Controlling the narrative
Danny Lemieux on Jan 24 2011 at 6:59 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
There is a tactic in political discourse (I use the term “discourse” loosely) of which we all should be aware: to drown out one’s opponents with a flurry of half-truths and false references to authority at a rate too rapid for the opponent to respond. This has the effect of discrediting the opponent, establishing one’s own credentials of knowledgeability, and re-casting the narrative to one’s own advantage.
This is a tactic ideologues use to destroy the opposition’s credibility. William Shirer described this tactic in detail, as practiced by both Nazis and Bolsheviks during Germany’s Weimar era in his “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich“. Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” picks up on these tactics and we witness them used repeatedly by the Left in modern discourse. Witness the Mass Media’s handling of issues of the day. I am tempted to think Biden’s error- and falsehoods-rich debate with Sarah Palin in 2008 was a perfect example of this tactic but, then…Joe Biden is Joe Biden. The continued wilding of Sarah Palin today, however, is a deliberate strategy.
The fact is, though, many people do buy another’s assertions at face value and, until the advent of the new media, such assertions were very difficult if not impossible to refute. Most people are simply too busy with their lives to take time to research and document each claim and, as Mark Twain put it, a lie will make its way around the world while truth is still getting its boots on. It plays well against well-meaning conservatives’ commitments to truth, accuracy and fairplay, which forestalls rebuttals until the facts have been checked and referenced.
But refute it we must. Because if we don’t, it becomes cant (“No WMB found in Iraq” or “Sarah Palin is stupid”, for example). Cutting off debate only adds to their credibility (Alinsky: force them to adhere to their own rules). Although I believe this blog was exceptionally good at countering this tactic, I am not sure that we have found the optimum methods to counter a strategy that I have no doubt will will need to revisit again. There must be better ways of exposing the tactic for what it is. Any suggestions?
As the recent poster on this blog, “Zach”, explained on their website, the objective is to manipulate the narrative…not for one’s rhetorical opponents, but for the other readers. Their stated mission (read the interchange of letters in the “political worldview” article to which Zach repeatedly linked at their website) is to sequence visits to conservative websites in order to demolish and remake their narratives. I, for one, don’t believe this poster was working alone: the referenced answers seemed to disjointed, as if someone was feeding them links, and I soon suspected that we were being manipulated. The links and references provided in counter-argument to Zach were never addressed and the evasions were too slick. Other posters on this blog caught on as well that there was something wrong with these exchanges. I also don’t think Zach anticipated the buzz saw treatment they got from so many highly learned members in Bookworm’s entourage (well done!). It would be interesting to know if there are other such teams operating in the blogosphere.
Zach recently indicated that it is time to move on. Now it will be another blog’s turn.
Email This Post To A Friend
93 Responses to “Controlling the narrative”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Off-topic, but recent comments from not-too-bright Republican politicians and commentators to the effect that maybe Obama is changing or “pivoting” reminded me of an old song.
I’m not sure this article is relevant, but I think it is. It’s worth reading, whether it’s relevant to your point or not, but what it says to me is that we have reached the point where the Left has succeeded in indoctrinating our young people to be highly educated idiots. Ok…that’s rough – but it’s a bit like computers – garbage in, garbage out. Computers can handle massive amounts of facts, but cannot reason to a conclusion. Computers have no ethics, no morals.
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2011/01/ya-gotta-do-what-ya-gotta-do.html
I’m glad I’m old. I fear for the future.
One of the issues I brought up against DQ’s echo chamber argument is that he doesn’t consider security and bad actors.
A community must be both self-enclosed as well as open to trade. On the internet, the danger is not being too closed off. The danger is in letting too much stuff in.
The Left had a social hierarchy that closed off alternative thinking way before the internet was created and applied to normal human social interactions. There’s no amount of open thinking that conservatives can do, that will change that little special trait of the Leftist meta culture.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-intron-research-reveals-same-old.html
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/01/zachriel-and-lederberg-experiment.html
Some other debates between Zach and ID scientists.
Zach’s assault here was the equivalent of banging one’s head against the wall. The problem with trying to disrupt a website like Bookworm Room is that the group here is too tightly knit, too experienced, too critically thoughtful and too intelligent to not quickly see through the attempt. Try as he/they might, Zach could never land a hard-enough punch to make the room begin to wobble.
I doubt that his tactic will work on most other conservative sites either. I’ve seen the wickedly sharp minds at work on other blogs, and I think they would be just as quick to smell a rat as we did. Zach’s formula of lobbing endless URLs (some of them laughably self-referential!) might win praise on HuffPo or Daily Kos, where critical standards are non-existent, but not at most of the houses in our neighborhood.
Danny has rightly pointed out that this foray was probably part of a migratory assault on conservative websites. If so, we can hope that at least some members of the Zach team realized how rigid and juvenile they came off. DQ said something similar when he hoped that Zach would stick around—both to challenge us and to be challenged—and in the process actually learn how many strawmen he’d been sleeping with. (It was interesting to see how, despite his effort to be as civil and engaging as possible, even the courtly DQ began snapping his fingers to get the kids’ attention and telling the Zach creature “Enough, already.”)
If I were the leftist version of Evil Lord Rove, I would advise Zachsters to do a few simple things to improve their game. Among them:
—Do not let the juvenility of the asserter slip out so easily. The gamester allusions, the lack of historical knowledge, the refusal to engage ideas directly were sure signs of [arrogant] youth.
—Speak with one voice. The meandering between snark and solicitousness was both irritating and laughable. The royal “we” was a hoot!
—Send provocateurs who can write rather than shovel. The mistake Zach’s crew made was in not realizing that conservative sites actually discuss ideas, which means bringing one’s own experience, knowlege and skills of expression to the table. Zach’s tiresome boilerplate gave me my first inkling that we were dealing with stooges. Watching them try to counter Danny’s superbly written posts had me throwing up my hands in disgust. Zach was simply incapable, stylisitically or intellectually, of matching his writing chops.
Most of these kids are doomed to wander in the wilderness for the rest of their lives. We can hope, though, that maybe one or two of them caught a vivid enough glimpse of life in the adult world to want to cross over.
Ymar said,
>One of the issues I brought up against DQ’s echo chamber argument is that he doesn’t consider security and bad actors.
> A community must be both self-enclosed as well as open to trade. On the internet, the danger is not being too closed off. The danger is in letting too much stuff in.
I must absolutely, wholeheartedly, and completely agree with Ymar. What happened here in Book’s commentary section is that useful information got (deliberately by Z) submerged in a mad frenzied flurry of commentary and argument. The entire comment flow becomes not useful.
Only the most dedicated readers will even attempt to wade through the morass of so many commentary messages – and that’s the point. They [dedicated readers] are not the target. The target is to prevent “the masses” from gaining anything useful from your blog. Mission accomplished. No matter how sincere and thoughtful each conservative response may be, it is buried and lost in the massive deliberate deluge of words.
But if you don’t respond, you’ve lost the argument. On the other hand, you want free exchange of ideas in your commentary. So you want to allow the discussions to flow. Monitoring the discussions via a moderator is cost-prohibitive in both time and money. There really isn’t a solution to such a deliberate assault.
Mission accomplished, in Z’s case.
I can’t see an acceptable answer. About all you could do is limit an individual commenter’s number of comments per day per blog post. And software would have to monitor the IP Addresses of the posters to make it much more difficult for such a coordinated assault by a team to succeed, as well.
Ah, this feels like a moment where innocence has been lost, and the world becomes a slightly tawdrier place!
Part of critical literature and the use of citations is that citations, except in technical manual briefs, are supposed to back up your argument. It is not to be used as a replacement of your argument. Meaning, you can’t just clone the citation’s argument for yourself. You have to word it your way, to fit your thesis, and only use the citation as a supporting device for your justifications. Not the justification itself.
This is a common thing known by scholars. Yet Zach appeared not to have picked it up.
Zachriel, is traditionally called the angel of memory. In this case, it’s not critical memory or analysis memory, but rote memorization demonstrated by Zach. Without original thinking, rote memorization is just copying a robot and computer code.
