As in Moscow, U.S.S.R. In 1968. Daddybear is more gentle than I would be:
I've got some news for you professor. While you were enjoying cheap vodka and all the Communist literature you could carry, your hosts were slaughtering innocent Czech civilians for no other reason than the fact that they were 23 years ahead of the Soviet Union in figuring out that Communism was a load of crap. I'm not going to attack your stance on CARE packages too much. Honestly, if I was deployed, I wouldn't ask you to piss in my mouth if my teeth were on fire.No doubt Professor Avery has the right to say this, and worse. And I also have the right to say that not only is he an idiot (useful version), and that his drivel is of such a shockingly low caliber as to be boring. Sadly, his type is a dime a dozen in his generation.
But someone who fits the textbook definition of "useful idiot" ought to spend a little less time spouting the pseudo-pacifist dreck that was fed to the American left during the Vietnam era and more time doing a little introspection on whether or not everything he believes about people's motivation to serve their country was absolute bullcrap thought up during an alcoholic haze in a dorm room a couple of miles from Red Square.
But he's a Yale lawyer. Dude, you're the 1%.
You have kids taking on $50,000 of debt to be "educated" by this guy. He's a great argument right there to de-fund the Universities. Do it for teh childrenz™.
10 comments:
Has anything good come out of Yale in the last 30 years?
Proof yet again that you can be an academic and still severely ignorant.
wv: modderm - yes a course in modderm history would be useful but not if its taught by idiots like Avery.
This guys comment about servicemembers just caught me wrong. I joined up while I was still going to high school in the Bay Area, and it took less than 24 hours to go from "Hi DB!" "Babykiller!".
Maroon, one each, O.D. stupid in color.
Oh dear, he is different than I, clearly his argument is invalid! Truth can only come from those that resemble me and share my views!
Mark Smith, the link to "Useful Idiots" explains a lot about my view of his (ahem) "truth". Of course, his intellectual prowess may be so overwhelming as to render my analysis invalid.
But I don't think so. I think he's common - so common as to be boring. Not even smart and avant guard enough to make his drivel fresh and interesting.
A deeper intellectual analysis would have been to muse on the difference between the State (you won't find me defending it much here) and the People - of which the volunteer Armed Forces are a part.
A deeper intellectual analysis would muse on the long, long history of this Republic, and its trust in the People - the militia.
A more nuanced intellectual analysis would muse on the capture of the Organs of the State by powerful interest groups, and look at how both conservative and "Progressive" interest groups strive to capture that power.
Instead, the good Professor serves up the "babykiller" meme. Whatevs.
I'm a little scandalized that your "truth" is so damned unoriginal and boring. I'm sure that you're all smarter than this. I mean, "Progressives" keep telling me that it's so.
Feel free to take this as a challenge to bring an argument that is fresh and new, and less boring. Notice that I'm not even asking for you not to be wrong. Just please be less tedious.
Will have to post something when I get a moment this evening.
Ok, the first online article I could find that showed the entire five paragraphs of the email from Michael Avery was http://www.jdjournal.com/2011/11/11/a-law-professor-objects-to-helpin-our-troops-in-afghanistan/
One, in your last comment, you disparage his intellectual prowess for, as far as I can determine, not sharing your views. I think this is found in Rhetorical Failures and Fallacies 101, under Ad Hominem, as if anything about Mr. Avery has any bearing on the argument he makes. Failure #1.
"he's common - so common as to be boring." Ad hominem, failure #2.
"...difference between the State and the People..." Non sequitur. Avery did not mention this, can't argue against what he said by including something he didn't say, failure #3.
"...history of this Republic, and its trust in the People - the militia." Appeal to emotion (length of history has no bearing) and non-sequitur, failure #4.
"...capture of the Organs of the State by powerful interest groups,"
Non sequitur, failure #5.
""babykiller" meme." Appeal to emotion, adding memes that were not alluded to by the original argument, failure #6.
So to get to the point, you are unable to make a rational argument on any of the particular points Mr. Avery makes, and pretty much just sling mud. It's a traditional failure of intellect (see, I can do it too!), you shouldn't be too upset.
