I reckon that "reality-based community" is meant to be the antonym of "faith-based community", Bush having introduced some various initiatives regarding the former. Although the connection to the argument about who defines reality is apposite as well.

Greetings,

I'm fairly sure that by now this is the 100th or greater time you've seen this, but I believe the "point" of the slogan is that reality is the antonym of faith.

--Greg Grose

So those that voted for Kerry get to
live in a different reality than the
rest of the world?

Sounds a lot like a Harry Turtledove
book to me.

Actually, it's just another collection of phonemes that mean "We're right and everyone else is wrong and stupid."

It's a sentiment as old as history.

My sister considers herself to be in the "Reality Based Community." I consider her delusional. I present as evidence the following exchange. My sister has refered to Bush as Hitler. In a series of e-mails I patiently explained that Bush couldn't be Hitler since Hitler was dead. He also couldn't be a "new Hitler" since the two men have policies almost diametrically opposed. Most significantly, Bush is attempting to replace genocidal dictatorships with secular democracies. Hitler did everything he could do to destroy democracies and replace them with genocidal dictators. I thought my sister might understand the difference. I also pointed out that Hitler was a starving artist who joined the National Socialist Party, supported gun control, abortion, government control of corporations, was an athiest with an affinity for paganism, hated Jews and allied himself with radical Muslims. I then noted that the Democratic Party, not the Republicans, had a platform which came closest to Hitler's. In other words, using objective reality, not delustional rantings, Hitler is closer politically to the Democrats than to Bush. My sister sent me this in response:

"Bush is backed by goups I wouldn't affiliate myself with because they are not conservatives...they are radicals with a philosophy similar to fanatics worldwide. That is, intolerence for all things different then themselves. Wow, sounds like similiar behavior...don't we hear about all the radical muslims that are fighting a holy war killing everyone that is different. Holy shmoly...I think we are doing the same thing. You're either with us or against us. No room for differences and we'll just kill all those that don't agree or put you in jail or deny you your civil rights or make it very difficult to live a good life. Sounds like a return to the dark ages just disguised as "good for us" and a little more high tech than the radical islamists that are throwing bombs and rocks in the desert. Like here in the US...yelling GOD at the top of our lungs.
I thought here in the US we took the constitution seriously and did not willfully choose to violate it's tenents. There is movement alive that has been working on it since before our constitution was written. [I can't quite figure this one out. I think she means that a secret cabal has been working to undermine the constituion, even before it was written, but I'm not sure. - David] Because this current administration and those "behind the scenes" neo conservatives and theocrats are working towards eroding what I believe is a profound document I cannot in good faith and conscience vote for or support them. I find The Bush/Cheney ticket hard to swallow and huge portions of the GOP population as fanatical. I am saddened to find so many references to Kerry and the democratic party as Nazis, even from you. It is apparent that historically the GOP much closer resembles the Movement leading up to and including the Nazis."

I'll let you decide who is a member of the Reality Based Community.

I had no idea!

This is the hep way to say what was in 1990s jargon "politically correct" or in the Soviet Union was termed "the sole progressive world view".

"Faith" in the context of having a vision of what the would could and should be is critical to achieving anything.

Consider Europe in the late 1930s. Chamberlain, member of the "reality-based community" opted to appease Germany, while Churchill (with a vision of Hitler's Germany defeated and his nearby neighbors freed) recognized the need to confront and defeat tyranny to make England safe.

Ditto for Reagan vs. Carter. One saw the "reality" of malaise, the other had a vision of greatness. One thought the US had to live with Soviet domination in the world, the other defeated Communist tyranny across the globe. I'll take a positive vision of economic and political liberty over "realistic" status-quo tyranny in the Middle East. We've seen the fruits of the Scowcroft / Kissinger approach the past 25 years.

So you're telling me the people who, not more than two months ago, were saying that a man in Texas - a man who didn't know how to type, mind - acquired and used a *four thousand dollar* typesetting machine to compose terse, secret memos to himself; that this man made a dozen or so highly technical adjustments to that machine, all of which *just happened* to line up perfectly with the default settings on Microsoft Word, a program which didn't even exist until several years after his death; and that these memos, which contained the bombshell revelation that Bush missed his mo-fo-ing PHYSICAL thirty years ago, yes, these highly charged *dynamite* memos would grip the electorate with such fiery passion that it would rush to the polls like an hoard of keening devils and swing the entire election out of pure vengeance; you're telling me that the very people who believed EVERY WORD of this utterly ridiculous narrative and who tried to convince others of its truth, ignoring raised eyebrows and helpless laughter; these very same people are now calling themselves the farking "REALITY-BASED community"?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Great jumping butterballs!

It IS to laugh.

As one who voted for the freedom of the Iraqi people -- i.e., for the re-election of Geroge Bush -- I think I am a member of the reality based community. In other words, I understand the dangerous worl in which we live -- and which the "community of nation" is incapable of policing.

As above commenters note, the term is used by Suskind and other secularists to slander Christians, who are seen as believing in the Iraq invasion, not because it makes sense, but because they think God wants us to invade Iraq. A more un-real view of conservative Christians would be hard to formulate. It is more of the in-your-face hypocrisy of the left, like lying that Bush lied.

The blue state bubble heads will do anything to keep from comprehending what red state America gets right. That would be giving in to the "enemy." So they look for excuses to dismiss whatever anyone else has to say. Their unreality is officially "reality," so nothing else matters. Thus Christianity, which believes in liberty as the necessary condition for moral progress, and which gave birth to America's political liberty, is equated by the "reality based" secularists with the Taliban. Eyes squeezed tight shut, they are pure partisan thinkers, impervious to all reason and evidence that seems to militate against their presumptions. Perfectly unreal.

David, bless you for keeping some kind of dialogue with your sister open. Bless her for for her willingness to talk.

In my family, NO ONE wants to talk about my reality based perceptions, but for the life of me I can't figure out why real buildings burning and real people murdered are not reality.

I like a President with big dreams for spreading liberty as the solution to the problem we face. That's about as American as a person can get.
Nitro Nora

In replacing "faith" with "reality" these folks simply created a palatable mantra or "faith" to inure them to the whims of objective reality.

The moral equivalence crowd -- "don't we hear about all the radical muslims that are fighting a holy war killing everyone that is different. Holy shmoly...I think we are doing the same thing. You're either with us or against us. No room for differences and we'll just kill all those that don't agree" -- never fails to piss me off. I'd bet most, if not all, of the Iraqi bloggers would agree.

Of course, many of these same people (our lefty nutters) don't see any difference between breaking into someone's home and killing someone, and killing someone who has broken into your own home who is going to kill *you*.

This, writ large, is the problem of Islamic Fundamentalism. This is a group defined by their desire to kill everyone who won't convert. The "Reality Challenged Community" seems to think that everyone was happily frolicking with kittens and puppies until Bushitlerhaliburton went and pissed in our collective cheerios by launching a war of aggression against the peaceful militant Islamists. Right. And rays of sunshine come out of my ass.

