October 11, 2006
Speaking of desi hustlers...Politics
Who said this?
“There is no way to restore the culture without winning the war on terror. Conversely, the only way to win the war on terror is to win the culture war. Thus we arrive at a sobering truth. In order to crush the Islamic radicals abroad, we must defeat the enemy at home.”
Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? Bill O’Reilly? Sean Hannity? Nah.
The “sobering truth” in question is that arrived at by our illustrious co-ethnic Dinesh D’Souza, in his new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, which is to appear in January. Blogger and Vanity Fair writer James Wolcott received a galley copy, and offers an advance review, of which here are some choice bits:
It’s one thing when Michael Savage or Ann Coulter denounce liberals as heathen traitors. One spouts halitosis on the radio, the other is an exhibitionist hag; both cater to their fan base. But D’Souza isn’t some low-grade, high-volume performance artist. He’s a research scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, which he thanks in the acknowledgments “for providing me with the institutional support to do my work.” D’Souza writes, speaks, and thinks like something hatched in a think tank—a careerist toady.
The theme of the book is quite simple, and vile.
“In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11.”
Then the qualifiers begin multiplying. The term ‘cultural left’ doesn’t refer to the Democratic Party, nor to all liberals. (Peter Beinart presumably gets a pass.) Nor is he saying that cultural lefties actually brought the towers down. He isn’t so rash as to suggest Molly Ivins piloted one of the planes, parachuting to safety before impact. So what is he saying?
“I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector [profiteers are always patriots, of course], and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.”
Note well: the primary cause. Not the treatment of the Palestinians, the caging and starving of those on the Gaza Strip, the hundreds of thousands of clusterbomb droplets left behind in Lebanon, the U.S. military bases on Arab soil, Abu Ghraib, the Mideast tyrannies propped up by American money and influence—these are secondary. Muslims are angry, D’Souza concedes, but they are mostly angry because their anger has been fueled and fanned by the cultural left.
“Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.”
I like that “Thus,” as if he’s actually proven something.
“I realize that this is a strong charge,” D’Souza writes, “one that no one has made before.”
The reason it hasn’t been made before is that it’s a sleazy, shameless, ignorant, ahistorical, tendentious, meretricious lie, one that was waiting for the right brazen liar to come along to promote it, and here he is, and his name is Dinesh D’Souza…
The most excellent evisceration continues at some length, with examples, details, and specific debunkings; check it out. And in the spirit of fairness and balance, you can pre-order your copy of The Enemy Within for $17.79 here.
siddhartha on October 11, 2006 01:34 PM in Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
In the spirit of balance-- WaPo journie Rajiv Chandrasekharan's new book Imperial Life in the Emerald City about Iraq.
Manish: Why do you hate freedom?
Iski Maa Ki....
Check this out folks; atleast some good ideas. Panel Discussion Video
crumbs...
at least the hate appears to be secular
Because it's on the march... through my living room.
Hater!
Dinesh D'Souza is a 'Desi Uncle Tom', his writings are best ignored at best.
I saw D'Souza speak on campus last year- I was actually impressed. Yes, ME. A snippet of my review of his talk below...
I think I'm going to read this new book of his.
Siddhartha - Why are you so quick to sneer? Someone hit your leftist third rail? (Sigh.)....
Speaking again of desi hustlers, Dinesh D's ideological cousin Ramesh Ponnuru has a recent book bearing at least a family resemblance to this one.
There is some truth to what Desouza is saying. The corruption of american culture by the porn-laden hollywood (and similarly that of Indian culture by porn-laden bollywood) has made muslims the world over resentful of america (and similarly India) and it's attempts to force feed the world its corrupt culture. Only when we return to more decency, will we get the respect we deserve.
I'm totally having deja vu. Didn't Hitchens or someone like him say this exact same thing and get a similar treatment from, say, Berube or some such a few years back?
Siddhartha and Pied Piper - How do you know they are hustlers? Did you read their minds to divine the insincerety of their beliefs?
And I suppose Jain Man is our desi Malcolm X. How about this as the new desi raised fist pose equivalent.
