I'm trying to give up
esrblog again: though he still manages the occasional interesting piece (like
this one about GPS wire protocols, and some of his commentary on the Tom-Tom patent lawsuit), he's increasingly going off the deep end politically, and spending time in his headspace is getting increasingly unpleasant.
wormwood_pearl has extracted a promise from me to
(
Read more... )
Comments 6
Also, best of luck giving up on ESR's blog -- I'm surprised you've stuck with it this long. I enjoy the occasional article but he's so disagreeable politically I've never really been able to really follow it.
Reply
Much the same as you: interventionist, carrying Democracy forward on bayonets, all that jazz.
By the time I started hearing it used it had already been corrupted to mean 'anyone on the American Right with whom I disagree with' and 'a convenient handle I can paint people with without having to think too much'.
Or at least so I gather from context.
Reply
Reply
In terms of their politics, they were almost all Democrats and then as soon as the Democratic party suggested that it wasn't going to have a strong military, Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, the grandfathers of this movement, they went Republican. Why? Because they said, back in the 70's, a strong military is needed to protect Israel.
Download an mp3 of Phil saying the above here:
Antiwar.com/Radio - 07/12/2008
Antiwar.com/Radio - 03/18/2009
Watch the BBC documentary "The War Party", part 1 of 5
Read Phil's blog on the Neocons, AIPAC, Israel/Palestine @ philipweiss.org
Reply
So for me the central characteristic of the neocon is the belief (or the worldview shaped by a predecessor's belief) that "This town needs an enemy".
It's a while since I saw that documentary though - so I don't know how well I'm representing it :)
Reply
Might be interesting to think about how that series of films would be updated after the recent elections.
Reply
Leave a comment