They can roll over and surrender all they want, but they can not, WILL NOT, make the rest of us go along with it.

We're like a bunch of people pursued by a lion, and one of us demands that we stop to reason with it. They can stop and try if they want, but if they try to slow us down or deflect our aim, I'm going to shoot their ass without a moment's hesitation.

It seems correct that "reality-based community" is a secular response to "faith-based community." The positive aspects of the FBC would include compassion, loving your neighbor, treating your family, friends, and community with respect and decency in words and deeds. There is also an element of "tough love." The point of the RBC is to completely sidestep any of these positive attributes. Instead, they reduce the FBC to superstitious fools who want to run (but will ruin) other people lives.

I'm always deeply suspicious of people who use stuff like "In the 'real world'...", and other constructions to argue. They are trying to use a cheap "argument to authority" without actually identifying the authority.

Aren't these the same people who used to assert that reality is a crutch for people who can't face drugs?

'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'

Sounds like rationalism to me. These folks are forever eating the menu having lost the ability to discern the difference between it and the meal. Like children, they don't understand that what the world is (the world) and what they think the world is (thoughts in their heads) are two different things.

:jackson

reality based individuals live in a parallel world in which 9/11 was the fault of the USA, where Republicans wish to poison the air so grandchildren of Democrats will die(though reality based people drive SUVs). I suggest the term "alternate worm hole people"

Ironic that the "reality-based community" has chosen a sterotype (the moronic, hypocritical, bigot) to describe those with whom they disagree. This, of course, allows the RBC to create their own reality - one in which there are no good-faith disputes over policy or culture - and insolate their beliefs from any debate or empirical examination.

The RBC have already decided that anti-gay bigotry cost them this election. This will become the "Bush stole Florida" meme of 2004 - no matter how much evidence contradicts this "reality", 4 years from now it will still be gospel for those who believe themselves to be influenced only by their superior understanding of the real world.

I'd assumed they were talking Reality Television as a way to seperate East coast lefties from their West coast ideological allies. You know Hollywood lefties create fantasy television that requires a script and actors.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, here is a freakin' library. Don't deny yourself this chance to witness reality.

http://www.zombietime.com

where can I pick up a "history's actor" t-shirt?

Eric,

I am one in the self-professed "reality-based community" who you are criticizing. I am also a devoted follower of Christ, and I don't find the two to be mutually exclusive despite what some of my brothers and sisters have said here. I will say that the "left" is not an easy place for Christians to be right now because of the very generalizations you have stated.

As a self-professed member of the "reality-based community" I am writing here to say that you have a very good point. I happen to disagree with the manner in which the Bush administration has conducted itself, but the whole "reality-based community" phrase is so polarizing that it simply cuts off all chance of debate. I am willing to say "shame on me" for getting sucked into it. I hope that as the anger cools, some of my liberal colleagues will also take points such as yours to heart.

That said, your community here appears to be tossing about labels and vitriol with the same abandon that you accuse our liberals of, don't you think? Perhaps you all feel that's justified by your man's mandate, but perhaps you should try to read below the surface of Eric's piece.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be angry about what has been thrown about in the past two years. Eric, your post itself has that anger in it -- and it's well justified. However, if I'm reading you correctly, below the anger you highlight real problems that all this labelling has caused, and real ways in which facts are simply ignored when such labels are thrown around. The polarization is preventing any constructive communication between "red" and "blue." (Those terms themselves hide the fact that most Americans are some shade of "purple.")

The "bravos" are deserved, as Eric's essay is an important, well-stated critique, but I think a lot of you are missing the heart of Eric's point. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the point really was to say, "Nyah nyah! We were right!"

Do responses like these advance reality?

The "Reality Based Community" is composed of those who are convinced
the world is giant "Reality TV "
program, and the losers are merely
the less skillfull players.

They think if they don't like you,
they can just vote you off the show.

Oooops!

I think the distinction being made is the one made in this study from the University of Maryland:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

Funny how the "reality based community" by and large doesn't subscribe to The Wall Street Journal, which would have told them 11 months ago that Bush was going to win. (Oh, and they also warned Kerry not to run on his Vietnam service, that Dean was a nutjob, that Swift Vets would be impossible for Kerry to answer, that young people were not going to show up to vote, that college-age kids were becoming more conservative, etc.)

If these boobs knew so much about reality, then they wouldn't have been so surprised by their whooping. It sure didn't surprise me, even after those exit polls were released (remember how bad they were in 2000?).

Here's a hint for getting in touch with reality: buy a WSJ once in a while and get your head out of the NYT (and your ass).

TO: Eric
RE: History Repeats Itself

As some ancient politician put it to one particular Wag, "We all have truthes. Are mine the same as yours?", before having Him crucified.

It will all depend upon where one builds their 'house'; or in this case 'reality'. On a rock? Or on so much sand?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

I don't think that the "reality-based community" understood the supposed Bush official. Some people react to conditions (liberals) and some people create new, better conditions (conservatives).

Liberals react to poverty with welfare. Conservatives create new conditions in which poverty is equivalent to yesteryear's prosperity.

Liberals react to terrorism with accomodation. Conservatives reduce the terrorists options until they begin murdering their own supporters.

We used to call conservatives "reactionaries". The term is no longer approprite.

Eventually "reality-based" and "progressive" will become the epithets that "communism," "socialism," and "liberalism" have.

People just don't like the far left, regardless of what they call themselves.

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Cripes, does anyone actually believe a Bush aide spoke those specific words to Suskind?

I'm a member of the victory-based community, myself.

o what is this "reality based community" that Mr Alterman speaks of?

He needs to look at the red/blue map. Reality is found in mid-America where we are not so crowded together and herded to subway stations, that rob us of our ability to have a clear thought in the process.

G. Bush grew up in Midland,Texas. There is a lot of space in the Texus heartland in America to pursue a clear thought!

Smog-choked elites, need to plan a vacation to the middle of America. They'll find people who will look you in the eye, talk to you, no matter what your financial or education level is (we do bathe, and use deodorant, and brush our teeth), and sincerely wish you to have a good day.)

Janice Smiley calls us heartlanders "ignorant." I submit she is ignorant if she only gets her views from the "homeless" in New York parks. She is probably talking to the Vietnam Vets that John Kerry destroyed in 1971! Why would they NOT resort to drug and alcohol, if one of their "band of brothers", labeled them so maliciously?

John Kerry was defeated for a reason. Americans saw through the imposter he was/is. No, it wasn't the "evangelicals." It was Kerry the imposter (his whole life), that turned Americans off. And his dipshit wife helped his demise. GO LAURA! A class act.

I think the phrase "reality-based " in "reality-based community" is a secret code, like the icthus was. It doesn't carry the same meaning that the rest of us, who are not in on the secret think it should.