Yes. I have many talents.
Oh, their sincerity is rather palpable. But it also is a bit beside the point -- from Merriam-Webster:
Well he tanks more than he thinks.
And "Hoover" is just about right, given the vacuum of moral intelligence D'Souza is.
d'souza is brown.
Saurabh -- I'm having deja vu as well. A trip down memory lane....
The corruption of american culture by the porn-laden hollywood (and similarly that of Indian culture by porn-laden bollywood) has made muslims the world over resentful of america (and similarly India)
And yet Middle East continues to be one of the biggest markets for Hollywood / Bollywood porn.
The NON PROFIT SECTOR? He's actually blaming the WHOLE NON PROFIT SECTOR?
Wtf is wrong with people. . . .and these are supposed to be our sharpest, most insightful conservative thinkers?
Me too, I can smell a blog fight across the internets :)
# 14 Ah good, atleast you now shifted from questioning his motives to his methods. And pray what is underhanded about his activities? Are you saying that aggresively promoting ones own work is worthy of contempt? You must hold the whole publishing industry in contempt then.
Saying he's an uncle tom is putting it quite lightly. His self-hatred and blind worshipping of the west is sad given his superb analytical brain.
Tim wise has cleaned his clock repeatedly.
Damn Right. Inform the Department of Vice and Promotion of Virtue. These kids nowadays I tell you, no morals at all.
Beige Siege --
I actually haven't questioned or held anything in contempt in anything I've written in this thread. And if I were going to, it certainly wouldn't be any of the things you note here (but nice try with the straw man argument) -- rather, it would be the substance of what these two authors have to say. But that's amply been done already.
Didnt he start his literary career by enlightening us all on whats wrong with Black America? Fair enough- definitely problems to be addressed there. Weve all of poverty pimps - however I wish that the right could be big enough to acknowledge that they engage in the same thing in reverse... (my career is to shine the light on all those other people who make a career out of shining the light on racism etc)
From the link to the review- it doesnt look like hes done his homework.
My sister works for the GOP. They love her because like D'Souza, she can make all sorts of racist and ignorant statements which are apparently no longer offensive once they come out of the mouth of a minority.
They love her because like D'Souza, she can make all sorts of racist and ignorant statements which are apparently no longer offensive once they come out of the mouth of a minority.
i thought it wuz cuz sheez hot.
I am guilty too. I always make an effort to like pretty republicans.
For Skeletor's bride, but hey, people are into far more kinky stuff.
I like the way this is written :P
... which was just shortlisted for the National Book Award in nonfiction.
Wow - DD has really lost it this time. Somebody get this guy some help - seriously!
ok, multiple references to Mr. DoubleD's "keen analytical mind" - both here in the comment thread and elsewhere. Question is, REALLY?
Razib And Beige Siege:
Why do you hate yourselves?
What a jackass. Its sad to see these prominent Indian-American politicians are well, wacko right wing nutjobs.
And whoever said that "he has a point" abotu American culture - way off. You realize these terrorists have attacked their own people, right? Its about power and a dream to establish a global Islamic caliphate.
My Mummy dint feed me this. I have suffered from low self esteem since then.
I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector [profiteers are always patriots, of course], and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.
Ha ha ha, ho ho ho. A very funny man. Let us all put our hands together for the very funny ... no, wait, he is serious!
DD was also the idiot who wrote 'why British Rule was good for India'.
He is a true self-hater pretending he was not born in a 3rd World Country as a brown boy.
DD on Coulter/O'Reilly/Hannity et al, in the words of the illustrious Jay-Z:
"Wasn't born hustlers/I was burpin' em."
(I mean, he didn't really say that, but wouldn't be hilarious if he did?)
A plane just crashed on my street (york ave) 10 blocks away from me so I'm heading out to check it out but i'd like to say a quick word in defense of brutha Dinesh.