Zach’s blog says that he has particular reasons to comment on conservative blogs. He calls it “clogging” for some odd reason. The rules are interesting, but highly suspect. Zach’s purported goal is to prevent right ring movements from hijacking conservative audiences, because he believes that “good things” come from tradition and that conservatives should be kept pure in that tradition.
When you pair it up with the Leftist thinking, some questions come up.
It’s usually only a problem on very high comment stream blog sites, like Neo-neocon’s after she got famous ; )
She usually gets 20-50 comments per thread, on ordinary days. With the trolls, it was 100 plus. With more active commenters arguing with the troll, 150. But usually it doesn’t get that high, because a new topic comes up and the troll just moves from the old thread to the new thread to start up the same argument again.
You see, the point was to keep pushing things so that anybody reading the new posts, will have to tolerate the arguments. This introduces an alien theme into the blog’s personality and attractiveness.
Martel is correct that tighter communities have better self defense capabilities. Part of it concerns leadership or authority. The blog host is usually absent in the arguments (they have a regimented amount of time to invest, and most of it goes into blogging, not commenting). This leaves it to the commenters to “police” themselves.
If the community is tight, you will only have a few pillars of policy and thus people can band together to form a consensus. Once a consensus has been formed, invaders have a hard time cracking the shell. But a larger comment sphere will have diverse views that naturally are inconsistent or simply argumentative. The foreign invader seeks to pit the commenters against each other, by inducing an increase in chaos and instability. For larger blogs, this can work. Even if some commenters want to have a specific topic discussion, the other commenters will go off on their own lines and the invader can then ignore the “worthwhile topics” in favor of the emotionally charged comments.
It’s not that different from how successful insurgencies work. The easiest way to gain control over a new territory is to disrupt the status quo. Break down the rule of law and order, the social rules that allowed the blog to function normally, and you can then replace it with your own rules.
Ymar – great catches on those other Zakriel links! It looks as if Zach was shredded on those blogs as well.
The use of the same tactics on other totally unrelated questions (evolution and intelligent design, for example) along with throwing in just enough jargon and web-links to provide a veneer of scientific credibility are the giveaways that pretty much confirm our analysis of what was going on.
I agree strongly with both CharlesM and Mike Devx: a critical tactic when negotiating with someone who is acting in bad faith is to “call out the tactic”. Ymar is absolutely right that letting them have unfettered access to a blog whereby to commit mischief can do real damage to the integrity of the discussions we have. Like I said, I wonder how many other teams like this are operating out there (I had my suspicions about “Dagon” and some other past visitors to this blog).
Should Book develop a mechanism or protocol whereby we can identify such trolls (and that is what they are) early, shine a light on them and then cut them off?
I don’t think Z accomplished his mission, Mike Devx. They roiled the waters and dumped a lot of data on us. Their credibility was shredded in the end and (I hope) that this was evident to all visitors to Book’s blog. Zach was called out.
The flip side is that we all benefitted from boffo commentary from a lot of new names (Owen was particularly devastating) and, speaking for myself, I am a much smarter person for the experience.
While I detailed all that out, I don’t seek to claim that Zachriel is doing of all which I had described could be done.
As such, I also don’t believe Bookworm needs to do anything progressive in terms of dealing with potential threats. The commenters can deal with it fine, as we have seen. If it happens to be the case that the disrupt is on going and the commenters/bloggers are getting stressed and is unable to solve the issue… then you might see the need to call for more pro-active solutions. (the bigger hammer approach)
Book has done so (banning) a few times for obvious sock puppets (a whole family of crazies even from the same IP account). This is effective. If it is effective, it is also rare. Which it is, both rare and effective. So far.
The fact that Zachriel did not do anything that required banning, just proves the rule.
Part of security, and by that think of home security, is not to win all the battles when the Mad Max hordes come for ya. It’s to make them go somewhere else. Deterrence should be a great majority of all security outcomes. Battles should only be handled if necessary, as they are a drain on resources.
I agree with Danny here, Mike. Regardless of what you define as Zach’s mission here, I don’t think it went off very smoothly. Either as a proponent for the Left or as a proponent of conservative “traditions” (Bismarck).
A lot of times there are Leftists or just college age ideologues who can’t take ridicule. They are very perceptive of social status differences. After all, that’s why they went into social status equality studies to begin with. Or gender equality studies. Or whatever.
But they enter into a new climate, the conservative social climate, and make comments that start sounding, to us, ridiculous. When they can’t back up their position, and they start feeling insecure, then the jokes start happening.
In places like Villainous Company, where the barbs and satire is especially snarky and impactful, you have to have a very good sense of humor (and a very strong psyche) to be able to withstand that social pressure.
It’s basically a test. Most communities do it. The ones that survive. You could call it male pecking order. Or female social hierarchy. People test other people all the time.
It’s why I said to Zach that the tests are over, that from now on it was the real battle. People will test you. And depending on how you do, their actions will differ and adapt accordingly. A male that doesn’t meet eye contact, constantly differs to other people’s words, and stares at the ground, is going to be treated how by his fellow males?
A female that is aggressive, loud, insulting, and prone to physical violence will be treated how by other females of a more refined nature?
The “joke” is a sort of communication. It has several meanings. In a hostile situation, it is used to diffuse the situation and communicate “yeah, we don’t really mean anything bad against you”. A good joke exemplifies that. A bad joke can increase one’s awareness of hostility. A joke is also a sort of membership pass for the in crowd. If you get the jokes, you are “in”. If you don’t, you are “out’. If you can tell jokes that others find funny, your social status increases in a new group. If you don’t find their jokes funny while everybody else does, your social status gets a little bit threatened.
A lot of people will tell jokes about you just to see whether you will act angry, join the fun, turn the joke in on the jokester, or come up with another sort of witty comeback. A proper joke diffuses tension by saying “this is a social situation, we are not prepared to start mass murder on everyone in the room”. It puts people at ease, optimally. It can also be used as a weapon or detector against invaders.
The issue is, on the internet, it’s hard to tell good jokes because of the lack of body language and sound.
“The flip side is that we all benefitted from boffo commentary from a lot of new names (Owen was particularly devastating) and, speaking for myself, I am a much smarter person for the experience.”
Amen to that. I hope to see your name here many more times, Owen.
Don’t forget that I said Owen’s responses to Zach were like a nuclear device being used on a hamster.
This is a particular bugaboo of mine, since I go bonkers over loosing the messaging war to the left to the extent it is based on knowing falsehoods or half truths. The solution is very plain, blunt talk to combat. The willingness to call out “BULLSHIT YOU LIEING SACK OF POND SCUM” when the falsehoods fly.
Two examples will sufice. During the dog and pony show on Obamacare last Feb. I think, Obama and the left were mentioning the CBO score ad infinitum. It comes around to Paul Ryan and he says to the President that Obamacare will add greatly to the deficit, to which Obama interjects and says (paraphrase) “well, there are two different opinions on those numbers.” Maintaining decorum, Paul Ryan did not respond directly, but instead went into a 5 min. response about why the CBO scores were pure smoke and mirrors. The end result – it seems only a portion of America took note and still today the left thinks the CBO score is their ace in the hole. Now what if Ryan had said, “No, Mr. President, there are not two opinions. The CBO score is a democratic fairy tale and you sir, are lying to the American public that the CBO numbers have any basis in reality. Let’s review Mr. President, does or does not the CBO score double count . . . . ”
Compare and contrast with Gov. Christie, who has embraced and taken the “Bullshit” response to a fine art form. He does it with passion – there is no question that he believes precisely what he is saying and that he believes his opponent is full of it. And those two things have a profound impact on the listener. It is why Christie is winning hearts and minds in the bluest of blue states.
I am not suggesting for a minute that fair, reasoned debate is not what we should always strive for and engage in respectfully whenever possible. But when your opponent engages in demonization to delegitimize their opponent or falsehoods to win their argument, then they have brought a knife to the fight. The time for decorum is over. If one does not respond with passion and bluntness, then the argument will almost uniformly be lost or, at best, will still leave a substantial portion of listeners believeing your opponent.
Ymarsakar
Zach’s blog says that he has particular reasons to comment on conservative blogs. He calls it “clogging” for some odd reason.
