February 17, 2005

Senator Byrd, Ayatollah Khomeni and Louis Farrakhan

These are names that we all clearly associate with each other, no? Like bread and butter, cheese and macaroni, Joanie and Chachi.

I mean, I know when I think of my senior senator, automatically his close associates come to mind. These other names always pop into my head: Zacarias Moussaoui, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Angela Davis, Fidel Castro.

Yeah, I'm pulling your leg. But the "discover the network" people are not. Wonkette and others already have discussed this more than it deserves, I suppose.

Posted by binky at February 17, 2005 01:45 PM | Posted to West Virginia


It really gets on my nerves when people make comparisons based on isolated things they have in common, pretty much like when Baltar compares Iraq to Vietnam. And while they may have missed the boat on Senator Byrd, at least they have that leftist Roger Ebert pegged; only a communist would give a bad review to Team America: World Police. FYI: the trilateral commission respectfully requests you delete this column.

Posted by: Morris at February 17, 2005 03:37 PM | PERMALINK

comparisons based on isolated commonalities, i would think you'd agree, are the basis of a great deal of human cognition. it's when people make incendiary comparisons of things that lack even isolated commonalities that people justifiably protest.

Posted by: joshua at February 17, 2005 06:56 PM | PERMALINK

Are you trying to say that a comparison between Iraq and Vietnam isn't incendiary? The web site makes the point that Byrd's opposition to Bush's military and foreign policies is congruent with that of the terrorists who want us out of Arabia as a matter of policy, though his reasoning may be different from theirs. Generalization (learning using comparisons based on isolated commonalities) is certainly the foundation for most theories, but those theories break down where the commonalities break down, and if they do, you call it a (I know you've heard of this one) hasty generalization. We can talk 'til our throats are dry about how Byrd is like terrorists or how Iraq is Vietnam, but what's the point when Byrd isn't a terrorist (except maybe according to the fashion community) and Iraq isn't Vietnam. We did this same dance when people talked during the election about how Bush is like Hitler, except he didn't massacre millions of jews and gypsies, and he didn't try to bring the world under an authoritarian rule he controls; if you'll recall, unlike Bush, Hitler didn't believe spreading democracy was important. So, he's like Hitler except for most of the bad stuff Hitler did, bad stuff without which Hitler would not be known as he is.

Posted by: Morris at February 17, 2005 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

[Bush] didn't try to bring the world under an authoritarian rule he controls

you sure about that? sorry, that's a conspicuous non-response response. you're right that there are many bad comparisons. but in extrapolating to war, comparing byrd to khomeini in that way is like saying any shooting conflict is like any other, from bar fight to WWII. iraq and vietnam, though the analogy is admittedly weak, share more in common than that.

Posted by: joshua at February 18, 2005 09:57 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe I can settle this - Most things are not anything else. However, some things are like other things. The degree to which certain things are alike varies. In some ways Iraq and Vietnam are similar. And in some ways they are not.

However, Iraq and Vietnam have vastly more in common than the names on this list.

Let's see, if we just consider who is pictured next to whom - why Khomenei and Senator Obama must have tons in common. Hmmm, both believed in a somewhat populist approach to economics, both felt it was appropriate for society to care for many of the less fortuante, both believe there's a place for religion in public life ... but c'mon. Is that what this site is really about? Morris Dees next to Mohammed Atta - was Atta one of the country's most prominent fighters against the Klan? Um, no. Did Dees run an airliner into the World Trade Center, um no. Those are the things these men are known for. Is this site designed to foster any kind of meaningful dialogue? No. It's an incendiary site designed to associate Democrats with terrorists. And to the degree it's been noticed, it's succeeding.

And if you want perhaps the most basic point to show it's a complete canard, right there in the title it says it's about linking up "leftists". In what world are Zarqawi and Atta leftists?

Posted by: Armand at February 18, 2005 01:05 PM | PERMALINK

OK, all you guys missed the point completely, though if I'm not mistaken at least Morris grasped the potential for humor (team america indeed). If you know anything about our illustrious senator's well-known and -discussed past, you might find it at least vaguely humorous to think that he's hanging out with Farrakhan. I figure they were just stretching to find some white guys they could lump in with all the other undesirables.

Of course, what would have been funnier, if I had the skills to copy and paste photos here, would be to take the Ramzi Yousef/Ramsey Clark section and put "Separated at Birth?" under the photos.

Posted by: binky at February 18, 2005 09:16 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment

Remember personal info?