I haven't read his new book, unlike you genius', but i loved illiberal education and i think the title shows you where he's coming from. Dinesh is a liberal who criticizes the illiberl left that "hates" freedom, or values equality over it (yes, some very sophisticaed political thinkers did not value freedom). This stems from the censorship he experienced at the hands of such illiberals when they tryed to censor the darthmouth review.
i've often thought that some on the left like chomsky have enabled terrorism by feuling radical islams already vaulted sense of their own victimization.
anyway, off to the plane crash.
Manju (and sorry to hijack this thread), please do report back as to what you see.
Wolcotts piece should be nominated for book review of the year.
With an award friendly title -- The clowning of the brown.
Didn't this guy use to date Ann Coulter?
Just when I thought that the "hating freedom" rhetoric was the most nonsensical thing I had heard in the last five years, you've gone and topped it - valuing equality over freedom. I don't think I can take any more of this enlightened libertARYANism!
Don't forget those crazy Bolivarians!
Yup, if the ideologues and self appointed experts who are giving analysis on the 'root cause' of such problems pulled their heads out of their arses (and stuck to fields in which they are actually know stuff), we'd wouldn't have so much crap floating around (regardless of right or left).
Salafist thought predates all the people practicing it today. It is a compelling and seductive platform on which men who seek power in their own communities coopt populations. It is men who seek to control the center of gravity of an exteremly diverse group of muslims, where Arabs aren't the majority, but do hold religious sway ( can anyone say South, South East, Central Asia and Africa. Large linguistically and culturally diverse population).
I like what the Freakonomics dudes say about experts and their analysis throughout their book and how they use the information advantage to push their agenda first. These blowhard righties or bedwetting lefties are using their information advantage for purposes of furthering their own vision, thought, and selling a boat load of books filled with diversionary analysis and simplistic conclusions.
Seriously, what makes the likes of Dsouza, Chomsky, or anyone else actually good at the analysis they provide, beyond their own fields of concentration (US politics and linguistics respectively). But hey, if they're smart and sharp in one field, I'm sure they can come up with answers in another!
I don't know, most of these guys are selling books to their own audience anyway and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
Seriously, what makes the likes of Dsouza, Chomsky, or anyone else actually good at the analysis they provide, beyond their own fields of concentration (US politics and linguistics respectively). But hey, if they're smart and sharp in one field, I'm sure they can come up with answers in another!
I wouldn't place D'Souza and Chomsky in the same category. Chomsky's arguments, from what I have seen, are sound. In fact, his is exactly the sort of expertise from the outside we need. D'Souza's is the sort of expertise from the inside that has corrupted the system.
GujuDude, excellent comment, and yes I do own a Holiday Inn Express.
This is a completely different argument, but I don't buy Chomsky's or Dsouza's arguments. Maybe elements of what they collect to support their conclusions deserves merit, but as a whole, their conclusions are already drawn before they even sift through the data (whatever it is).
Chomsky has a political agenda, so does Dsouza. Neither are 'exactly' the type of expertise we need.
An interesting note I read on the Amazon review of his earlier book What's So Great about America
I am constantly surprised by how much I hear racism talked about and how little I actually see it,
And then I read the latest blog here about the plane crash in New York by Ennis
Its times like these that I wish I lived in a large city on the coasts, and not a smallish conurbation in the midwest where I encounter enough racism even on a regular basis
Wonder if D'Souza would change his thinking if he lived in a small town in the midwest.
Maybe elements of what they collect to support their conclusions deserves merit, but as a whole, their conclusions are already drawn before they even sift through the data (whatever it is).
Maybe you can point me to some of Chomsky's body of writing that you find entirely unsubtantiable.
The way I see it, Chomsky has clarified the theoretical standpoint from which he is arguing (libertarianism + socialism), and his job is an academic philosopher. He is not a politician. He is not in the business of making policy. I think we probably both agree that Chomsky does not offer any ready-made answers in terms of policy. I think, however, that it is valuable to pay careful attention to his opinion because he points out holes in the system (and every system has holes) and backs up his arguments with careful, painstaking analysis.
Neither are 'exactly' the type of expertise we need.
I notice that I have qualified the word 'exactly' with the use of the phrase 'from the outside'.