Googling zachriel clogging results in 205 hits.
the objective is to manipulate the narrative
Snake oil salesmen, notorious for selling their useless wares have always moved on, after their pitch. No doubt, there were always suckers and the curious. A Z-team, always on the prowl on conservatives sites, will have no impact – it’s the stationary teams of newspapers, media and political talking heads that keep banging their drums to a less sophisticated audience that takes center stage in short sound bites. As we’ve all come to realize, the Z-responses were in the very same style – bite and bait, alternating with bait and bite canned style of an echo chamber. It’s the left’s version of verbal water boarding, as Danny exampled with the attacks on Sarah Palin. Palin is waterproof and the relentless attacks on her are indicative of the frustration and anger that they cannot drown out her voice – nor ours!
Have you noticed how shocked the left is to find that there’s gambling going on here?
Wolf, I agree with you.
However, I also recommend calling them out by describing what they are doing and why it is deserving of opprobrium. Otherwise, it just makes us look as if we are losing our cool because we can’t respond properly.
I wish I could be as KISS as Gov. Christie. I’ll need to work on that.
Danny – just to clarify, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to be “describing what they are doing and why it is deserving of opprobrium.” Otherwise, we would simply be labeling. That is the left’s form of argument. Indeed, in my example of Paul Ryan above, I set out the template. Call BS. Be passionate about it. Then explain why with equal fevor. Ryan’s problem was skipping steps one and two. Christie, as a general rule, hits on all three steps.
From Mike D at 6:
“Only the most dedicated readers will even attempt to wade through the morass of so many commentary messages – and that’s the point. They [dedicated readers] are not the target. The target is to prevent “the masses” from gaining anything useful from your blog. Mission accomplished. No matter how sincere and thoughtful each conservative response may be, it is buried and lost in the massive deliberate deluge of words.
“But if you don’t respond, you’ve lost the argument.
“Mission accomplished, in Z’s case.”
Mike D, I understand your distress at what happened in our room under Zach’s assault. But I don’t think, as we clean up after the mess he left, that there was as much damage as you think. For one thing, this is not a “mass” blog—its nature prevents it from having the kind of readership that, say, Breitbart or Hot Air have. Ours is the realm of the leisurely discussion, very much in the salon-like vein Book loves.
What a new reader to this room would have seen is a lot of probing and articulate responses set off by Zach’s deliberately provocative and ignorant set of assertions. Yes, he did succeed in getting us to tumble all over ourselves trying to reason with him. (I think we all were experiencing a normal human fascination with the grotestque.)
I think there are two things to take away from this in terms of defending the room against the next pubescent:
1. Do not feed the troll. Once it becomes obvious that we are dealing with a parasite, starve it. Does that mean it wins the argument if we don’t reply to it? On this site, not really (see comment on “mass” above)..
2. Have a designated hitter. If it does become prudent to respond to an attack, have one person respresent the room—a DQ, a Danny, a Mike, an Owen, an Oldflyer, a Gringo, a suek, a SADIE, a Ymar (my God, are we resource-rich or what?). Once we designate that person as our ad hoc pest controller, we can arm him/her with a jillion weapons and insights. Let him/her control the pace of our responses. The attacker will soon lose interest.
Charles Martel: I think we all were experiencing a normal human fascination with the grotestque.
Yes. That pretty much sums it up.
I also propose that Zach had many of their groupies following their interchange with Bookworm. It’s quite possible that we provided some young minds full of mush some new insights to reflect upon.
Maybe Book has some traffic data she can peruse for the time periods of those discussions.
I believe I will defer to y’all’s stronger experience on the Web; I’m more than happy to consider Zachriel’s mission to be Unaccomplished!
My concern was for all those people – whose numbers are unknown to me – who read Book, and come to the commentary section, too. They may be willing to stick with 10-40 messages, but with Zachriel, we found ourselves regularly in the 100′s. Will these readers hang in there?
I myself have limited time Mon-Fri, and I like to read *and* think about what I’m reading, sometimes for quite awhile. I was personally daunted by the length of the threads. All of those “unknown readers”, hopefully, hung in there. I know they’re out there, because they pop up with comments from time to time (“I’m a regular reader here but I never have commented before, but I wanted to say that…”)
The other thing I thought of is that it’s obvious that we all actually have lives – apart from commenting. There have been times when topics came up that made me think discussion would be hot and heavy, and there’s been no response. Later it became clear that it wasn’t lack of interest, but rather lack of time and opportunity. It happened that _this_ time, many of us were on hand – that definitely is not always true.
Good point, suek.
I think Bookworm will have to get out the megaphone and give a shout out: ALL HANDS ON DECK! WO/MAN YOUR BATTLE STATIONS.
Snipers and bombardiers welcomed and WMD (words of mass destruction).
Oh, that reminds me, Danny – WMD not ‘B’.
It’s an irony worth noting, that, when we were younger, the passion of youth attacked the entrenched old guys and their worn-out old ways. Now, youth is passionately defending a fairly indefensible orthodoxy. I am also intrigued by the fact that the Zach were using a deontological approach to ethics, whereas young folk are usually attracted to the teleological. (Or was that just part of their play?)I am a vocal exponent of using gentle tutelage to bring the young trolls along, lest they get stuck at the top of Fools’ Hill, and, DQ was an actual practitioner of that approach. Nevertheless, some of you smart guys and brilliant ol’ gals might be able to go somewhere with these observations. It’s certainly something that I intend to ponder in coming weeks.
Actually, I think y’all do a pretty good job of dealing with the Zach’s of the world, so I’m not sure there is much room for improvement.
The key, IMHO, about dealing with people who are trying to control a narrative is just to keep in mind that it is in fact a narrative: it proceeds in a predictable way towards a known goal. When the Zach’s of the world appear, we know what they are going to say, what sources they are going to use, what tricks they have up their sleeve — because it’s a narrative, it’s not new, and we’ve read it. And it’s simple because it has to be grasped by a single mind.
Zach has no liberty to go off the reservation; this is key weakness. And he has a lot of links to drop but little recourse to the truth. But since we know that narrative, we can anticipate his arguments and easily deal with them.
It’s also worth keeping in mind that the zach’s are emotionally invested in their narrative — to call it into serious question creates in them a serious (often ugly) crisis of faith. The facts, as far as they can be ascertained, do not require faith; a devotion to get at the truth has no downside. If my data are inaccurate and I draw errorenous conclusions therefrom and someone points that out, I’m happy. The lack of a need to defend a narrative one is emotionally attached to makes one more agile.
The success of politicians like Chrisie and Reagan ( “There you go again!” ) is that they are and were able to expose the opposing narrative in public and exploit the fact that their opponent had little choice about what to say next. Of course this really only works if you can carry it off with a certain amount of panache — otherwise you just sound pedantic.
I wish we had more panache on our side right now but that it another topic.
I think Zach’s clogging does not serve his cause. In fact, I think he does a favor to every blog he visits. We get a chance to hone our arguments and learn from the discussion. I loved Danny’s comments from above and share them completely:
“It’s quite possible that we provided some young minds full of mush some new insights to reflect upon.” (which is why I said early on I hoped we were a class project, so a whole class of young minds would be given exposure to our ideas instead of being stuck in their own little worlds, with teachers mouthing liberal platitudes).
“we all benefitted from boffo commentary from a lot of new names (Owen was particularly devastating) and, speaking for myself, I am a much smarter person for the experience.” (I don’t know that I’m smarter, but I sure learned a lot. And I share the raves about Owen. What great comments!)
DQ, I think we should all get together and drink to that. Drink heavily, in fact.
Owen:
When the Zach’s of the world appear, we know what they are going to say, what sources they are going to use, what tricks they have up their sleeve — because it’s a narrative, it’s not new, and we’ve read it.
Quite so. I didn’t follow the AGW comments, for lack of time. With regard to Chile, I noticed that the Z-man used two phrases about the Allende era which repeatedly pop up in lefty narrative: “democratically elected Allende” and “murderous Pinochet.” I pointed this out to the Z-man, but got no response. [The "democratically elected Allende" mantra has been used from the time that Pinochet took over 37 years ago.]
I was able to dust off and add to material I had written several years ago for part of my argument with the Z-man I had heard their narrative before.
This was also not the first time that I offered to provide sources to further investigate the issue of Allende/Pinochet, and got no response.
