2004 @ 08:29 by shawa : *
From your link :
"The really hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal. Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does. They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society. Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness."

So it is. :-(  

10 Oct 2004 @ 08:53 by jstarrs : Very prophetic....
...thank you.  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
19 Sep 2006 @ 00:09: My God’s better than your God…
13 Jul 2006 @ 23:06: The Law of Attraction?
30 Mar 2006 @ 08:03: We and They: The Polarization of America
4 Feb 2006 @ 04:45: The Unfeeling President - An essay by E. L. Doctorow
20 Jul 2004 @ 00:59: Racism, Oppression, Poverty and Social Injustice
7 Apr 2004 @ 13:10: What would you ask?
25 Mar 2004 @ 13:17: Candles in the Sun - A culture of hidden violence

[< Back] [A small circle] [PermaLink]?