[maxiep]

Originally Posted by MARIS61

The article is drivel from someone dangerously out of touch with reality.

Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a professor at George Mason University School of Law.

http://www.hoover.org/bios/pberkowitz.html

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by barfo

You can surely understand the feeling perfectly, though, since it is exactly the same effect as the hatred that the right had for Bill Clinton eight years ago.

But, of course, that hatred was justified. He got a blowjob. Maybe more than one.

barfo

I find it difficult to understand the vitriol toward either Presidents Clinton or Bush. Both are people that tried to do what they felt was right for their country, even though they did it from two different perspectives and two different set of circumstances.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

I find it difficult to understand the vitriol toward either Presidents Clinton or Bush. Both are people that tried to do what they felt was right for their country, even though they did it from two different perspectives and two different set of circumstances.

Same here. Despite being one of those damn liberals, I don't think Bush is any sort of evil. I do think he's been very wrong on a whole lot of things, and he's got no talent whatsoever for hiring/appointing people, and his mistakes have cost the country an enormous of money and some lives, but I also think he's honestly doing the best he can. He's the wrong guy for the job, but it isn't all his fault that it's his job. He volunteered, but he didn't elect himself.

barfo

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by barfo

Same here. Despite being one of those damn liberals, I don't think Bush is any sort of evil. I do think he's been very wrong on a whole lot of things, and he's got no talent whatsoever for hiring/appointing people, and his mistakes have cost the country an enormous of money and some lives, but I also think he's honestly doing the best he can. He's the wrong guy for the job, but it isn't all his fault that it's his job. He volunteered, but he didn't elect himself.

barfo

I would have to agree with this sentiment as well. IMO Bush is just not very intelligent when it comes down to it...plain stupid really. Certainly not "evil"....Cheney I am not so sure about.

[sa1177]

Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a professor at George Mason University School of Law.

While these degrees give credence to the man's ability and knowledge to write such a article. IMO they have no bearing on the content, thesis, and information therein it.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by sa1177

While these degrees give credence to the man's ability and knowledge to write such a article. IMO they have no bearing on the content, thesis, and information therein it.

I also attached his bio. The purpose for doing so is to show he's no whackjob writing articles in a foil-lined room. Saying that he is "someone dangerously out of touch with reality" simply because you don't agree with his position is simply silly.

As for calling the article "drivel", that again is merely opinion. Personally, I found it well-reasoned and cogent. He asks a simple question: Why are certain people--who pride themselves on their intellect and their ability to dispassionately dissect an issue--incapable of applying those qualities to this particular president? He then goes on to state that the inability to analyze the viewpoints of President Bush rationally clouds that very judgment and analytical ability of which they're so rightfully proud.

[e_blazer1]

I see little difference between the knee-jerk hatred of Bush and everything he stands for by a large group of left-wingers, than the knee-jerk hatred of Hillary Clinton and everything she stands for by a large group of right-wingers. Today, this country is about as polarized as it's been since the McCarthy era. It seemed to me that during the 60's and 70's there was a far greater middle ground than you see today and that this afforded opportunities for compromises that could actually lead to productive legislation. When was the last time you saw any sort of compromise on any important legislation in Washington DC?

[Talkhard]

Drivel Stupid, childish, or senseless talk.

The fact that someone on the Left would accuse this distinguished Stanford professor of "senseless" talk is itself a proof of his thesis; i.e., that when it comes to Bush, the Left is incapable of rational discussion or fair analysis.

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Drivel Stupid, childish, or senseless talk.

The fact that someone on the Left would accuse this distinguished Stanford professor of "senseless" talk is itself a proof of his thesis; i.e., that when it comes to Bush, the Left is incapable of rational discussion or fair analysis.

Do you really believe this?....because it's grossly inaccurate. Do you do alot of reading of articles by "left" wing authors?

[hoojacks]

It's unwise to deny that Bush causes hatred in many people. To me, hate is a very strong emotion and in this case, a reaction to the constant blundering of an incompetent man running (and ruining) the country we love.

On the article: Like TalkHard, Peter Berkowitz is taking the examples of a few and then broadly painting large swaths of a certain group as such.

Bush hatred is distinguished by the pride intellectuals have taken in their hatred, openly endorsing it as a virtue and enthusiastically proclaiming that their hatred is not only a rational response to the president and his administration but a mark of good moral hygiene.

No where in the article does he give an example of this actually happening. He is assuming that since many progressives hate Bush, that they "enthusiastically proclaim" their hatred as a virtue, a rational response and a show of good morals. All that he has is anecdotal evidence of an audience member at a panel he recently attended. Sorry, it's going to take more than a few personal examples to convince me that liberal intellectuals are openly and enthusiastically proclaiming hatred as a virtue.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Drivel Stupid, childish, or senseless talk.

The fact that someone on the Left would accuse this distinguished Stanford professor of "senseless" talk is itself a proof of his thesis; i.e., that when it comes to Bush, the Left is incapable of rational discussion or fair analysis.

No, sorry, that does not follow. "The Left" is not some borg-like device where all members think exactly alike. The fact that someone that you perceive of as being "on the Left" said something doesn't prove anything at all about "the Left".

But I suppose I'm just twisting your words again, somehow.

barfo

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Drivel Stupid, childish, or senseless talk.

The fact that someone on the Left would accuse this distinguished Stanford professor of "senseless" talk is itself a proof of his thesis; i.e., that when it comes to Bush, the Left is incapable of rational discussion or fair analysis.

A point of clarification:

The Hoover Institution is not part of Stanford. It's located *at* Stanford, but it is not a branch *of* Stanford and it is subject to the same high academic standards as the University. A few of the better Hoover Fellows have cross-postings to actual Stanford academic departments, but most are *not* "Stanford professors" at all. The Hoover Institution does not have a very strong academic reputation, and is basically a highly-ideological right wing think tank (similar to the Cascade Policy Institute in the NW), dedicated to advancing right wing political interests. As an academic/intellectual institution, the Hoover exists mainly to dish out welfare to mediocre right-wing academics who can't get real jobs at real universities.

It does have an incredible library and archives, however. Half the stuff in my dissertation came from that place. Highlight of the years I spent working there: running into Newt Gingrich (yep, he's a Hoover Fellow) in the bathroom.

UPDATE: Just checked the campus directory and this guy Berkowitz is definitely *not* one of the more prestigious Hoover Fellows who's also got an academic posting. He's a pure right-wing hack. He doesn't even appear to have publications in real academic journals; all his writings appear in the usual right-wing propaganda organs: WSJ editorial page, Weekly Standard, National Review Online, etc.

Stepping Razor

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by barfo

No, sorry, that does not follow. "The Left" is not some borg-like device where all members think exactly alike. The fact that someone that you perceive of as being "on the Left" said something doesn't prove anything at all about "the Left".

But I suppose I'm just twisting your words again, somehow.

barfo

Clearly you haven't received today's marching orders, comrade. The Comintern demands solidarity and obedience from all.