Chomsky's arguments - logical, sound and appeals to intellect
D'souza's arguments - unsubstantiated and appeals to the basic instincts rather than the intellect
The wiring is completely different, though I would not try to conclude what is better.
I dont think Rameh Ponununu is as vile as D'Souza.
'From the outside' doesn't offer much of an explanation. What is inside and outside? Very vague terms.
I don't have the material at hand right now to delve into and dissect Chomksy, so I'm going to take a pass on it. It's my position that his material, though supported by whatever he digs up, ultimately isn't very helpful or constructive. Chomsky having a political vision doesn't mean he is a politician or policy maker. You, I or anyone else for that matter can have a political agenda and theory to propose without really having anything to do with the establishment.
Like I said before: I think there is ala-carte value in the material these guys collect, but not much in the conclusions they draw.
> I dont think Rameh Ponununu is as vile as D'Souza.
I see another FoleyGate developing here.. DDS is a right-wing tool, and you can
only guess what sort of skeletons are hiding in his closet. But really, more often
than not, those who "preach" turn out to be a worst "sinners"..
sick of this hypocrisy..
I love Google.. and I really hate this guy..
http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/118/know-your-right-wing-speakers-dinesh-dsouza
You're making an assumption here that Chomksy would appeal to people of intellect. There are people of intellect who equally view his stuff as utter garbage. Last I saw, Chavez was waving a Chomsky book around at the UN. I don't consider him a person of 'intellect', though definitely a savvy politician. But does that mean [Chomsky's] audience appeals to crazed power hungery politicians? No. Frankly, I don't have the data or know how to assume how intelligent Chomksy's audience is as is Dsouza's.
Chomsky uses a combination of emotive words thrown together with facts and information and presents himself well, that in itself, does not qualify how valid the argument is. He just does a really good job of using language structure to amplify the effect his selective facts have on the reader. The guy is smart, no doubt about it, but I don't pay engineers to give me a health check up, either. Doctors and engineers are both smart, but each has their own expertise. Chomsky's was/is linguistics.
Something may be unsubstantiated and crudely put AND have an element of truth in it, or not. Something may be put forward in a logical and cohesive manner, yet, be completely wrong or not. Personally, how smart someone sounds is different than how valuable their analysis is. Sounding smart helps in getting people to listen. Wall Street analyists who propped Enron or whoever up sounded smart and logical, too.
I don't think Chomsky or Dsouza are 'hustlers'. Both seem to be intelligent people who geniuinely believe in what they propose/write, but they're just people like you and me - only difference is they have access to publishers, write quite well on compelling topics.
Seriosuly, it would give D'Souza an orgasm to hear that he's being compared to Chomsky. Chomsky has been extremely influential in defining the leftist world-view, and one of the reasons his ideas may seem commonplace or not useful to you is because they are now so widely accepted, at least in leftist circles. But Chomsky was the first to say those things, and he should get credit for that. Also he was one of the pioneers in the resistance to the Vietnam war, and has in that way made an important contribution to American history.
D'Souza is just a pandering fool who just tells the far right what it wants to hear. No one ever accused him of originality or influence.
AMfD -- I am certainly not making any claims that either person is "vile," much less comparing whether one is more vile than the other. And I haven't read either book. However, here is conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan's relatively balanced assessment of at least one aspect of his book (i.e., the, um, aggressive, arguably underhanded sales pitch), and of Ponnuru himself (apparently a nice guy who doesn't typically demagogue):
(Via Brendan Nyhan.)
I think we might actually have plenty of agreement on much of this.
It's my position that his material, though supported by whatever he digs up, ultimately isn't very helpful or constructive.
Check out this link. There was a little feud that Chomsky had with an editor out here in Austin. Chomsky came out smelling like roses. I think his opinion on the Israel-Palestine issue, generally, and the response to the recent Hezbollah incursion, specifically, is worth paying attention to.
piedpiper: I know you were not comparing.
If nothing else, at least the sales pitch for Ponnuru's book dovetails with the rhetoric surrounding D'Souza's -- and Siddhartha's use of the word "hustler" is an apt description in each case. Beyond that, I'm making no other claim here.