Danny Lemieux:
However, I also recommend calling them out by describing what they are doing and why it is deserving of opprobrium. Otherwise, it just makes us look as if we are losing our cool because we can’t respond properly.
Good point. Owen said something similar when he talked about Reagan saying ” There you go again.”
When I have been exasperated at trolls, I have a final posting where I describe what they have done- – if I don’t blow up at them. I did use that tactic some, but I wonder when and how I could have better used that tactic when dealing with the Z-man.
It is also a good point to be aware of what the lefty tool has written previously in the thread, not just the immediate one, as one can often trip the tool up on something.
I often did not post immediately. I wrote out a response, and looked at it later. Every time I delayed posting, what I wrote improved after it marinated in my so-called brain for a while.
In dealing with the likes of the Z-man, it is an issue of stamina. Either the Z-man gets tired of getting repeatedly beaten down, or the wingnut poster gets tired of dealing with the absurd reasoning skills and limited knowledge base emanating from the Z-men.
I found his description at his website of liberals and conservatives to be rather stereotyped and rather dated. It almost sounded as if his description of conservatives had been taken from a description of 19th century French monarchists. That being the case, I wonder if Z-man is European.
Danny, that’s a brilliant guess. That sort of schematic approach to life is so characteristic of Europeans, most especially younger ones. It’s been pretty funny to me and my wife for decades that the “sophisticated European” is actually pretty naive, and his/her experience is rather more limited than ours, for any given age. Much more unabashedly racist, too, in our experience, anyway. We are the same people, after all, so I don’t want anyone to assume that I am saying that Europeans are stupid. However, I am hardly the first person to note that their media are more limited, more government subsidized, and, of course, much further to the Left. In Texas, we can still get the BBC World Service on shortwave, and, I assure you, if life in America were as bad as the Beeb portrays it, I’d already be in line at the British consulate, asking for asylum.
Trice uttered “Zachriel”.
Wow! You really know how to flatter. Just so you know, we bowed out for a while because some commenters were complaining of a change in the friendly nature of the blog. That’s fine. Not every blog is meant to be a debating club, and we wouldn’t want to ruin anybody’s fun. However, if common ground is based on falsehoods, such as Pelosi = Socialist = Communist = Fascism, it really should be pointed out. Turns out, the blog didn’t return to some friendly chit-chat, after all, but delved right into a whole thread dedicated to conspiracy theories surrounding Zachriel.
Danny Lemieux: As the recent poster on this blog, “Zach”, explained on their website, the objective is to manipulate the narrative…not for one’s rhetorical opponents, but for the other readers.
That’s “Zachriel“.
Is this the post to which you are referring?
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
Hmm. It provides a definition based on rather orthodox meanings, and includes references to the dictionary, etymology and history. Dastardly.
Or do you mean this post?
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/10/clogging-commenting-on-blogs.html
Let’s take a look at the recommended manipulation.
The truth always matters.
Winning an argument is not the goal.
Listen to others.
Respect others.
Admit error.
Admit fallibility.
Retract or clarify as required.
Find common ground where possible.
Be sure of your facts; research *before* posting.
Support your assertions with appropriate cites.
Stay on-topic.
Ad hominem is always off-topic.
The last one is obviously wrong, as ad hominem is on-topic for *this* thread.
Don Quixote: Of course, only two computers doesn’t necessarily mean only one or two people.
Zachriel might be communicating with people in the Kremlin, or Red Square, or the Google. It’s the Miracle of the Internet!
Owen: I also know that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons development program on-going at the time of the invasion. I know this because I found it. No, that report is not public. No, I will not divulge details here. No, I do not care if you believe me. No, I do not care about changing your mind or winning an argument.
Sorry, Owen, and with all due respect, without evidence, such a claim should not be taken at face value.
Ymarsakar: A community must be both self-enclosed as well as open to trade.
But you’re *not* open to trade, and self-enclosed is the very definition of an echo-chamber. The minute someone points to areas of disagreement, even simple facts you can look up in a book, people resort to ad hominem attacks. Some commenters tried to answer with appropriate-sounding arguments, but they often forgot the topic, or misunderstood our position, instead arguing against strawmen. Admittedly, some of Zachriel’s comments are devised to take a bit of effort to unwind — Castro is no George Washington — but once you understand, it should lead to some sort of shared understanding, or at least a clear picture of Zachriel’s views.
(Questions about WMD, American dominance, etc., should probably be taken to the appropriate thread.)
suek: {China} certainly don’t seem to be investing in “infrastructure” –
Last year, China allocated about half-a-trillion dollars, ~20% of their GDP, a huge stimulus, and largely directed at infrastructure.
Comment stuck in moderation. Please delete the comment concerning China. Wrong thread.
But Zach, much of that was directed at building apartment buildings that are still unoccupied. Which raises two questions: What is the point of building such apartments by the government – why not private interprise? Why are they still unoccupied? Wrong place? defective? Which raises a third question – what does the fact that they are not occupied say about central government planning/spending?
>>Last year, China allocated about half-a-trillion dollars, ~20% of their GDP>>
Half a trillion is about 20% of their GDP? and they’ve loaned us how much??? I don’t know the actual numbers, but it seems in the more-than-one category. That seems unbalanced to me. Where is the money to loan coming from?
suek, I’m surprised at you. Do you think this kid has any intention of answering your questions with original thought or without boilerplate that has been handed to him by somebody else?
Hope springs eternal…
You never know when you might hit a weak spot and he’ll actually answer…
But then…it’s Hal again. I shouldn’t expect miracles – he can only do what he’s programed to do…!
People’s World, the propaganda organ of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) advocates strengthening its links with the Democrat Party:
“Each legislative fight has to be examined concretely with an eye to drawing to the side of working people every possible ally in this unprecedented struggle, including sections of the Democratic Party and the Obama administration.”
http://peoplesworld.org/thinking-strategically-between-now-and-201/
Birds of a feather flock together.
(H/T) Gateway Pundit.
Zachriel: Last year, China allocated about half-a-trillion dollars, ~20% of their GDP.
suek: Half a trillion is about 20% of their GDP?
Here’s a comparison with the U.S. stimulus.
http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/11/12/chinas-stimulus-vs-americas-bailout.aspx
By the way, China regularly spends about 9% of GDP on infrastructure. This is above-and-beyond that as an economic stimulus. They apparently feel it’s a good time to invest.
suek: Where is the money to loan coming from?
China’s state-controlled banking sector. Don’t worry. They have tons of assets.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-20/china-backs-obama-with-u-s-treasury-securities-rising-3-to-900-billion.html
Moderation queue, please.
>>They[the Chinese government] have tons of assets.>>
But their people live in abject poverty. There seems to be an imbalance. Why are they not providing social services to their citizens?
suek: But their people live in abject poverty. There seems to be an imbalance. Why are they not providing social services to their citizens?
The Gini Coefficient, that is, income disparity, is similar to the U.S. Depending on the definition, there are more than 100 million in the middle class, but about 10% still live in dire poverty. The middle class in China is expected to increase rapidly over the next decade. This is a natural consequence of development as low productivity rural workers move to the cities for work in industry.
By the way, even though China has a very large GDP, that’s only because of its large numbers of people. They are still a poor country with a per capital income comparable to Namibia or the Dominican Republic.
Suek, China builds infrastructure by nationalizing and demolishing people’s homes. This is not new and is a constant issue in China, where authoritarian bents strive against greedy capitalists.
It doesn’t leave much room for the luxury of property rights. Or human rights.
Zachriel: Wow! You really know how to flatter. Just so you know, we bowed out for a while because some commenters were complaining of a change in the friendly nature of the blog. [...] Turns out, the blog didn’t return to some friendly chit-chat, after all, but delved right into a whole thread dedicated to conspiracy theories surrounding Zachriel.
Well, welcome back! (Usually when one – or Many – make a point of leaving a comment saying they’re bowing out, they’re gone for awhile…)
As to the conspiracy thread… not really. From a perusal, at times, of various threads, it appeared that on your own web site, you explicitly described the importance when in blog commentary sections of “controlling the narrative”. That’s a meta-approach to commentary, and it’s not the same as mere participation and interest. It’s propagandizing. No conspiracy theory there. (Unless you did *not* in fact mention the importance of controlling the narrative in your own blog.