I usually translate it as "delusionally handicappped". I suppose a "higher being" in the 'sphere could sponsor a symposium or blogburst for the rest of us to try to come up with our (un-enlightened) guess as to what it might in "reality" mean.

I don't think that the "reality-based community" understood the supposed Bush official. Some people react to conditions (liberals) and some people create new, better conditions (conservatives).

I completely agree. Although I have a certain gloomy admiration for the grim humorlesness with which the "reality based community" pretends otherwise, the Admin official was clearly distinguishing between watching and doing.

But it has all workd out for the best - with the latest election results, the watchers can keep on watching, and the doers can keep on doing.

And man, I hope we know what we are doing!

[Mickey Kaus made the watching/doing point a while back (scroll down to Anecdote 2); I did too, but without the force of the current author.

From Mickey:

The problem with this now-famous anecdote is that it has nothing to do with certainty based on religious faith or with the tension "between fact and faith" that Suskind claims to find in the Bush White House. The aide isn't talking about ignoring reality and living in some spiritual dream world, he's talking about changing reality through worldly action (e.g. war). His point is less Christian than Marxist, a vulgar Bush corrolary to Marx's famous Theses on Feuerbach, the last of which is carved into his tombstone: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."

I wish more people would read Charles' post up above instead of just reacting. I'd like to see people taking the high road, but I don't see it happening here. The original post had very little to do with the vitriol that commenters here have said, and turned it into a cruel piece of irony...and a demonstration of the polarization blame game.

They're reality based? Hah! Whose reality is it now, bitches!?! We just won! And so, the 51% supermajority strokes itself and hits the ball back through the reality separator to the other side of the superreality court.

Anyway, I agree that slogans are generally dumb, and this one is obviously unproductive and condescending. But I think you're completely missing the point here and your use of the ANSWER (awful org, btw) shirt above is purely random and doesn't advance any sort of real counter argument. You're just responding in kind without trying to understand.

I don't think this phrase was ever meant to include any and all who supported the war, including all the people reading and posting here. Or Bush supporters in general. And it's not a coded attack on all religious belief or faithful people either, although yeah, it might target some fundamentalists out there. I've been a Christian my whole life, but faith based governance has no place in America.

I think the Suskind article came out around the same time as a survey that showed that on average, Bush's supporters were out of touch on what he actually stood for on a number of major issues. There's also the persistent surveys showing a large percentage of Americans who believe Saddam had ties to the 9/11 attacks or that Saddam had WMDs even after several official govt reports to the contrary emerged. These are the things that this phrase is targeted at, not you.

We all have individual realities that we try to fit into the greater common reality. There aren't just two teams. You're all being megalomaniacs assuming everything from the left is always aimed at you. I mean, I really hope 59 million people didn't vote for Bush for exactly the same reason. That would really be scary.

And just to quickly address the equally offensive emerging nickname, "blue bubble heads", can people honestly tell me that Bush has created the strongest bubble of all. They frequently have people sign or recite loyalty oaths at his rallies so he never hears an opposing opinion. It's the same way in his inner circle. Why do you think he gets so flustered every time someone asks him a question that doesn't jive with his view of reality. I'm sure everyone here strongly disagrees with at least one thing Bush has done. I seriously doubt he'd listen to your opinion though.

Is this "reality-based community" anything like "Reality Based Television"... because if it isn't supposed to be... they may want to change the name... Reality TV is nothing like reality either.

Sorry, I didn't see Charles' and Jim Lippard's comments. What they said.

Compare:

It is not delusional if you believe it is reality.

vs

It is not a lie if you believe it.

For me it is delusional if it is not reality and it is a lie if it is not the truth. If the Democrats want to continue to beleive in their reality then I would say look forward to a Republican in the White House for years to come.

As for myself I do not have a problem with that as long as that Republican continues to hold the values and ideals that I hold.

I am also one that believes that if you think 59 million people are stupid, you need to check your reality.

I recommend reading up on he logical fallacies

Particularly, "Why is only opposition to war considered reality-based, but not support for the war?"
and "There is a war. It exists and it was, and is real. This was and is real: (picture of plane crashing into WTC) And a bunch of others. In fact, the second example is a perfect example. Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11. That's reality. No matter how many times you have been told to believe otherwise.

The left may have appropriated the "reality based community" phrase out of amusement at the irony of a Bush administration official saying that being based in "reality" was some kind of character flaw, but I think you have blown it all out of proportion. It was supposed to be kind of funny.

It's over, Bush won. If you can't laugh now, you may never be able to laugh. Just because someone is a sore loser doesn't mean you have to be a poor winner.

What a surprise, a conservative uses a photo of 9/11 to answer a progressive critique of President Bush's policies. I think that is exactly what the term "reality based community" is getting at. President Bush's policy agenda simply is not recognizing the realities on the ground in Iraq and in this country. I believe that this point was well established during the debates. It came to a head when the President refused to admit that he had made any mistakes during his Presidency other than a couple of judicial appointments.

If you think that Bush supporters are living in reality then you should consider the fact that 3 out of 4 Bush Supporters believe that Saddam supported Al Qaeda and was involved in 9/11 and that 72% of Bush Supporters believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before we invaded (Gallup, 10/22/04). I don't pretend to know whether or not you are in that camp but I think that it is also a very revealing statistic.

By the way, your "Buy a Gun Day" advertisement in your sidebar is not annoying, it is insulting and you should remove it. Senator Dianne Feinstein is one of the most well respected Senators in the history of the Senate. There is nothing funny about her opposition to assault weapons or the sunset of the assault weapons ban. She was the first person into Mayor George Moscone's office to find him when he and gay supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated by antigay supervisor Dan White. She put her fingers in the bullet hole in his neck to try to stop the bleeding. I understand that you are anti-gun control but that doesn't justify the use of slimeball political pornography on your website. This is my first time visiting yours site and also my last.

Even assuming Suskind correctly quoted (or even comprehended) his source, the man clearly wasn't declaring that the Bush administration prefers "unreality." Only a particularly literal and/or unsympathetic reading of his words, even as quoted, could suggest otherwise.

The full context of the source's statement simply describes the Bush administration's reluctance (in Suskind's source's opinion)to accept a fatalistic, "status quo" definition of geopolitical realities. A long overdue rejection, in other words, of realpolitik.

Suskind's source's statement strikes me as a fairly concise description of the difference between a revolutionary foreign policy and a reactionary one. And serves as a similarly neat summation of the Bush administration's foreign policy opponents (and the basis of their opposition) on both the left and the right.

That Suskind and his ilk cannot (or will not) accept that more plausible interpretation of his source's views really shouldn't be surprising.

They are in denial, after all.

"... and that 72% of Bush Supporters believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before we invaded..."

Umm, Mike?

The whole freaking world thought Saddam had WMD... else why would the UN have been doing the sanction dance for a dozen-plus years? Or does this info not matter now? I mean, I know the UN is worse than useless, but cripes. I know that this would just destroy some people's world view who really disagree with the war, but for cripes sakes, let's not pretend that it was only bush supporters who belived that.