The above contradicts itself, unless you assume everyone is a leftist. Also, you are assuming who know me, my intentions, or what I find useful or not. Chomsky and Dsouza are both useful to me, in varying degrees.
Read my verbose posts above. I didn't say Chomksy didn't serve a useful purpose. Useful purpose or popularity of an idea/ideology doesn't make it the absolute truth or right. Like I said, there is ala carte value in his stuff (as most media, some more so than others), however, to me his writings or anyone else for that matter don't represent the holy grail.
Dsouza isn't as bad as it seems, nor is Chomsky as great/untouchable. Whatever...to each your own.
GROAN!
This kind of irrationality is why politics is a turn off and timewaster.
It takes a lot of fine tuning to the adaptive bs filter and one has to constantly adjust the
filter coefficients to get some decent facts.
Liberals are responsible for 9/11 is the same kind of crap that the islamofacist put out when
saying the america deserves it because of their amoral promiscous lifestyle.
It should be ok to criticise the so called left or right(the labels dont mean anything anymore).
It is perfectly OK to criticize the last administration for botching up issues relating to khobar tower
the cruise missile attack on afghanistan, as well as prior binladen sighting when he was traveling
on a UAE military plane.
Similarly it is OK to criticize the current administration goofing up on coming up with a constitution in iraq
where personal freedom are not guaranteed. The recent developments in curbing the press would be a big F\'up.
As well as still having no decent formulation on what to do with the oil revenue that iraq would get,
Setting up a powerful police legal system. As well as improving Education.
And it would have been proper but that neither liberals/conservatives did much to pressure musharraf
on bin laden, taliban, gilani, mullah omar,as well as reducing the role of army in the pakistani state.
When he was here all folks talked about was bull. He had said it on one occasion that armitrage said this,
and my intelligence chief said this and i am sticking by it, so rather than advance any issues no one said
any thing else....
I think the most prejudiced and stupid people are going into journalism and political science and it shows when
I read anything or watch any news show they allways have an answer and pursue a story with that bias
rather than do anything informative.
Shankar:
I checked that link out. This is what I was talking about Chomsky:
If he left "U.S" out of it, it would be far more objective. The US does back Israel, allowing it to purchase American hardware and support dollars (which second to Israel, Egypt gets). But a subtle shift in language, saying "U.S-Israeli", paints a different picture. By emphasizing "US" first, he also constructs the US as the primary culprit. Regardless of your position on the fight, Israeli's were fighting, shooting, and dying. Not US troops.
I can live with that. I was piqued because I feel he is often made into some kind of a leftie nut case, which he is not, and I would object to anyone comparing him to D'Souza. If that was not your intention, let us drop it here.
If you are interested, here is a defense of Chomsky by Christopher Hitchens (the right-winger). Though it is rather old (1985), I think it is still interesting.
Umm.. Hitchens is NOT a right winger. He is of note as a long time leftist who alienated his friends by supporting the war in Iraq
Badmash:
the freedom vs. equality debate is a classic one because the two will always be in opposition to each other, as montesquieu often pointed out. the phrase "hating freedom" is a little too hyperbolic for me but the fact remains that political systems like socialism and communism put a premium on equality at the expense of liberty.
To believe that all political thinkers love freedom is to rob yourself of an understanding of some of history's most profound thinkers (marx, marcuse, maybe niezsche) and influential revolutionaries (hitler, bin laden, castro).
so when it comes to the political extremes, one of which often finds itself in the ivy tower, it's not completely inaccurate to say; "they hate us because we are free".
Vinay:
You missed my point. Chomsky's appeal or Dsouza's appeal to people of intellect or not is based upon your definition of 'intellect'. I make no claims about who or who isn't intelligent, or even claim to know the IQ makup of the audience.
My anecdote of Chavez was to point out that Chomsky may appeal to a wider audience just as Dsouza may appeal to a wider audience, both's audience may be inclusive of people of intellect and folks who YOU wouldn't classify as such. Smart people read plenty of things and have a ton they disagree on. Chomsky, Dsouza, whoever all fall under such categories. So, if any here actually read Dsouza, they'd be reading it because it appealed to their basic unsubstantiated instinct? I try to read things from different political viewpoints. I'm sure many others do, too. I like to read things for myself and think for myself.
