[Marxism] Norman Solomon versus Peter Camejo
gojack10 at hotmail.com
Wed Feb 25 21:50:53 MST 2004
Let' s get one thing clear, Eli. I called Norman Soloman a jerk, more
because he attacked Dilbert with a book, than because he's yet another
pitbull for advocating 'voting the lesser of two evils'and censoring Ralph's
'ego'. That's commonplace, you know? But it's in character.
Imagine if you had written a book attacking Snuffy Smith for being a
reactionary portrait of the Southern working class, or Beetle Bailey for its
pro-Pentagon advocacy. Or maybe you were to attack Mallard Fillmore for
giving a bad name to poultry? No? But Norman Soloman, he actually
thought that Dilbert was a sinster plot to dissipate working class
rebellion. So strongly he believed this, that he actually wrote a whole
book about it, the media expert that he is! He made 'progressives' appear
to be buffoons.
Can you think of more a figure that represents the "liberal intelligentsia (
Nader's apt phrase) more than Stormin' Norm? He took Dilbert to task, for
being too cyncical! And for that, I call him a jerk. Maybe Writin'
Norm needs to work some more, and think less about the theory of Dilbert's
reaccionary, rotten root? Or how a vote in State A, may be ok; but a vote
in state B, might destroy democracy for all time? Or how telling someone
to not do what he wants to do, can't possibly be called censorship, or an
effort to censor!??? Duh...
I did listen to the debate. Here's how Stormin' Norm started out.... "
You know as progressives....."
Wait a sec, now, Eli! When I hear that word PROGRESSIVE, a knot forms in
my stomach. What does it mean? We are all for progress are we not?
Progressive as meant by Stormin' Norm, though, really means not progressive
progressive, but LIBERAL INCREMENTALIST progressive. So Norm, if he were
an honest dude, would have started all his drek with.... "You know as
liberal incrementalists...." And we all would have better understood
where he was going. Because we all know that liberal incrementalists
believe, that voting the lesser of two evils is a small liberal increment
forward, whereas voting the more of two evils is a horrible non-increment
the other way. A leap backwards! Scary, right?
Progress (supposed progress) can only be made in small election gains,
whereas catastrophes will never occur in increments, but rather with
damnation, and another four years of Satan as President... It's let's be
realistic Norm, he is. Norm is a media expert, this brilliant theory is
from an expert, we should think? A Left expert no less.....
I thought that Camejo responded weakly to this liberal incrementalism
('progressivism', if you like?) babble. Here is the only argument that
Soloman actually had (unoriginal as it surely is)...
"It's essential to get Bush out".
But Camejo never bluntly confronted that nonsense. Who says it's
esssential, Norm? Did God come down and tell you it was so? Or what?
Many of us don't think it is essential. There have been many
incrementalists before, not even as limp as the impotent electorialist ones
like Storming Norm. There were even incrementalists with guns, who
thought that removing the individual Hitler would be the increment that
would be 'progressive' at the time. Take him out of office, Bang! Bang!
was their policy.
But those gun toting liberal incrementalists were wrong, too. Simply
because 'fascism'/fascism is/ was about more than Bush/ Hitler. But our
media specialist Norm has yet to figure that out! He's still at Media 101
here. And he doesn't even understand the simple concept of what
censorship is, either. So he's not only a jerk, I think that he might
even be a dumb jerk,too. He thinks that all needs to be done, is to take
Bush out of office. WRONG.
He doesn't know the ABC of the political problem at all. I think Camejo
should have just stated in so many words... What you think is essential,
isn't, Norm. It's myth and bunk, and you are just copying the same old BS
to talk about 'essentialism' here. Enough of this old style "pragmatist"
arrogance of the liberal. The vote in 2004 you cast is essential to nada.
And if the antiHitler guntoting liberal incrementalists had succeeded, would
the Nazis have disintegrated just like that? Liberal incrementalists (
the electorialists) are always thinking that if an election tally would
swing the way of their lesser of two evils candidate, then 'progress' would
be made. Hence, the real meaning of the word PROGRESSIVE, loved and used
so often by the group Stormin Norm and the Progressives. But they are
wrong, it is not essential to get Bush out of office! He's doing a good
job, so let him stay.
Would the more extreme incrementalists have changed much by assassinating
Hitler? We all thought so in Junior High, but Norm should have kept
studying, and maybe his opinion would have not frozen into always looking to
Baby Steps, and the realism of the small increment as total wisdom?
Fascism was about more than Hitler, and it's time we moved beyond the
History lesson of the public school teachers. They taught Norm that
voting for Kerry would be essential, and he never has much figured ou that
Eli, I don't think that I or Lou have been too nasty with Stormin' Norm.
Heck, if you think I'm rude about this jerk, then don't get me started on
fellow Texans, Dan Rather or Molly Ivins! They are also 'Nation' type
'progressives', too. And 'media experts' like the Dilbert basher. And
I think we are too nice with these donkeys, myself. They feed the
delusion that salvation is always just some vote away, if only we all
behaved better..... and voted responsibly. Agh.... Who wants to be
part of the liberal intelligensia, Ralph? They seem so stupid most of the
time. And Molly, Dan, and Norm seem like stupid jerks, too. Their
egos are too big.
Take off on a romantic weekend or a family adventure to these great U.S.
More information about the Marxism