This dumb Canadian observer wonders: of the 55 million who voted for Kerry, does the hard Left suppose any were Baptists, Catholics, etc., etc., - way to alienate your own constituency guys - if 40% of Americans consider themselves "born again", what are the chances that a few of them voted Democrat...this time?

Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11

I believe spin is a fallacy; that's spin. There are two things that link Saddam to 9/11. One is that the likelihood of his assisting al Qaeda in destroying an American city was intolerably high, given his liassons with al Qaeda and his WMD program. A second thing is that the likelihood of al Qaeda destroying an American city is intolerably high while the Middle East continues to be oppressed, and the likelihood of its ceasing to be oppressed while Saddam was in power was low. So, yes, Saddam Hussein did have "something" to do with 9/11 in precisely the sense in which it is meant in the Bush Doctrine. The "nothing to do" mantra from the hate-Bush crowd is pure sophistry because they never address that doctrine or its reasons but only mumble the mantra.

These "reality-based" folks ignore these realities.

By the way, Bush gives arguments are reasons for every one of his policy decisions, and most of these arguments are well-grounded in reality. Anyone who sees his talk of being faith-based as indicating that he doesn't need arguments and reasons doesn't understand the nature of religious language.

Mike: Do you really think a construction worker who replies "Betcha he did!" when approached by a pollster on the street and asked whether Saddam helped al Qaeda pull off 9/11 is somehow failing to track reality reliably? Or are you just interested in spinning that tired old talking point on and on and on?

Did Suskind ever provide a source for this to eliminate the possibility it is a fabrication designed to associate reality=truth=Left?

Mike:

Just about everything you said in your comment above was either wrong or repellent. On the off chance that your comical threat to flee this site forever was similarly mistaken, I'll helpfully point out a few of the more obvious problems with your thinking:

1. George Bush clearly recognizes the "realities on the ground in Iraq." If he didn't, he would not have revised his tactics there so often. You may not agree with his judgments or his tactics in Iraq (often I don't myself), but the proposition that he's oblivious to the facts on the ground is supported by nothing but perhaps wishful thinking.

2. The degree of delusion, ignorance, insanity, etc. that either Bush or Kerry's supporters may suffer from is irrelevant. A majority of Kerry supporters, for instance, no doubt mistakenly believe that Saddam Hussein had nothing whatever to do with terrorism in general or Al Qaeda in particular. (More Kerry supporters than Bush supporters may also believe they were abducted by aliens. So what?) Those odd sociological facts say nothing useful about the policies or beliefs of either John Kerry or George Bush. Suggesting otherwise is silly.

3. There is no evidence that Dan White shot Harvey Milk because Milk was gay. White may have benefited from a general prejudice against homosexuals during his trial, but that's not the same thing. Also, there's much evidence that Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone didn't even like Dianne Feinstein. Exploiting the names of those murdered men for petty political purposes in a self-righteous rant about a harmless advertisement is objectionable.

Considering the above, I don't suspect anyone at this site will weep at the prospect of your absence.

What the so-called "faith-based communities" and the so-called "reality-based community" have in common is that all of them are communities of people who have faith that they know what is real. I maintain that they have the same general form, but also that the "reality-based community" are those who truly are most faith-based, for they are even unaware of their faith as a faith.

There is a third, "doubt-based" or "inquiry-based" community that deliberately, consciously attempts never to come to rest in the faith that we know what is real. Instead, because of our indefatigable desire to know what is real, we try to sustain ourselves in doubting, asking, testing, and revising. We are a universal solvent, universally destructive. As a theoretical matter, we do not care, but as a practical matter, we care because we must. Thus do we often hide our doubts, questions, thought-experiments, and revisions from you, hoping not to disturb your "reality-based" communities of faith in any way that endangers us.

Of the "reality based community" post-election sky is falling articles that have the weakest grip on reality, this is my favorite. See the most over the top here

"reality-based dopes"

Mike:

If Dan White had beaten Harvey Milk to death with a baseball bat, would you then admire Dianne Feinstein for campaigning against tennis rackets? The firearms aesthetics legislation she supported was one of the most hypocritical attacks on the Constitution in the history of the country, and yes, one of the pleasures I get from owning firearms is the knowledge that she thinks I shouldn't.

Having read most of the responses here to the original article, I have two comments:

1. A lot of people clearly do not understand the use of irony

2. A lot of the posters are being mean-spirited and childish

What 'reality-based' politics means to me--

I am a liberal, which is not quite the same thing.

I admit that most of what I hold dear in my political views was soundly defeated on November 4th. I don't know if it was a 'fair election' or not, but at this point, reality is that George Bush will be President for four years. I am still angry, disillusioned, feeling both powerless and wanting to strike out at groups I barely understand.

I haven't felt this way since 9/11/01, when I realized that the country is under attack and that the world is a much more dangerous place than I thought.

Republicans can gloat now, but I harbor no grudge to Republicans or GWB. The reality is that the liberal message is not what the country wants or needs to hear right now. I accept that I cannot control this.

In some ways, I wish the Democratic party would just step aside and disband.

In 60 years, the Democrats accomplished a lot for this country, but it's time for new ideas to be really tried, since in fact, the reality is that Republicans have a monopoly on power. They were better at the process of gaining and holding power, and this makes all the difference in the world. The best solution may for the Democrats to step aside on the national level.

Democrats brought America through the Great Depression through the New Deal, fought the Second World War, built an international order based at the UN, brought a radical labor movement into the mainstream, and de-segregated the South. Republicans attack the 'welfare state', the United Nations, labor union, and affirmative action to gain power, and now the time has come for this to end as well.

Don't like the United Nations? Maybe it was much better than the alternatives at the time. Same holds true of the welfare state (would you rather have a Communist revolution or provide the benefits of a socialist system to a hungry and jobless working class?)

Republicans should respect the legacy of the Democrats, instead of reflexively attacking these accomplishments, especially if you want the cooperation of current Democrats who put the good of America above the good of their party.

Republicans have a monopoly on power now. If they want, they can easily get rid of the institutions that liberals and the Democrats have built. Build something better. But true conservatives and true reality-based thinkers should know well that any policy or institution will ossify and outlive its usefulness.

Reality-based thinkers know that it is not enough to hate or criticize. Understand what you are criticing and your own motivations, understand how it came to be and how it no longer serves the public interest, then gain power and communicate your vision to others.

Remember that the Law of Unintended Consequences respects no ideology. Remember that what looks like A Good Idea at The Time ends up being The Greatest Possible Mistake You Could Have Made.

To my way of thinking in the 'reality-based' community, ideological conservatives' promises of taking us to the promised-land with more tax cuts and more faith-based government are hard to swallow.

If I'm wrong, so be it -- I will learn from conservatives and embrace those efforts which work for society at large.
I do not share the Republican vision for the future as I understand it, but I wish them every success.