I never denied your 'substantiated' claim that Chomsky DOESN'T appeal to people of 'intellect', was trying to highlight that you were assuming it only appealed to such people, while Dsouza only appealed to those who essentially weren't.
He makes an argument worth reading at times, which I never denied (Did I say don't read him?) Wow, I didn't realize a critique of Chomksy would stir this pot.
Duh, I'm sure everyone knows it's US foreign policy that caused 9-11.........
And, what razib said. He's brown. Except he's an uncle tom, which is really an
oreo, coconut, I mean something that is brown on the outside but really white on the inside. FYI.Actually it is more complicated. From the wikipedia:
"He was formerly a Trotskyist and a fixture in the left wing publications of Britain and America. But a series of disagreements beginning in the early 1990s led to his resignation from The Nation shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks. While Hitchens's idiosyncratic ideas and positions preclude easy classification, he is a vociferous critic of what he describes as "fascism with an Islamic face," and he is sometimes described as a "neoconservative". Hitchens describes himself as "on the same side as the neo-conservatives", and referring to his "temporary neocon allies". Hitchens no longer considers himself a Trotskyist or even a socialist; yet he maintains that his political views have not changed significantly."
To the best of my knowledge, he has never redupiated this article, which is still widely quoted on his behalf.
After reading about half of one of D'Souza's previous books, it's apparent that the guy is a horrible scholar. He doesn't even deserve to be desrcibed as a scholar. His writings are filled with straw man arguments and total disregard for evidence which contradicts his thesis. The only reason he is at the Hoover Institute is because he's a brown guy talking like a conservative white guy, there's no way he deserves any recognition on the basis of the quality of his scholarship.
Right: The left caused 9-11.
Left: The right caused 9-11.
Osama: Look, I caused 9-11, okay? Just because I am buried (ed aside: hopefully, says MD) under a pile of rubble in the hinterlands of Pakistan does not mean you can steal credit for my work!
Actually it's not that complicated. Hitchens was writing for the Nation and other similar publications those days...his 1985 defense of Chomsky was as a true blue Leftist. Internatl interventions to promote democracy used to be a progressive cause....Hitchens hasn't changed, his compatriots have.
So the left has become the right and the right has become the left? That actually is complicated :) .
HAHAHAHAHHA. Good one MD.
Actually, with the recent flurry of AQ#2 video tapes, many are starting to think he's actually dead. For insurgencies, from what I've read here and there, it seems it is imperitive the face of the insurgency get airtime (or propoganda time) with the audience he's trying to coopt.
If he is alive, I think its time the US called a bluff in and use propoganda to 'call him out' on video. Not old or spliced video, or even audio, but video. AQ#2's been getting waaaaayy too much airtime in comparison to Bin Laden. If the dude shows up alive, it provides valuable information, if not, it provides information (all for purposes of psychological and information warfare).
Thank you Siddhartha for pointing out the rampant idiocy that IS Dinesh D'Souza.
When he proudly proclaimed that his white wife 'doesn't even think of [me] as Indian' it kind of said it all.
He's not all Brown, Razib. There's that little red patch on his nose from being near so much Republican ass.
And of course his hatred of universities goes back to his old favourite, hating on affirmative action at universities. I researched his earlier works for a race relations essay and was disgusted to see that he manipulated and used the words of Martin Luther King to argue that King would not have wanted affirmative action.
Anyways I'm off too watch some Hollywood movies, get back to me lecture and soak up the cultural leftist propaganda around me as part of my evil little plan to further Osama's cause.
FukYoCouch, Dinesh D'Souza!
this echos reagan's line; "i didn't leave the democratic party, they left me" (mostly in regards to communism) and RR was described at the time as a neocon. the label has many meanings and one of them is that they are leftists who broke w/ the left on the basis of leftist principles.
nonetheless, hitchs support for the war is clearly an manisfestation of his leftist anti-fascism.
hey tash, where is saurav? did abhi drive him away like The Nation drove away Hitch? tell him i say hi.