My argumentation here is usually never directed at any one person. We’re generally either in agreement here, or in opposition. I like my comments to be directed at the 40% or so in the middle who wonder about a lot and perhaps aren’t paying a lot of attention daily to the news. (Or they don’t have ten favorite conservative blogs they visit every day as I do…)
I don’t engage in propaganda myself, though I do use hot words often rather than cold and clinical, because if I’m writing, I’m engaged and I care. Several of us often comment on the value of propaganda and how to recognize it, perhaps even how to use it.
I would add to what you said, Mike D, that we usually learn from each other. Just take two examples: Owen’s credentials regarding WMD, scientific issues and “China” shine through his commentary, as does Gringo’s re Latin American commentary. Their creds are are not in doubt for me.
Ymarsakar: Suek, China builds infrastructure by nationalizing and demolishing people’s homes. This is not new and is a constant issue in China, where authoritarian bents strive against greedy capitalists.
The same thing happens in the U.S., though there are far stronger protections. Running superhighways through long-established and stable minority communities was common in the mid-20th century.
Mike Devx: From a perusal, at times, of various threads, it appeared that on your own web site, you explicitly described the importance when in blog commentary sections of “controlling the narrative”.
Interesting use of quotation marks. Please point to your source for the quote.
Mike Devx: That’s a meta-approach to commentary, and it’s not the same as mere participation and interest.
Listen to others.
Respect others.
Find common ground where possible.
Post only when you have something new to add to the discussion.
Don’t see where it says “controlling the narrative”. In fact, “respect the opinion” of others means to take their stated position as sincerely held, and worthy of discussion.
Danny Lemieux: Just take two examples: Owen’s credentials regarding WMD, scientific issues and “China” shine through his commentary,
Good example. Owen says he knows some fascinating detail about the justifications of a devastating and controversial war, but can provide no independent evidence, won’t disclose details, and doesn’t care to convince anyone. That’s fine. That doesn’t mean Owen isn’t telling the truth, as he knows it, but there is no reason to accept his claim on its face.
I didn’t know you were alive back during the Eisenhower high way construction projects, Zach.
Btw, is it me or did Zach refer to himself in the third person in 31st, or was it his controller that referred to Zach?
Ymar – I think he was comparing the Eisenhower highway projects, for which people got compensated for their land takings, to the Chinese dispossession and forceable eviction of entire communities in the interest of private interests.
Some people, especially the color blind, cannot differentiate apples from oranges. It’s hard to explain colors to the color blind.
A better comparison would have been the U.S. SOTUS’s odious Kelo decision.
For reference purposes. Here are Zach’s words on the blog article in question.
Several people have asked why I bother to comment on so-called “conservative” blogs, such as Polipundit, many of whom make a claim toconservatism, but are, instead, decidedly right-wing.
Well, when I come across a clearly false assertion that has not been refuted by others, I am often compelled to post a direct reply to that specific assertion. Just because a blog is clearly right-wing; many others, called lurkers, may read the posts without comment. Some may be young, or just unknowing. As such, I believe it is important to respond to false assertions, especially on high-traffic sites that purport to have influence.
I also make the note that Zach didn’t claim what I said about China is untrue. He just used the normal Leftist thinking habit of attributing something bad to America when you mention somebody in the world doing bad things that the Left is ignoring. It’s a sort of mental tick. If they don’t want to think about China and human rights, they’ll just find a train re-route to America. It’s not that they care whether Chinese policies are truly as they are described, because it’s not a high priority item for them.
But even if it was true that America nationalizes private property, who in America is proposing this “one authority” and this “expanded government power”? The Left, of course. So the Left uses their own sins in order to blame America, in order to divert the issue from subjects and nations that the LEft refuses to consider important.
The simplest explanation for why the Left approves or ignores Chinese policy on the matter of seizing private property is that the Left.. pretty much does the same things in their own backyard. So why would the Left criticize China for doing what the Left wants to be doing more of here in America?
Danny Lemieux: A better comparison would have been the U.S. SOTUS’s odious Kelo decision.
China has modernized their laws concerning private property over the last generation, though they still don’t have as stringent of protections as most western nations (and have a serious problem with organized thuggery). Nevertheless, here is an example of a “nail house”. The owners turned down an offer of more than three million yuan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chongqing_yangjiaping_2007.jpg
On the issue of Owen, don’t misunderstand the scenario here.
Neither Danny or the rest is utilizing Owen as an idol or fundamental pillar of faith on WMDs. There are 4 options when it comes to data analysis of different viewpoints. A is true and B is true. A is not true, B is true. B is true, A is not true. Both A and B are not true.
Owen’s viewpoints fall into the A and B both being true. His views are true on top of the previous analysis done by conservatives on Iraq, which includes people like Danny.
This serves the same purpose as collaboration between independent data sources or methodologies. When two people, totally independent of the other, both finds the same answer to a problem, using different starting points, methodologies, and tools, then it is a double positive confirmation that the answer is truly a solution to the problem. Rather than a false positive.
Don’t misunderstand here. This is entirely different from taking Owen’s views and replacing your own (A) with his (B), such that A=B, and if B is true, then A is true. That would not qualify as independent collaboration. This type of identity function is trusting in faith alone to obtain the truth. Normally a Leftist conceit in the modern world.
Btw, most people have no idea what they are talking about when they use the term “ad hominem”.
> I would add to what you said, Mike D, that we usually learn from each other. Just take two examples: Owen’s credentials regarding WMD, scientific issues and “China” shine through his commentary, as does Gringo’s re Latin American commentary. Their creds are are not in doubt for me.
I agree. I was wondering if Z “stepped away” for only about 36 hours, solely because Z lost control of the narrative. Owen in particular used “appeal to authority”, playing Z’s game precisely in the same manner, and was absolutely devastating. No possibly reply. Therefore, Z went away, but only until Owen’s comments could get lost in all the noise, only to then reappear and assert control of the narrative again. Perhaps.
Zachriel, either you explicitly discussed controlling the narrative on your blog, or you did not.
Which is it? If you’re not sure you did, or you don’t remember, just say so.
A wonderful parable about Chinese /Government stimulus projects:
Martin Friedman was touring a major Chinese public works project with his Chinese hosts. His Chinese hosts proudly showed how manual labor was using shovels and pails to move earth, thereby creating jobs for people rather than for equipment.
“Then why not have them use spoons?” asked Friedman
Ymar – it’s amazing to me how people feel obligated to criticize modern government policy on the basis of what happened hundreds of years ago. By that standard, all countries should be above criticism because we are all equally guilty. No doubt I should be held guilty because of the depredations of my Gaul, Viking and Germanic ancestors.
But that’s not how double standards work, of course.
By the rules of Leftist discourse, for example, Mexico is perfectly qualified to criticize the U.S. about illegal immigrant policies because the U.S. was not nice to Mexico back in the 1840s, irrespective of the inhumane and illegal ways Mexico treats illegal Central American immigrants that cross its southern border.
We have already addressed th same double-standard with regard to the American Indians. If whites killed American Indians, that was bad. If Indians killed other Indians and whites, well….that’s OK, then.
BTW – with respect to comments made on another thread, here’s a quick summary of the Mexican-American War:
-Mexico declares independence from Spain, becomes a dictatorship.
-Texas (Anglo and Spanish) declares independence from Mexico, becomes a Republic.
-Texas and U.S. agree to merge.
-Mexico says it will declare war.
-U.S. says it will merge with Texas anyway and decides California livin’ sounds pretty good too.
-Mexico attacks U.S. troops in Texas
-Mexico loses war. U.S. kicks Mexico out of California and Southwest.
-U.S. pays Mexico $18m compensation (8x what was paid for Louisiana Territory) for captured territories, so that Mexico can pay off its debts.
-Mexico accepts compensation, completing the transaction.
-New U.S. territories grow and prosper, Indians in new U.S. territories are treated better than in Mexico. Formerly “Mexican” families in U.S. territory, to this day, insist on being called “Spanish” Americans not “Mexican Americans”.
-Mexico continues to slaughter and enslave Indians and quickly degenerates into civil war, corruption and poverty.