"The whole freaking world thought Saddam had WMD"

Ummm... Mark?

If you look at Mike's post you'll see that the poll was taken on 10/22/04. So in a poll taken a few weeks ago, a majority still thought he had WMD even though it's been proven over and over and over that he didn't. None. Zip. But people still think that to be the case. Why do you think that is? Either they weren't following reality then or aren't following it now, but there's something missing somewhere.

And by the way, before the war many people said this would be the case. You'd think those people would now have some capital to spend.

Kerry voted FOR the war in Iraq, forget about the rest if you are a Democrat. Then it was a bipartisan truth, right? But that was before the truth based community changed their truth. How about "reallity-changing based community"?

If someone has said this already I apologise (havn't read all the comments), but, maybe they mean "Really Base Community" rather than Reality Based Community?

On the non-existent Saddam - 9/11 connection. Why is this spin? There was no operational connection. You can spin it to seem like there could have been, but that's just speculation to fit your view of the world after the fact. There were real connections to Saudi Arabia. There was a real threat in the AQ Khan network (at home with our 'allies' in Pakistan) giving nuclear plans to who knows (and despite what Bush says, no one has been brought to justice). Why did Iraq have priority over these things? It would help to bridge the divide if you could seriously answer questions like this.

I love how you all feel like you're so connected to the "heart of America" and the other side isn't. If Bush and his people so trusted the American people to support his policies in Iraq, why did he feel the need to disguise their true intentions? Even Wolfowitz said WMD was just used an excuse because it was the easiest way to get the people on board. Sorry if I don't believe most average people have read the PNAC plans for reshaping the Middle East in our image.

It seems to me that many people in the States think that you give birth to magically smart masses of people that couldn't possibly be controlled or fooled by the government. I'm not saying that is the case, but it's as if it wasn't even an option in your minds. Is pointing out the possibility an insult? I hope it never happens, because all of you will never see it coming. Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it and all that...

I'm tired of the argument that Bush not admitting mistakes is somehow important. Of course Bush has made mistakes. Of course he knows it. And of course he knows with today's press it is politically impossible for him to admit one. The press would talk about nothing else for a month. Remember that press conference where they were hounding him about it? "Bush won't admit mistakes" is a better headline than the alternatives.

I've come to the realization that most democrats fail to recognize that the seven second soundbites that become talking points repeated in a childlike game of telephone are not facts. They are oversimplifications, distortions, and in some cases lies.

Here is some truth for the reality based community.

George Bush didn't declare war on Al Qu'ida or Osama Bin Ladin.

He declared war on terrorism.

He declared war on the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. He did so according to a new doctrine.

The new doctrine was the result of strategy sessions after 9/11.

The Taliban was an easy call. A state sanctuary for Al Qi'ida. The Bathists in Iraq was also an easy call. A state sanctuary for numerous terrorist organizations, a training center for terrorists, checks for the families of homicide bombers during the latest round of peace talks, and the belief that Sadam still had access to WMD's.

Added to this argument was the fact that Sadam was intentionally misleading weapons inspectors, hiding documents, scientists, and the failure to transparently destroy WMD stockpiles.

The Bush Administration pressed the UN to enforce the sanctions against Iraq and secured from them a promise of serious consequences should the Bathists fail to cooperate. They didn't and we destroyed them.

This morphing of 9/11 and Iraq was a polital ploy by Democrats from the beginning.

Soundbites that ignored the issuance of the Bush Doctrine after 9/11 and created a war on Al Qu'ida and Osama that didn't exist are now voiced as facts by the reality based community.

Bush invited the rest of the world to join him in the war on Iraq based on sanctions in place and the belief that he might still possess WMD's, and might under the right circumstances broker them to terrorists. Some countries joined and some didn't.

It is amazing to see these events scrambled together to create meaningless failures and inconsistancies.

Lifelong Democrat voted for Bush.

What Doug said.

Reality is a construction. People construct realities based on what they hear, what they see and the sum total of their life experiences. Some folks construct a reality that is close to the "truth", others are off the mark.

In my opinion, there is reasonable doubt that saddam was involved with 9-11. Does this mean that he was not involved... absolutely not. There are also degrees to consider. IMO, it is likely that he provided aid and comfort but was not directly involved in the operation.

The WMD inspections conducted after April 2003 reportedly found no stockpiles of WMDs, but did find evidence of programs and technical capabilities. Maybe there are hidden stockpiles, maybe they were carted off to syria or iran or maybe it was all a bluff. What we do know for sure is that saddam does not have any command or control of any weapons now.

On one hand, I kinda sorta see the thought process behind the reality-based moniker. In my constructed reality, it is a very obvious indication of an inferiority/insecurity complex. This is, however, not just a trait of the left: it is a common human behavior that is well represented by mouth foaming, pencil-chubb Bush supporters at the anti-idiotarian rottweiler site.

What Abakan said.

There the two over riding question:

What to do about despotism?

How do we make every one so inclined a property owner?

when we act, we create our own reality

That's not a reality-based community, that's a community-based reality.

Reality is a construction.

No it isn't.

People construct realities based on what they hear, what they see and the sum total of their life experiences.

No. They construct belief systems.

Reality is what still exists when you stop believing in it.

Henceforth I will refer to them as the "the surreality based community"

I prefer being part of a reality-creating community (reality in the sense of Pixy Misa's comment above) than a reality-based community (perhaps better labeled a reality-responsive community).

I think the original concept coming out of that Suskind interview was simply a different take on the old proactive vs. reactive debate.

Bush's pre-emptive anti-terrorism doctrine is proactive, and has at least prevented any homeland attacks since 9/11, whatever one may think of the conditions on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Eric, I'm merely going to say in my usual terse fashion, that they're going to have an awfully hard time convincing me that Oliver Willis, Matthew Ygleisias, Markos Zunigas, and Atrios are a part of a "Reality Based" anything. ;]

Surreality Based Community, maybe.

Demosthenes maybe. He seems a bit more actuality based and a lot less unremittingly antirational than other liberal pundits. He I might buy as being "reality based", on his better days.

But the left side of blogdom is woefully short of pundits of Demosthenes caliber this year.

Eric,

"Reality Based Community" = "Fever Swamp"

Doesn't anybody remember George Orwell? "We're the 'reality-based community', yeah, that's the ticket..."

So if they're the reality-based community, I guess that means what they practice is realpolitik, much as it was practiced by, say, Henry Kissinger.

Which makes those of us who support democracy building and other forms of changing reality the idealists-- indeed, the liberals.

Sounds like a pretty accurate reflection of reality at the moment to me.

Pixy --

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Phillip K. Dick

Doug --

There is a third, "doubt-based" or "inquiry-based" community that deliberately, consciously attempts never to come to rest in the faith that we know what is real.

Yes, this is the Scientific-Based Community. Not the junk/MSM/pseudo scientists but rather those that adhere to the scientific method deliberately or accidentally.