Not my intention, was just trying to cover ground on dudes who wrote about stuff that wasn't their core competancy.
is this what it takes for take Bandra out of the boy? :-)
Manju:
This is true. But in the phrase "equality at the expense of liberty", "expense" is the operative term, and I don't like to believe it's a zero sum. Even after fully acknowledging the various (and respectively valid) definitions of the term, I believe democracy ought to be inclined towards equality more than liberty, otherwise what would be the point of liberty? Not really challenging you because there's not much to argue, and because I know this debate always goes in circles, but I just wanted to comment on that one bit.
Anyway, we are dissecting Dinesh D'Souza's position here in a semi-academic way, but that's because SM has been familiarized with the guy for a while now. Can someone tell me how well known he is by the American public and how he is received by them? How is he received by the desi community?
brilliant argument. Replete with Aryan nation reference. Who says discourse on the left has lost it's sophistication?
In any case, it's pretty classic comparitive politics (e.g. they've been studying this stuff for hundreds of years) that most systems are about varying degrees of trading off b/t some inherently conflicting values -
- freedom (totalitarianism being the least; anarchy the most)
- equality (increase freedom increases inequality; communism / socialism reign in economic inequality by going after economic freedom, for ex.; aff action goes after social inequality for minorities by reducing social freedom for majorities, etc.)
- virtue (increased freedom (arguably) leads to licentiousness -- at least that's how the Taliban et. al. see it)
(and, of course, there are a few other values... like NationalPower (e.g. we work to make the state great!))
In other words, is there any reason to take him seriously?
No I prefer the school of thought that equates equality with the capacity for freedom (Aristotle as opposed to Plato). I'm aware of the discussions that pit freedom vs. equality (Berlin, Arrow etc) but I don't put too much stake in their rather exaggerated dichotomy - as others have shown the lines are more blurry than they are made out to be.
(Btw, I tend to think that texts like Marcuse's One Dimensional Man are critical rather than supportive of the limits to human freedom)
To pretend that this freedom/equality dialectic, and not outright xenophobia, is at the root of much of what is going on now - I find that quite rich! Way funnier than "they hate freedom"
Vinod, Manju - the "libertaryanism" comment was made as I was writing that comment out quickly in the middle of work. It was not directed at either of you personally, but rather at a school of thought. Apologies if offense was taken.
why are there idiots like dinesh d'souza in this world? why? why?!!?!?!?!
Is this the silly season for conservative commentators?
sakshi - it's always silly season for "public intellectuals" or even television commenters, whether they are of the left or right stripe.
Righty commenter: Man, these tax cuts are kinda stupid but I get paid to say the opposite (opens pie hole, belches garbage).
Left commenter: Man, I kinda love these tax cuts, but I get paid to say the opposite (opens pie hole, belches garbage).
And so on, and so on, and so on. O'Reilly vs. Franken? Fish. In. A. Barrel.
But, if you're really lucky, you get to work in academia which is a true meritocracy and totally off topic to this discussion, but what the heck.
Begin scene
Junior academic: I have too much clinical work/and or teaching to publish.
Senior academic: It's great that you do so much clinical work/teach. But I cannot promote you if you do not publish.
Junior academic: But I don't have time to publish unless I make the kids stupid or kill patients by ignoring clinical/teaching work.
Senior academic: Looks away, clears throat, and says, What have you published lately?
Junior academic: *crickets*
Junior academic: I'm leaving academia.
Senior academic: Says, that's too bad. Thinks - I'm late for the _____ club dinner/cocktail hour.
End scene.
I wonder if there were some "unique" experiences or differences in upbringing that D'Souza and other immigrants like John Yoo experienced to put them so far right in the political spectrum, whereas the overwhelming majority of academic and professional desis and other Asians I've met throughout the country (yes, an observation based purely on my own experiences) are from center to way left.
You answered your own question, No Desh. They are academic and professional, which, regardless of brownitude, always skew left.
GujuDude,
huge U.S.-Israeli escalation of attacks on Gaza
If he left "U.S" out of it, it would be far more objective.
