-Caveat Lector-
>From www.civmag.com/articles/C9909E05.html
<<Excepting for his residence, he might be from the Isles ...>>
> 99/09 - American Voices
>
>
> Middle-Ground Mud
>
> A contrarian journalist wonders why the fair-minded yearn for the semantic swamp
>
>
> By Christopher Hitchens
>
>
> I have a great friend in Jerusalem, an old savant from Hebrew University named
> Israel Shahak, who is very much involved in the two great local Kulturkampfen --
> between the chauvinists and the internationalists and between the secular and
> the Orthodox. I once called him up to ask how things were going. "Well," he said
> after a pause for reflection. "There are encouraging signs of polarization."
>
> The effect of these words upon me was akin to doffing a heavy overcoat on a
> sweltering day. Because all around us, embedded as it were in the national and
> cultural rhetoric, is a surreptitious weighting of the language in favor of a
> bogus consensus. To read The New York Times of a morning is to suspect that,
> somewhere in its cortical software, a set of axiomatic assumptions has been
> inserted and that it only takes a keystroke to send these cliches darting into
> the fingertips, right up to the brain and straight back down onto the page as
> received wisdom.
>
> When, for example, did you ever see the word bipartisan employed as anything
> other than an approbation? Or the word partisan used as other than
> disapprobation? A sample sentence might say something like -- and this in a news
> story -- "Hopes rose yesterday of an end to the recent outbreak of partisanship
> on the Hill, with bipartisan spokesmen on both sides of the aisle speaking
> optimistically of an end to confrontation." In approximate translation, this can
> only mean: "Whew! For a moment back there, it looked as if we were going to have
> a two-party system. But wiser counsels prevailed, and the one-party ethos kicked
> back in."
>
> Or take, if you will, the word divisive. It is an insult all on its own. A
> public figure must stand for unity, for the healing process (a recent import
> from the therapeutic universe), and for togetherness. To be in favor of
> "division" is almost like being in favor of segregation. A presumed applause
> line -- you may have applauded it yourself -- is an attack on "the politics of
> division." In this treacly atmosphere, it takes a conscious effort of the mind
> to recall that politics, by definition, is division.
>
> From the talk show world to the academic world, brownie points can be won by
> those who stress the need for "community." It doesn't seem to matter which
> community is said to be in need of more of its essence. (The "intelligence
> community" I used to think was hilarious enough; now, in the public sphere in
> Washington, I have heard straight-faced mentions of the political "donor
> community" and also -- this in a discussion of "star wars" pork barrel -- "the
> contractor community.") All very reassuring, with its implication of harmony and
> concert. Or all very sinister, with its suggestion that those who don't "belong"
> are, well, outside the community, probably seeking to be divisive.
>
> A key element in this mental world is the oft-heard suggestion that argument or
> disagreement "generates more heat than light." The metaphor is a suggestive one,
> not least for its absolute negation of the rules of physics on which it is
> based. Heat is the only source of light, just as conflict and dialectic --
> friction, in short -- are the only sources of progress in any field of endeavor
> or inquiry. We are losing the ability even to express this simple and essential
> idea, because our very idiom and vernacular is mortgaged to the soggy notion of
> "moderation" -- the homage we pay to the art of the deal, and "getting to yes,"
> and avoiding unpleasantness. The culture of the facilitator and the negotiator
> and the broker operates at a sort of mediocre room temperature, where restful
> but dim light is the corollary of a reassuringly lukewarm ambience.
>
> You don't hear the word moderate used quite so unironically these days - - irony
> being the lethal enemy of all the counseling-type rhetoric touched upon above. I
> think this may be because of the fabled "Iranian moderates" with whom Oliver
> North did his trade in hostages and heavy weapons. Nonetheless, the word is
> still employed, and always as a compliment. Though one might dislike to be
> described as moderately attractive or moderately intelligent, it is still a
> special sign of statesmanship and maturity and even courage to be described as,
> say, a moderate Republican. And the coveted award goes always to those who seek
> to blur differences and to blunt distinctions -- in other words, to those who
> favor consensus as an end in itself. ("Why did Bill Clinton cross the road?"
> "Because he wanted to get to the middle.")
>
> It's an everyday struggle to avoid becoming infected with this mental
> mediocrity, and with the wheedling element of moral blackmail that it contains.
> Why not just go along to get along, and join in the disapproval of those who are
> "not team players" or who have "a confrontational style"? Why not try to do the
> impossible as well as the undesirable, and flatten the poles so as to avoid
> polarization? (Meanwhile, we are warned of exactly what would happen if the
> poles did melt in the emollient atmosphere of global warming.)
>
> A useful muscle-building exercise is to try to preserve the distinction between
> terms that are now used almost interchangeably -- words like evenhanded,
> impartial, disinterested, fair-minded, neutral, and objective. All of these mean
> quite different things, but they are being euphemistically run together in order
> to create a fuzzy impression that there is always a "third way" between tough
> choices. The symptomatic word here is judgmental -- an attitude to be avoided
> almost as assiduously as the dreaded "confrontational" itself. (What would we
> say of an actual judge who declined to make up his mind?) To be "objective," for
> example, is a real discipline that strives to impose self-criticism and to
> invoke pitiless outside scrutiny upon reigning assumptions, not exempting one's
> own. It could not be further from the idea of "neutrality."
>
> So. Let our debates be heated, that they may illuminate. Let our positions be
> polarized, so that matters may be confronted. And let us drop the lazy idea that
> any midpoint is the superior position of vantage. The truth cannot lie, but if
> it could, I have no doubt that it would lie somewhere in between.
>
>
>
> I HEAR AMERICA TALKING
> INNER VOICES
> HOW POLLING HAS TRAMPLED THE CONSTITUTION
> POLITICS ON THE INTERNET
> REMEMBRANCE (MORE OR LESS) OF THINGS PAST
> VOICES OF AUTHORITY
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Home | Current Issue | Subscribe | Search | Contact
>
> © Copyright 1999, Civilization Magazine
> All rights reserved.
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
own reason and your common sense." --Buddha
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
