Salon and Reading Opposing Views

I saw this linked at Captain's Quarters. I didn't at first read the Captain's commentary, but went back after reading the article. Sometimes reading opposing commentary can be quite baffling. I found exactly the same part of the article offensive as did the Captain.

At a certain point in the near future, if the current oligarchy cannot be removed via the ballot, direct political action may become an urgent and compelling mission. It may then be necessary for many people in many walks of life to put their bodies on the line. For the moment, however, although pressing and profound questions have arisen about whether the current government is even legitimate, i.e., properly elected, there still remains a chance to remove this government peacefully in the 2008 election. (Or am I living in a dream world?)

I do think this regime's removal is the most urgent matter before the country today. And I do think that at a certain point the achievement of that goal might take precedence over our personal predilections for writing, teaching and the like. We might be called upon to go on general strike, for instance. We might be called upon to set up camp in the streets for weeks or months, to gather and remain in large public squares as the students in Tiananmen Square did, and dare government forces to remove us or to slaughter us in the streets.

This is all terrible and rather fantastic to contemplate. But what assurances have we that it is not all quite plausible? Having discarded the principles that Jefferson & Co. espoused, the current regime seems capable of anything. I know that my imagination is a feverish instrument. But are we not living in feverish times, in times of the unthinkable?

Let's start with oligarchy.

1 : government by the few 2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control

Nope, that isn't right. Funny, I got a vote and I'm obviously not one of the privileged.

Legitimacy? Well, I suppose since Bush did win the majority of the vote and the Electoral college, that would make his administration legitimate. You may want to argue the 2000 election, but I'd say that is a moot point at this date.

Regime? I suppose it fits the definition, but the idea that the present Administration won't be leaving office at the end of their term is just ludicrous. No one in the country would stand for that.

"Having discarded the principles that Jefferson & Co. espoused, the current regime seems capable of anything." That statement, with no evidence stated of any sort is just BullShit.

I'll stop here. You can read the rest of this advice column. But I'd really have to question the viability of advice from someone who is apparently very out of touch with reality.

I don't know how one can have discussion with anyone who thinks like this. Though I did see VDH deal with a similar question from a caller on BookTV this weekend. He essentially stated that they lived in completely different worlds and that he (Hanson) understood that there was no way to answer his question, so he chose not to. The question had lots of interesting statements, similar to above, and Hanson chose to pass to something reasonable.