-Mexico’s feelings are hurt. Especially when gold is discovered in California. They feel like victims.
To Mexico, its obvious: U.S. stole all the good parts of Mexico…the parts with the big modern cities, universities, first-rate agriculture, highway systems, good police protection and high salaries and left Mexico with all the bad parts.
Ergo, to the Left….it’s obvious: Mexico good, U.S. is just like the Nazis.
Mike D – the comments to which you refer were in the “comments” section of Z’s postings.
EDIT:
Replace collaborate with corroborates in my previous. Unintended opposite meaning there. It’s like I was doing modern historical de-construction.
Danny, the Russians have this joke they put into their fantasy literature.
You know dwarves like to mine right? So they have these dwarves mining in the Russian version of Tolkien’s world. And the King of Dwarves passes a law that says two handed mining picks are illegal to be made, distributed, or imported. Why are two handed picks illegal? Because they do 2X the work of a one handed pick, thus generating un-employment in the Kingdom of the Dwarves, where mining is the mainstay of the economy.
The Russians have this joke because Russians are familiar with Communist “theory” as part of their cultural psyche.
And so are Democrats.
Simple question, Zachriel, is/was Castro worse than Pinochet or not?
Mike Devx: I was wondering if Z “stepped away” for only about 36 hours, solely because Z lost control of the narrative.
As explained above, some commenters wanted to return to more casual conversation. Meanwhile, we were summoned. Zachriel uttered thrice.
Mike Devx: Owen in particular used “appeal to authority”, playing Z’s game precisely in the same manner, and was absolutely devastating.
An appeal to authority can be valid if certain conditions are met:
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
A proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html
None of those conditions have been met. Owen is not a recognized expert. He is making a claim contrary to the consensus of experts in the field. He refuses to provide specifics so that the claim can be verified. And he says he is not interested in making an argument, meaning he’s not interested in hearing any evidence that might contradict his stance. Hence, Owen is not making a valid appeal to authority.
Mike Devx: Zachriel, either you explicitly discussed controlling the narrative on your blog, or you did not.
That’s what *you* said, indeed, putting such words into quotation marks. No idea where you got the quote, and it is directly counter to the sense of what we have posted on the subject. We want to contribute positively to the conversation. Of course, things can be misconstrued, but thus far you have made a claim, and won’t support it when asked.
Danny Lemieux: … decides California livin’ sounds pretty good too.
That’s called imperialism. You want it, you take it. The question raised in the American Dominance thread concerned whether the U.S. ever dominated its neighbors. Obviously it did.
Isn’t it amusing that while Zach complains about what he calls conspiracy theories, he’s talking mumbo jumbo magical incantations about uttering it “thrice”? He might be barking up the wrong tree looking for that secret Witch’s Coven.
Don Quixote: Simple question, Zachriel, is/was Castro worse than Pinochet or not?
Simple to string the words together, but not simple in nature. Both regimes suppressed dissent, killing many political opponents immediately after coming to power, thousands fleeing. Castro’s regime implemented universal literacy and health care, while Pinochet built up the economy by forging close ties with the U.S. Importantly, Castro’s regime is still there, while Pinochet’s regime is gone.
DQ – you’re mean, making someone choose their favorite communist.
So you declare it a tie?
Zach’s attempting to differentiate between the “factual” nature between the two regimes, rather than the ethical or moral factor.
For example, Zach attaches no ethical worth to Pinochet’s giving up power and Castro refusing to do so. It’s not that it is even to him, but that it is worth zero one way or another.
I admire what Chile has accomplished:
Cuba literacy: 99.8%
Chile Literacy: 95.8%
Cuba per-capita GDP: $9,900
Chile Per-Capita GDP: $15,500
Freedom of Cubans to use their literacy to improve their lives: not much
Freedom of Chileans to use their literacy to improve their lives: very high
Reminds me….Napoleon also introduced universal education. What a great guy!
When Castro came to power, Cuba had the fourth highest standard of living in the Western Hemisphere.
Surely no one would try to say that, now.
Cuba had a middle class that was growing. In order to loot the wealth that was being generated, people like Castro initiated their Communist revolution.
If America had simply taken over the place after the Spanish-American wars, Cuba would be much better. And the US would have avoided nuclear missile crisis, obtained a couple of million productive citizens, and so forth. But due to people taking the advice of idiots, they let the Commies take control. With predictable results.
Danny, I’d take the per capita income for Cuba with a grain of salt. There is simply no such thing as a communist regime that reports data accurately, whether it applies to income, literacy, infant mortality, industrial and agricultural production, crime or educational levels.
I thought that Zach’s statement comparing Castro and Pinochet had its good points.
While Castro gets all the publicity for health and education, Pinochet’s record is comparable and in some ways superior to that of Castro. For lack of time, I will confine myself to health.
Some might say that Cuba’s having a life expectancy of 78.6 years, 5 years superior to that for Latin America, is a reason to praise Castro’s regime and to keep him in power. Maybe so. But how many people who trumpet that realize that for 1955-1960 a time which corresponds fairly well to pre-Castro Cuba, Cuba’s life expectancy of 62.4 years was 8.1 years better than Latin America? Castro inherited a pretty good health care system, with 1080 inhabitants per physician, a figure comparable to the US and Western Europe at the time.
Cuba’s life expectancy has increased 16 years since Castro took over [1955-1960 figure]. While that is a good record, Latin America’s life expectancy has increased 19 years since then. It is not necessary to impose a totalitarian dictatorship to have good progress in public health. Latin America as whole, whatever its problems have been over the last half century, has had both greater freedom than totalitarian Cuba and greater improvement in health care than totalitarian Cuba, judging by increase in life expectancy.
Infant mortality data changes depending on the source. The UN’s Economic Commision on Latin America, also known as ECLA or CEPAL in its Spanish acronym, has two different tables, one for five year averages [CELAD] and one for annual figures [IGME]. In many details they do not agree, but they do agree on overall trends.
For a number of reasons it is appropriate to compare performance in health with the first 15-16 years of Castro’s rule with the Pinochet’s regime time in power. For one, the time periods are similar. For another reason, there appears to have been about a 15 year lag between the two countries. Life expectancy in Cuba for 1955-1960 was 62.4 years; it was 63.6 years for Chile for 1970-1975. Similarly, CELAD tables for infant mortality show Cuba’s to have been 69.9 for 1955-1960; Chile’s was 68.6 for 1970-1975.We get similar starting points, both for data and for the beginnings of the regimes.
For 1955-1960 to 1970-1975 [CELAD table], Cuba’s infant mortality went from 69.9 to 38.5, an absolute drop of 31.4 and a percentage decrease of 45%. For 1970-1975 to 1985-1990, Chile’s infant mortality went from 68.6 to 18.4, an absolute drop of 50.2 and a percentage drop of 73%. Pinochet’s regime outperforms Castro’s regime.
The IGME table at the ECLA website has annual figures for infant mortality. Castro’s Cuba lowered infant mortality from 45.2 in 1959 to to 25.5 by 1975, a span of 16 years. By comparison Pinochet’s Chile lowered infant mortality from 47.3 in 1976 to 25.7 in 1982, a span of 6 years.
What makes the comparable performance of Chile’s health care system stand out even more is that Cuba had a lot more physicians. Cuba had 1080 inhabitants per physician in 1960. Chile had 1810 inhabitants per physician in 1973, and averaged over 2000 inhabitants per physican from 1973-1989. Pinochet’s Chile had a better record in reducing infant mortality than Cuba with fewer physicians. It did more with less.
While Castro did not inherit a derelict health care system, neither did Pinochet. From 1955-1960 to 1970-1975, Chile’s infant mortality declined by 42%, a figure comparable to Castro’s Cuba of 45% for that time. From 1955-60 to 1970-1975 the gap in life expectancy between Cuba and Chile remained at about 6 years, indicating similar progress in life expectancy. You don’t need a totalitarian system to improve health care. From 1970-1975 to 1985-1990, life expectancy in Chile increased to 72.7 years, narrowing the gap in life expectancy with Cuba from 6.3 years to 1.9 years, indicating superior performance under the Pinochet regime.
While there are some academics who are aware of Pinochet’s performance on health care- Nicholas Eberstadt is the first author who brought it to my attention- this information is not in the popular narrative about Pinochet.