I have said, on occasion, of myself, that I have some how learned to carry the burden of doubt.

This does not, may I point out, mean that I believe in nothing. It merely means that generally speaking, new data requires re-thinking and many if not most positions are in some sense more or less tentative.

All –-

The 'reality-based community' and the 'faith-based community' as defined here are both 'faith-based' although the reality types would vigorously deny any such a vile gross misrepresentation of their position.

In addition, for different reasons, both tend to believe that their world view and position(s) was true in the past (possibly), currently (maybe) and forever more (not likely).

There is a aphorism which states: "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water". What really irritates me is that some folks insist on throwing out the baby and keeping the bath water.

There are those that believe the lessons learned long long ago are the only useful (permitted ?) lessons and there are, of course, those that believe that what was true yesterday is necessarily false today. Both these positions are, once swallowed, rather easy to maintain. Just plug your ears and howl. Both are fundamentally (no pun intended) wrong.

I find it interesting that " Clinton to Dems: Don’t whine, work on image". This is exactly wrong. The Democratic party's problem is neither style nor message and especially not image, the problem is content. The content is wrong because their vision of America is a 'straw man'. They campaign to 'convert' the straw man and succeed only in irritating middle America (hint: fly over country.)

Their 'god' is FDR and his works may not be tampered with.

Dick Morris invented it, Bill Clinton practiced (it as does Tony Blair) but George Bush has carried it to an entirely new level. It is called The Third Way (originally: Triangulation). To Clinton this was pure tactics to be abandoned at the first opportunity, to Blair a strategy still in place. However, I believe, that George W. Bush has embraced the approach as exactly the right way to thread a path through the garbage strewn about by both the paleo-right and the paleo-left. The point is to take the good ideas of the left and of the right and strike out in a direction that leaves both extremes in the dust.

GWB is a radical and in that sense a classical liberal while the paleos, both left and right, are both classical conservative. Do not confuse Bush's tactics with his strategy. Also when you listen to him speak or better read what he says in prepared speeches. Believe that he means to do what he says he is going to do. I know this is tough. Conventional Wisdom says that all politicians lie all the time. Not George.

There are two things that link Saddam to 9/11. One is that the likelihood of his assisting al Qaeda in destroying an American city was intolerably high, given his liassons with al Qaeda and his WMD program. A second thing is that the likelihood of al Qaeda destroying an American city is intolerably high while the Middle East continues to be oppressed, and the likelihood of its ceasing to be oppressed while Saddam was in power was low. So, yes, Saddam Hussein did have "something" to do with 9/11 in precisely the sense in which it is meant in the Bush Doctrine. The "nothing to do" mantra from the hate-Bush crowd is pure sophistry because they never address that doctrine or its reasons but only mumble the mantra.

These "reality-based" folks ignore these realities.

By the way, Bush gives arguments are reasons for every one of his policy decisions, and most of these arguments are well-grounded in reality. Anyone who sees his talk of being faith-based as indicating that he doesn't need arguments and reasons doesn't understand the nature of religious language.

Mike: Do you really think a construction worker who replies "Betcha he did!" when approached by a pollster on the street and asked whether Saddam helped al Qaeda pull off 9/11 is somehow failing to track reality reliably? Or are you just interested in spinning that tired old talking point on and on and on?

© &trade &tm &trademark

Thanks for all the comments! Never had so many good ones. Very thoughtful, and some are worthy of being posts in themselves. Brian, Tom Maguire, Ironbear, Pixy, Uncle Bill and the rest -- they're great. The ones who disagree are for the most part thoughtful too. I am grateful and it's humbling.

There's one comment I feel particularly obligated to address, and that's Mike's remark about the Feinstein parody. Too bad Mike won't come back, because I think he really should read my "gay guns" posts before jumping to conclusions.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000334.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000341.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000420.html

I think Dianne Feinstein's rise to power on the gun control issue was highly disingenuous. It so happens that Dan White used his police service revolver in the killings -- which would not have been prevented by any of the silly gun control laws she champions.

Eric: Nice site you have here.

Jeff: Good computer work! But none of those fallacies you charge me with sticks. For example, it is not at issue whether Saddam had liassons with al Qaeda, so I didn't beg that question. Another example: I never claimed that the popularity of the construction worker's view is any evidence that his view is correct. Etc.

You can't expect linking to fallacies to amount to a refutation. You must actually prove that those links stick. That takes argumentation, not computer work.

Arguing about reality sounds like a scene from C.S.Lewis', "The Silver Chair". The thrumming, oppressive, non-stop barrage of words and non-sequiturs, laced with sweet-smeliing opiates that dull the senses works to convince the weary children that their version of reality has all been a child's pretty dream.

Somewhere down deep, though, there was a knowing that, even if their reality was but a dream, it was a better dream than was being offered to them. A dream worth dying for, a dream worth suffering for, a dream as real as anyone else's.

It took a fair amount of pain to break the spell. I think 9/11 was the unfortunate pain that brought so many out of the gray world of non-absolutes and into a decision for a reality that made more sense, even if it was uncomfortable...into a harsh reality that acknowledged the inconvenient facts of evil and the soul-satisfying work of defeating it.

The election proves, if nothing else, that 51% of us have listened to the endless thrumming from the Blue States and their output in news, movies, books and universities...an onslaught of alternate reality, and yet, somewhere inside of us, our "knower" knows that it's bunkum.

Bonus thought:
The other side has never learned as much about us as they have forced us to learn about them. Their echo-chamber mentality has fooled them into a dangerous pseudo-superiority that has brought them down like the NASA program.

Matthew Cromer said:

"Faith" in the context of having a vision of what the would could and should be is critical to achieving anything.

No, that's vision.  Faith is something quite different, although it often overlaps; for example, Islamists have faith with no vision, whereas Carl Sagan had vision with no faith.

Both "faith-based" and "reality-based" are used with quite a bit of unintentional irony.  A great many soi-disant "reality-based" people are still adherents of "progressivism" and other social theories which have failed time and time again in the real world.  On the other hand lots of people call themselves "faith-based" while blatantly disregarding some of the basics of what they claim to practice (e.g. people who profess to follow Christ, who said directly that he was there to DIVIDE families, and yet call themselves "pro-family" and whose actions resemble those of the Pharisees and hypocrites condemned in the writings of the apostles).

The "faith-based" people are gaining the political upper hand, but they have some serious problems.  Their claims of standing for morality look more like fear that they will do something they ought not if they are allowed the liberty, so they want to abolish liberty.  A great many advocates of legislated morality are just tired of the job of having to exercise self-control and want government to do it for them.  They are just as pitiful as the "progressives" who are tired of having to support themselves and want welfare to relieve them of the burden.  Neither grasp the irony that government is representative of society.  A government full of people elected, appointed and hired from a society not used to exercising morality and responsibility when nobody's looking over their shoulder (being adults) are not going to magically develop the capability of doing so for others.  Quite the opposite.