Yes. That's why I said that our opinions on Chomsky are probably not very different. Did I also mention that he is an anarchist? (He's gotta love the situation in Iraq today :) Just kidding, of course).
In the case of Chomsky, I make an exception. I give a limited number of "Pass"es to a small number of people, basically academics, in a small number of areas in articulating drastically different points of view. In the case of Chomsky, I am willing to give him a very wide berth, specifically in the specific area of the Israel-Palestine issue. Even if they seem to come from way out in the left field. How limited the number of passes you give out is is, I think, determined by your political inclinations.
Speaking of academics, academia and smart people, Amardeep and Razib are on Radio Open Source tonight for the topic "What Should College Teach". Big ups to both of you. The Mutiny continues to push space and time.
O'Reilly vs. Franken
I have listened for hours to both O'Reilly and Franken. O'Reilly is way more stupid and ridiculous than Franken.
But...ya gotta admit that Franken can be pretty stupid and ridiculous.
Shankar:
Your position seems sound. I haven't picked apart Dsouza here simply because others have done it already, really.
Peace out.
This is probably truer than we often realize. The consistent sense of humorless outrage that both O'Reilly and Olbermann exhibit comes across as so phoney. It seriously wears me down.
But I think Jon Stewart is cool! :)
I know we can't be surprised of the stuff the D'Souza says. He's racially and unapologetically condescending towards blacks, latinos, desis and any other person of color who doesn't believe what he believes in and who's slightly darker than say...Paris Hilton.
heya :)
Saurav now lives at Pass The Roti
Abhi explained what happened from his point of view, I can't speak for S.
My guess is he's probably very busy, he blogs on PTR almost every day...
Will tell him you said hi :)
ummmmmm like Heeeellllllo!??! Moooootineers? Did any of you like listen to Radio Open Source? Like, Amardeep and Razib were like on there?! Like anyone?! Heeeeelloooo?
Dinesh doesn't deserve 103 comments!??! WTF!?! He's the flagpole of Infantile Rightism!?!?!
And why are you people referring to Dinesh as 'DD'?!?! You're corrupting the name of the good lady! Do you think this guy can dance?!?! WTF!?!
So back to my original point.
Like, Amardeep and Razib were on the radio.
Ok.
I'm putting the pom-poms down now.
That's right (yeah), Spirit is the key, We're pumping it up for, A victory!
And taking off my cheering skirt.
We're Number O-N-E in S-P-I-R-I-T We're number one in Spirit!
I had no idea, congratulations to the both of you! Any chance we can get a transcript/recording?
you could listen online.
Congratulations to both Amardeep & Razib. Onwards and upwards.
Razib, how many times did you say the word "brown" while you were on-air ? :)
I think we should have a drinking game, where everyone on SM has to take a shot of vodka every time Razib bhai says the magic word.
Just kidding, buddy. Well done -- very proud of you.
I have my own drinking game, which involves taking a shot each time I read an amusing comment on SM. So far, I'm definitely feeling woozy.
SM London meetup - you're on Jai!
Amardeep, Razib: this is wonderful! I love that you are on Open Source Radio! Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!
Al M:
I do like that one Franken skit where he wears that little satellite on his head and reports from Iraq. That visual cracks me up every time....
Not that Iraq is funny or a joking matter. You know what I mean. That little satellite. News reporters should wear those things for realz: Katie Couric's ratings would probably go up if she'd do it and I know I'd take tv news more seriously that way.
Katie comes across with all the gravitas of Alvin the Chipmunk.
Hey - the person I love to hate the mostest! I've incredulously tried to follow his "arguments" and "logic." The fact that he had a career in academia is a sad comment on the intellectual poverty of American Institutions.
Honestly..someone please slap the brown off him. He'd probably thank you.
Embarrassing toady.
razib,
He ain't brown.
Some quotes from a site link posted bye nycpepe. Read, Taz, if you were impressed by D'Souza.
Thanks Razib for drawing attention to his Oreo-ness too. FukYoCouch, Dinesh D'Souza!