Pinochet entered and left with votes. The August 22, 1973 Resolution from the Chamber of Deputies was an invitation to a coup, as Allende said. The 1988 Referendum vote of NO led to elections, and the end of 16 years of military rule. Castro remains after 52 years.
Chile was very fortunate to get a dictator as competent as Pinochet. Most dictators are competent only at repressing opposition, not at running an economy. Milicos [slang for military] take over thinking they can do better than the corrupt and incompetent civilians, and in most cases they are more corrupt and more incompetent than the civilians. Look at the record of of Chile’s neighbors in Argentina, Bolivia, and Peru. Not to mention Cuba.The man on horseback is not something that the US imposed on Latin America, but a long standing part of the culture. With 150 years of men on horseback preceding a 40 year interval of democracy, Venezuela reverted back to the man on horseback, in the form of Hugo Chavez.
Which reminds me of a joke from Guatemala about President General Lucas, perhaps Guatemala’s worst PG in the last 50 years. Who is the most constipated woman in Guatemala? The mother of President Lucas. It took her nine months to have a bowel movement.
1) Note: infant mortality is measured in infant deaths per 1,000 live births.
http://www.eclac.org/estadisticas/bases/
Got it from the CIA Fact Book, CharlesM, which is probably the best-available public source for info.
However, remember per-capita GDP is total economic output divided by population. It doesn’t say where the GDP output goes. It certainly is the case that the average Cuban receives very little of that GDP. Castro, on the other hand, is one of the world’s richest men.
Pinochet didn’t loot his country’s wealth.
However, Charles M, you make a good point: data output is only as good as the quality of the data input. Same applies to life expectancy. We know they aren’t telling the truth.
A lot of college graduates wouldn’t be able to make the connection Danny made on the GDP numbers.
They would look at the numbers and stop there, using them as a direct comparison of general status. It takes a deeper understanding of human affairs to realize that total wealth isn’t distributed evenly in a Communist dictatorship.
If progressive revolutions are designed to make the economy better by redistributing wealth from the rich to social services, then the way the Left carries it out is putting the egg before the chicken. They are trying to solve problems that result from the existence of themselves.
When pro-Obama care advocates arise, they can never answer why it is that the government is now given power to fix a problem that is the result of government machinations in healthcare. They either don’t answer, like most Obama care proponents, or they start talking about insurance companies or the millions of uninsured in America.
“Choice” is only authorized by the LEft if you choose what they decide for you. In the case of abortion, it is many. In the case of insurance, it is “you better have it”.
“However, remember per-capita GDP is total economic output divided by population. It doesn’t say where the GDP output goes. It certainly is the case that the average Cuban receives very little of that GDP. Castro, on the other hand, is one of the world’s richest men.”
Good point. It’s worth pointing out that communist countries are kleptocracies, where the ruling elite takes a huge cut off the top before letting those below have what’s left.
As far as where GDP goes, in communist countries the military has an inordinate claim on the nation’s wealth. It’s estimated (according to Gorbachev) that the USSR spent about 20 percent of its GNP on defense, a percentage almost four times that of the United States. I wouldn’t be surprised that once the Castro brothers have fled, or been buried or properly executed, we’ll find out that Cuba was spending a like amount of its sustenance on the military.
(But we must never, never ever forget that communists increase literacy—even though all you can read is commie crap—and access to some of the best veterinary-level medical care in the world.)
Just in case someone wants objective numbers on Cuban health and Cuban health care, albeit it slightly historical at this point, I did a study in 1996 on Cuban military readiness, focusing exp. on air defense.
At the time, the Cuban military was reporting entire bases as out of action because of the incidence of serious disease. On several, the rate of hepatitis infection was over 30%.
Cuban gov’t reports also stated that the proportion of children with serious vision problems resulting from vitamin deficiencies was almost 25%. The rates were highest in the countryside, as would be expected.
It should be noted that this was a just a few years after Cuba stopped getting Soviet support and things were even worse than usual.
Here is a factoid which shows how Cuba has gone downhill . According to Renaissance and Decay,Cuba ranked 5th in the world in TVs per capita, at a time when TVs were the cutting edge in consumer electronics. Today, Cuba ranks 119 out of 204 countries in internet users per 100 people.
Once when I brought this up in a lefty forum, the reply was that Cuba wasn’t into “consumerism.” This in an online discussion. Consumer goods are for me, not for thee. There is a big internet cable being laid between Venezuela and Cuba. Here is how Cuba compares with Latin America.
Jamaica 57
Uruguay 40
Colombia 38
Brazil 38
Chile 32
Costa Rica 32
Latin America & Caribbean 29
Argentina 28
Panama 27
Venezuela, RB 26
Peru 25
Mexico 22
Dominican Republic 22
Trinidad and Tobago 17
Guatemala 14
Honduras 13
Cuba 13
Bolivia 11
El Salvador 11
Haiti 10
Nicaragua 3
http://www1.lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/asce/cuba8/30smith.pdf Renaissance and Decay
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20535285~menuPK:1192694~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html
Gringo: One of the things to note about totalitarian states is tha they always have a lot of TVs. The perfect totalitarian state in one in which everyone has a TV, but no one has a phone — or an internet connection.
Charles: I’m not current on this, but back when, estimates of what Cuba spent on its military were higher than 20% — 30% to 35% or more would not shock me. The Cuban military was heavy supported by the Soviets and when they pulled out, this burden fell on the Cuban gov’t, hence the much higher relative numbers.
And since Castro legitimized his rule by playing up the constant threat of invasion by the US, military spending could not be easily cut, without sending the wrong message. Castro has kept Cuba on a war footing since he came to power, using that excuse to keep the people scraping by and hence easier to control.
Over the years, this has lead to sick symbiosis between the Cuban Gov’t and some anti-Castro groups. The anti-castro groups needed to attack Cuba to show that they were doing something and were relevant — the Cuban Gov’t needed to be attacked to show the people they were under constant threat.
This went on for so long that by the early 90s, the gov’t agents and members of anti-Castro groups were actually meeting regularly to arrange where and when and how attacks were going to take place.
Very perverse political theatre indeed….
Charles M: (But we must never, never ever forget that communists increase…and access to some of the best veterinary-level medical care in the world.)
Charles M, if I was a veterinarian, I would be offended.
Ymarsakar: For example, Zach attaches no ethical worth to Pinochet’s giving up power and Castro refusing to do so. It’s not that it is even to him, but that it is worth zero one way or another.
This has been addressed several times, in conversations to which you were a part. It’s important that you make some attempt to understand the position so as to not continue to misrepresent it. Please do so.
Danny Lemieux: Cuba per-capita GDP: $9,900. Chile Per-Capita GDP: $15,500.
Just throwing numbers up doesn’t lead to understanding. For instance, Cuba has been under embargo by its close and economically powerful neighbor for decades. Cuba and Chile started in different places, with the island nation having far fewer natural resources, and a much more troubled colonial history. Cuba lags behind other Latin American nations, but not radically so.
Michael Adams: When Castro came to power, Cuba had the fourth highest standard of living in the Western Hemisphere.
For some. But the situation was highly inequitable, poverty was endemic, and there were few political options for reform.
Gringo: It is not necessary to impose a totalitarian dictatorship to have good progress in public health.
Certainly not. In the long run, it is detrimental because new leaders may or may not continue the policies that lead to social progress. That’s why democratic societies work better — in the long run —, with institutions working at all levels in society.
Gringo: Castro remains after 52 years.
Castro is no George Washington.
Danny Lemieux: Pinochet didn’t loot his country’s wealth.
In 2004, a United States Senate money laundering investigation led by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Norm Coleman (R-MN)—ordered in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks—uncovered a network of over 125 securities and bank accounts at Riggs Bank and other U.S. financial institutions used by Pinochet and his associates for twenty-five years to secretly move millions of dollars.
Ymarsakar: It takes a deeper understanding of human affairs to realize that total wealth isn’t distributed evenly in a Communist dictatorship.
Indeed. Income is much more evenly distributed in Cuba with a Gini Index that has dropped from 0.55 to 0.22 (1953 to 1986). In Chile, despite economic progress, the lower classes have actually lost economic ground.