Reading the comments on this site comparing "faith based" and "reality based" labels, I'm reminded of a quote from John Derbyshire over at National Review Online.
"Does it not occur to you...that by purging all sacred images, references, and words from our public life, you are leaving us with nothing but a cold temple presided over by the Goddess of Reason -- that counterfeit deity who, as history has proved time and time and time again, inspires no affection, retains no loyalties, soothes no grief, justifies no sacrifice, gives no comfort, extends no charity, displays no pity, and offers no hope, except to the tiny cliques of fanatical ideologues who tend her cold blue flame? "
If the Reality Based Community worships at this temple...count me out.

Hey, no need to knock Athena (aka Minerva) there!

:)

The Goddess of Reason, by the way, was the Goddess of war. Ancient wisdom often took the form of deities. There are many ways to knowledge and reason, and I don't think anyone has a monopoly.

For the record, I am AGAINST "purging all sacred images, references, and words from our public life."

The problem with "sacred images, references, and words [in] our public life" isn't the things themselves, it's the urge some people have to turn them into idols and demand that they be worshipped.  Using those words and images is also a way to designate in-groups and out-groups.

When government does that, it's wrong.

To you who offer the PIPA report as evidence of lack of acceptance of reality...Have you actually read the results? Not the summary, but the actual questions and responses. You really should do so before taking the summary as gospel.

Eric: I agree that there are many ways to knowledge and reason and that no one has a monopoly on either. I (and I think Derb) was only meaning to say that when you exclude the sacred and replace it with "reason" or "logic" or "science", you give people nothing that inspires greatness. The quest for knowledge will only lead you so far and logic would probably not drive a person to dive into a raging river to save a child.
That is certainly not to say that logic and reason should be excluded either. The sacred and the logical are not opposites, they are compliments and, I believe, both necessary to a fulfilling life. Now, I'm no classicist (although I play one on TV) but I think the classical definition of reason did not exclude the sacred, did it?
My impression of modern scientific thought is that reverence for the sacred is anachronistic and even dangerous. Since I believe that there is a sacred spark in all people, granted to us by a loving Creator, I find this to be anti-human.
At it's core, I see this so called Reality Based label to be the extension of the idea that logic must replace the sacred, not coexist with it. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
What was the Ancient Greek maxim? Everything in proportion, nothing in excess.
I can get behind that.

First I find it hard to believe that any aid, to any President will say 'We're an empire now,..", especially to the press in this day and age. Which leads me to the MSM. We have Dan Rather with forged documents and Mark Halprin's memo at ABC. Then just looking at the news, if anything would be precieved as a positive for Bush, it was down played while anything negative was emphasized. It was the total opposite for Kerry. it still amazes me that Kerry's Senate record was really never talked about in the media. I think that more than anything people felt that the wool was being pulled over there eyes and resisted. Thats the reality of human nature. Interesting, my home town paper informed us how Bush got elected, we're ignorant. I'm think I'm going to send them How To Win Friends And Influence People by Dale Carnegie. Think it will Help?

Reminds me of Jerry's comment on Kramer's proposed Reality Tour of New York: "The last thing he's equipped to tour is reality."

Welcome Eric Alterman and all the above commentors who agree with him to the Magical Reality Tour!

Well, let's see. The first one may be kind of weak. From there on it looks pretty good to me.

"One is that the likelihood of his assisting al Qaeda in destroying an American city was intolerably high"
This is indeed appealing to the consequence. If Saddam Hussein is involved with Al Queda then the likelihood of him assisting ... When you discuss whether or not Saddam and 9/11 are connected you can't argue that I had better believe you because if they were bad things would happen. If this kind of logic is valid there are an infinite number of other possibilities that are also valid. For instance, you must believe me that the US Air Force was involved in 9/11 because if they were then Al Queda would have access to nuclear weapons which they could use to destroy us all.

"given his liassons with al Qaeda"
When the subject under discussion is whether Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 asserting that he was in league with Al Queda is begging the question. To claim that this is true is one thing, to prove it another entirely.

"A second thing is that the likelihood of al Qaeda destroying an American city is intolerably high while the Middle East continues to be oppressed"
It is left to you to prove that the A) the Middle East being oppressed, and B) Al Queda destroying an American city are related by cause and effect. Unless you are implying that the Middle East is being oppressed by America?

",and the likelihood of its ceasing to be oppressed while Saddam was in power was low."
More of the same fallacy, Al Queda wasn't committing terrorist acts against Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime (we may have been supporting them if they were), if anyone's brutal dictatorship could be argued to have cheesed off Al Queda it would be Saudi Arabia's. The war in Iraq is what I thought we were discussing.

"So, yes, Saddam Hussein did have "something" to do with 9/11 in precisely the sense in which it is meant in the Bush Doctrine."
Something is emphasised to distract from the fact that this is what we are trying to decide. So far the fingers you are pointing at Saddam are pretty weak, and could just as easily be pointed at most if not all of our allies in the region.

"hate-Bush crowd"
This isn't prejudicial language? Whether or not they hate Bush is irrelevant to whether or not what they say is correct. I can't say you are wrong just because you agree with Bush, I have to have facts to back up my position.

"Mike: Do you really think a construction worker who replies "Betcha he did!" when approached by a pollster on the street and asked whether Saddam helped al Qaeda pull off 9/11 is somehow failing to track reality reliably?"

Just because Joe Construction worker believes something doesn't mean that it is true. Just because 99% of people believe something doesn't mean it's true. Truth or falsehood is determined by facts, not by popular opinion.

"Or are you just interested in spinning that tired old talking point on and on and on?"

This is definitely an ad hominem attack, you are claiming that he is spinning to try to score points. This isn't about the topic you are discussing, it's about your opponent.

By the way, I use Blogger on the Google Toolbar to generate the links, and I thank you for the complement on the computer use.

This is really my first shot at using logical fallacies, so you'll have to excuse any inaccuracies on my part.

Hi, Jeff.

When the subject under discussion is whether Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 asserting that he was in league with Al Queda is begging the question.

Not true. On the contrary, I hereby assert that Saddam had no role in perpetrating 9/11 but did have liassons with al Qaeda.

As for my:

"Or are you just interested in spinning that tired old talking point on and on and on?"

and your This is definitely an ad hominem attack....

No. It was snarky. But it came as a conclusion of my rant, and not at the foundation my rant. It may have been rude and maybe I should apologize for it, but it obviously didn't have any purpose in proving my point. The ad hominem fallacy is the use of attacks on the opponent in order to prove one's point.

As for Joe Construction worker, you'll have to scrutinize exactly what I wrote a bit more. The hate-Bush crowd (Sorry, Jeff!) is wont to assert that Bush's supporters are stupid. Stupidity is the inability to track the truth with one's cognitive faculties, in other words, the lack of a disposition in one's brain to get things right more often than not. Now, the citation of the poll that shows that Joe is liable to say, "I betcha he did" is extremely poor evidence that Joe is stupid. In fact, given Saddam's record, Joe's suspicious brain seems to me to be functioning quite well. By the same token, I don't think a poll that shows that leftists say "I betcha they do!" when asked during their coffee breaks, "Did corporate profit motive have a large role in getting Bush to invade Iraq" is any evidence that those leftists are stupid.