Find the original five paragraph email Avery wrote, then say why each point he made is wrong and what the cause for each point being wrong is. Until then, there's no point in talking to people that can only argue from emotion. Might as well be a lefty yourself at that rate, the common meme being that they don't listen to facts, only emotion. They aren't alone in the political spectrum on that, it appears.
And to add my two cents to the argument, so you know where I'm coming from:
One. Sending packages to troops is lending support to their cause.
Two. Their cause may not be your cause, or your defense, but rather that of the political rulers of the land.
Three. They kill people. That's what we pay them for. If you cannot stomach the though of killing people, do not support the troops. Military force should be a final resort, far too often it is not and there are other viable options.
The military makes mistakes. Often at an alarming rate. Civilians take the brunt of deaths in any war, and the US military is hardly blameless. You cannot, at the moment, conduct war without collateral damage and civilian deaths though.
You can be for the survival of our nation and against the use of military force and still be a patriot. Last I checked, while terrorism is a real and present danger, destroying a few middle eastern nations is hardly the appropriate response. If more people die daily from car accidents than terrorism, you need to perform a sanity check on your actions. Where's the war against foolish driving?
Mark, I have to say thanks for coming back. We clearly disagree, but you're willing to dialog, which is a lot more than some these days.
I certainly understand that the military is a blunt instrument, and that the first rule of war is that young men die - and not just young men.
However, the Good Professor doesn't get off the hook so easily. You claim that my statement that his position is common and boring is ad hominem which doesn't quite hit the mark. The Academy these days is all about novelty of ideas, and he offers precisely zero.
It *is* common and boring. Perhaps I should say "disappointingly unoriginal". Better?
And the "babykiller" meme cannot be so lightly dismissed. You yourself said that the military makes mistakes, and civilians die. If you want me to follow my logic to its final resting place, this is where yours ends up.
And you know as well as I the sordid history of anti-war extremism (as opposed to the honorable sort) in this country. Soldiers returning from Vietnam actually were spit upon, despite the (biased) media's hiding of the fact. Any movement has a set of members who feel like they can dial it up to 11. They do it because it causes them to receive the approbation of (at least some of) the movement, while the sane members of the movement keep their mouths uncomfortably shut.
And you and I both know that this is precisely what the Professor is doing.
The Left used to agree that "politics ends at the water's edge" - I remember those days. And then some (perhaps small) subset of the left found that they could basically say anything - no matter how extreme, counter productive, and even absurd - and some of their compatriots would defend them.
As you are doing right now.
It's perfectly fine to oppose the war. Quite frankly, I'm not sure myself we should be there, because we're not obviously trying to win. I'm not even sure what "winning" means.
But I know two things:
1. There are a bunch of people in the world who want to kill us graveyard dead because of their ideology. Ten years ago, they did.
2. There are a bunch of people in the world that were willing to shelter them from us.
3. That's what the fight was all about.
4. Whether you agree with me or not, they're *OUR* troops. Ours. I'd hoped that when the Democrats took control after the 2008 elections, that the same members of the left would no longer be willing to sit by as the fringe dialed things to 11. I'm sadly disappointed.
Quite frankly, I stand by what I said. I think I understand very well how Professor Avery thinks, and what his motivations are. He's playing to the fringe, consciously or unconsciously. He knows, and I know, and you know that not sending OUR troops small comforts will do precisely bupkis to end the war.
But Professor Avery will have people coming out of the woodwork praising him for his "courage". And people like you defending him for dialing it up to 11.
You and I both know these things.
And so, the disagreement that you and I are having is not about logic. Rather, it's a disagreement over first premises. Avery (and presumably you) thinks he possesses the Moral High Ground. I don't. That's where my disapprobation comes from.
And yes, he's boring. If he were at least novel, he'd be interesting. If he offered at least one layer to peel on his intellectual onion (as I have tried to do here) he'd be interesting.
What a waste.
You're welcome to come back. I think that the Left and the non-Left (I don't see myself as being on the "Right") need more dialog if each will ever stop talking past each other.
Post a Comment