Help with the moderation queue, please.
(Note to selves. Break up comments before posting.)
Stop posting more than 2 links and summarize the information, in your own words, Zach. Did you never learn to restate things in your own words?
Owen to Gringo:
One of the things to note about totalitarian states is that they always have a lot of TVs. The perfect totalitarian state in one in which everyone has a TV, but no one has a phone — or an internet connection.
I should have made it more explicit, that the 5th in the world in TVs per capita figure was from pre-Castro Cuba. Castro inherited that, as he inherited the 1080 MDs per capita. While Castro certainly used the TVs for his propaganda, the high incidence of TVs did not come about from his rectifying a lack of TVs on the island.
From 1960 to 2008, Cuba went from 3rd in telephone lines per capita in Latin America to 19th. This does not include cell phones, which today are ubiquitous in the Third World. Cuba ranks last in Latin America in cell phone subscriptions per capita. When you add landlines plus cell phones, Cuba is dead last at 13 per capita, compared to Latin America’s overall average of 99. [I will not add the link, but it is the World Bank link at my comment #77]
Here is a factoid for all you Ubre Blanca [White Udder] fans. Ubre Blanca was the high producing wonder cow which Castro touted as the solution for Cuban milk production.
Milk production % increase 1961- 2008
Cuba 56%
South America 317%
Central America 352%
Milk production , metric tons 1961
Cuba 350,000
South America 14,177,383
Central America 3,138,423
Milk production , metric tons 2008
Cuba 545,500
South America 59,093,460
Central America 14,194,999
The Socialist Wonder which talks about equal sharing cannot produce. Milk production increased a paltry 56% in a half century in Cuba, compared to milk production more than quadrupling in Central America and South America. Poverty is shared equally in Cuba, except for the Nomenklatura, of course. They get along quite well. Which brings forth a propaganda point about Castro and his useful idiots. When they talk about inequality outside of Cuba, they refer to the elites in those countries. When they talk about equality in Cuba, they exclude the Nomenklatura, which live much better than the rest of Cuba.
How does the embargo explain the pathetic record of Cuba on milk production? After all, Fidel had Ubre Blanca. Was the CIA shooting cows? How does the embargo explain Cuba’s record on phones? It isn’t as if the US were the only manufacturer of phones. The Soviet Union provided a very hefty subsidy to Cuba for 30 years, which should have provided any jump-start Cuba needed to transition from the US market. Currently Cuba may purchase food and medicine from the US. However, it must pay in cash. Given the way that Castro stiffs his creditors, this is good policy. In 2009, the US was the fourth ranked exporter to Cuba, behind Venezuela, the PRC, and Spain. The US has been ranked fourth or fifth since 2004- do not see data before that. Cuba has trade with about 100 countries.
This should provide some ammunition against the Castro apologists.
[The phone data required some data processing, downloaded from a zip file.]
FAO food production:
http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
Trade data:
one.cu with www in front [so it doesn't get held up.]
Sector Externo Foreign sector
8.6- Importaciones según país de origen de las mercancías por países seleccionados y áreas geográficas
Imports of goods according to their country of origin in selected countries and geographical areas
Goodness gracious Book, a comment with ONE LINK gets held up.
Breaking up a blocked comment.
Owen to Gringo:
One of the things to note about totalitarian states is that they always have a lot of TVs. The perfect totalitarian state in one in which everyone has a TV, but no one has a phone — or an internet connection.
I should have made it more explicit, that the 5th in the world in TVs per capita figure was from pre-Castro Cuba. Castro inherited that, as he inherited the 1080 MDs per capita. While Castro certainly used the TVs for his propaganda, the high incidence of TVs did not come about from his rectifying a lack of TVs on the island.
From 1960 to 2008, Cuba went from 3rd in telephone lines per capita in Latin America to 19th. This does not include cell phones, which today are ubiquitous in the Third World. Cuba ranks last in Latin America in cell phone subscriptions per capita. When you add landlines plus cell phones, Cuba is dead last at 13 per capita, compared to Latin America’s overall average of 99. [I will not add the link, but it is the World Bank link at my comment #77.]
Breaking up a comment, phase two.
Here is a factoid for all you Ubre Blanca [White Udder] fans. Ubre Blanca was the high producing wonder cow which Castro touted as the solution for Cuban milk production.
Milk production % increase 1961- 2008
Cuba 56%
South America 317%
Central America 352%
Milk production , metric tons 1961
Cuba 350,000
South America 14,177,383
Central America 3,138,423
Milk production , metric tons 2008
Cuba 545,500
South America 59,093,460
Central America 14,194,999
The Socialist Wonder which talks about equal sharing cannot produce. Milk production increased a paltry 56% in a half century in Cuba, compared to milk production more than quadrupling in Central America and South America. Poverty is shared equally in Cuba, except for the Nomenklatura, of course. They get along quite well. Which brings forth a propaganda point about Castro and his useful idiots. When they talk about inequality outside of Cuba, they refer to the elites in those countries. When they talk about equality in Cuba, they exclude the Nomenklatura, which live much better than the rest of Cuba.
How does the embargo explain the pathetic record of Cuba on milk production? After all, Fidel had Ubre Blanca. Was the CIA shooting cows? How does the embargo explain Cuba’s record on phones?[]see my previous comment] It isn’t as if the US were the only manufacturer of phones. The Soviet Union provided a very hefty subsidy to Cuba for 30 years, which should have provided any jump-start Cuba needed to transition from the US market. Currently Cuba may purchase food and medicine from the US. However, it must pay in cash. Given the way that Castro stiffs his creditors, this is good policy. In 2009, the US was the fourth ranked exporter to Cuba, behind Venezuela, the PRC, and Spain. The US has been ranked fourth or fifth since 2004- do not see data before that. Cuba has trade with about 100 countries.
This should provide some ammunition against the Castro apologists.
Hope this will finesse the blocking. Final phase, I hope.
http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx Milk production
Trade data from one.cu with www and the http thingy.
Sector Externo Foreign sector
8.6- Importaciones según país de origen de las mercancías por países seleccionados y áreas geográficas
Imports of goods according to their country of origin in selected countries and geographical areas
I should have waited.
“I should have waited.”
The lament of many a young thing.
Like I said before, wordpress has your comments but it’s not yet reached the system. It auto blocks 2 plus links. If you have one link and it isn’t going through, it’s called lag delay between servers.
Mike Devx: Zachriel, either you explicitly discussed controlling the narrative on your blog, or you did not.
Zachriel: That’s what *you* said, indeed, putting such words into quotation marks. No idea where you got the quote, and it is directly counter to the sense of what we have posted on the subject. We want to contribute positively to the conversation. Of course, things can be misconstrued, but thus far you have made a claim, and won’t support it when asked.
I apologize and withdraw the comment. You’re right, I couldn’t find anything in your blog entries nor in your comments on your own blog that indicated that you deliberately sought to control the narrative. I withdraw the comment and apologize. If anyone else did run across such comments, then let me know, as I couldn’t find them at zachriel.blogspot.com (where I looked).
I use quotes around “controlling the narrative” because it has a meaning as a phrase: Using commentary not as a means of participation and honest argumentation, but rather for a deliberate and planned program of disruption. If you are following the blogging rules that you once said on your blog (in the Clogging entry), then you’re not “controlling the narrative”.
I had an image form in my head – on a moon of Jupiter, a group of five teenagers, with downbeat expressions on their faces, file into the throne room and stand in a line before the throne, on which sits a wizened old Jovian. One of them steps forward and says, “Master, we have lost control of the narrative on BookwormRoom. We do not know what to do.” Things went rapidly off the rails from there, including one teenager continually interrupting, “We need to go to the bathroom, and we need to go now! The rest of Us do not seem to be listening to us!” With teenager insults flying, and the Master banishing them to their rooms with a final admonition, “And no more World Of Warcraft until the next lunar cycle!” But I decided the whole thing might be too close to ad-hominem, not worth fleshing out into comment satire.
Mike Devx: I apologize and withdraw the comment.
S’right.
Correction: in my comments #84 and #86, “telephone lines per capita” and “phones per capita” should read “telephone lines per 100 inhabitants” and “phones per 100 inhabitants.”