As for logical fallacies, I'd pick up an informal logic book if I were you (try Kahane or Copi). The list of fallacies on their own on the net is better used only after you've combed one of those books. Otherwise, they are just too mechanical and clunky.

Anyhow, all this is a long story, isn't it? Nice chatting with you, and I'll be sure to drop by your blog sometime.

I have created a new word to address these people who worship their "own reality". We all know the term "reality-based" is an antonym for "faith-based" programs which were proposed by Bush.

Therefore.....

For these people proponing "reality-based" humanist centered government rule. I have created a new word for them... the word is "Christaphobia" . People, mainly liberals, who are suffering from an acute form of pathological hatred manifested in today's post modern socialist anti-god movement, shall hereby be reffered to as "CHRISTAPHOBES".

I say we use their socalled "tolerance" against them. They call Christians homophobes because Christians think sodomy, fallacio, and cunnilingus are sins. Being as such, we should call them "christaphobes" because they are scared shitless by moral absolutes. By using liberal judges to pass precidenct rulings, left wingers are trying to abolish the "old norms" of society. First they are starting with legal sodomy, which was passed by activist judges in Texas, next was legal gay marriage, which was passed by activist judges in Mass. (home of John Kerry), then its legal illicit drugs like pot and hash, coming soon from a lib judge near you.. the list of liberal moral decay is long, and I could keep on going.

Modern liberals seem to have a problem with the basic rules of civilization. Summed up, one could say liberals only have 1 REAL problem with these accepted common moral rules of society - they really have a probelme with the 10 commandments!

What it really boils down to; Their true qualms lie in : the 1st commandment from God, and what God says about homosexuality.. "you can have no other gods before me". "and to lie with another man is an abomination". All the other commandments are hard to disagree with, such as you shall not kill, or you shall not lie, or steal, bare false witness (give false testimony) etc.

All of this needs to be addressed, because the "reality based" liberal movement, is BASED upon the one true reality--- that "reality" is the hatred and debunking of ANY moral absolutes... personified in the what I just wrote above about the liberal agenda : legal sodomy, gay marriage, legalizing drugs like pot, removing "under god" from the pledge, removing any reference to god from public buildings, and even going so far as to PREVENT kids from bringing a bible to school to read during their lunchtime.

If all of this is not classified as "christaphobia" then I don't know what is!

corpus christi wrote: "They frequently have people sign or recite loyalty oaths at his rallies"

Do you have a cite for these "loyalty oaths"? The only one I've seen was in the Washington Post. IIRC it said in part something like "I endorse George Bush for re-election as President of the US...I give permission for my image to be used in campaign ads".

Calling that a loyalty oath is like calling John Kerry a dead ringer for Tom Cruise.

Talk about the supposed "reality based coalition"!

Eric, I don't agree with everything in your post, but if you weed through the comments here, it's spurred a very good and productive discussion. Thanks!

Jim,

Ad hominem attacks are not solely used to prove one's point. They can also be used to distract from an opponent's argument by discrediting them personally, which is what you did. And you're begging the question again by replacing ad hominem with snark as if the two couldn't be one and the same and no one would notice.

Also, your chosen examples of a Bush-supporting construction worker and an Kerry-supporting office worker are disingenuous and an attempt to muddy the argument. As much as many here would like to claim solidarity with or ownership of the working man ideal opposing the snooty intellectual, there are vast swaths of all kinds of people from different classes and backgrounds who voted for each candidate.

As far as reality, intelligence and stupidity are concerned, there are both stupid PhDs who have studied for more than half their lives and brilliant people who never found it necessary to go through our unfortunately narrow view of an education system. As others here have said much better than me, what's more important is how much we're willing to question the reality we've each created for ourselves. Frequently, the strength of our reality is inversely proportional to the strength of the house we build to protect it. This holds true for both sides, even when one wins by a massive 3 precentage points. The best thing for the country would be to find some middle ground and merge our versions of reality, rather just crying out, "Our reality won!"

The common reality in all of this is that the country is actually split right down the middle. Each side arguing that their reality is 'correct' ignores this fact. And a President who arrogantly declares he has a mandate, the will of people at his back, and capital to spend, when he just one a narrow election and his policies for the last four years have enraged half the country, is also ignoring this fact. Unfortunately, very few people seem to be addressing this.

The question of whether Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks is a distraction.

It's the wrong question.

The 9/11 attack was simply a threshhold, a wake-up point at which we (most of us, not counting the ironically named "reality based community") realized that the Islamofacist threat that had created American crisis since the Iranian hostages 25 years ago is real and dangerous and that the tactics of Carter/Clintonesque appeasement and token retaliation were not effective in preserving life and liberty.

Therefore, the question is not "Did Saddam have anything to do with 9/11?" but "What can we do to aggressively defend American life and liberty?"

It's the same type of question that was asked in WWII in response to that generation's threshhold, Pearl Harbor, and whose first boots-on-the-ground response was in Tunisia, where Japanese fighter pilots were scarce. Then, the American leadership took a sober evaluation of the Axis forces and developed a strategy to best defeat them.

Bush has done the same following the 9/11 attacks. So what if card-carrying Al Qaeda members were scarce in Iraq when we invaded? That was never the question. The "reality based community" have tried to invent their own reality by making that the question, but it never was, and never will be.

And THAT, if you will excuse my appropriation of the term, is reality.

As we continue to try to frame each argument on any side against what is real I'd like to point out that arguments are beliefs not facts.
Leaving that alone for a moment I'd like to address the argument that they were many other threats in the world greater to or equal to Iraq.

This is probably true though it would be difficult to argue as a fact. However the way this statement and statements like it are used by the 'reality based community' continues to oversimplify and distort the issue.

First, the equality of circumstance is extremely hard to find and argue because each country cited ha+s distinct differences. Equal signs are best left in mathmatics where they belong.

Second, life is situational. If you are bothered by the fact that similar problems are handled in different ways I can't help you with this feeling. I can suggest you spend more time identifing differences and less time finding equality. It might help you make distictions and act accordingly.

Third, all of these international problems are being addressed. You personally may not like the individual strategies but it is clear that many problems can be solved in different ways and few problems are always solved with the same approach.

I accept that these people truly believe they live in a 'reality-based' world. It just happens to exist in an alternate universe.

Jim C.,

Here are your links:

here, here, and here. There's also the arrests of people whering anti-Bush shirts.

My whole point being that the fact that he's very sheltered. He himself admits as much. He relies only on those in his close circle to give him 'news'. If half the country strongly opposes his viewpoints, it shouldn't be hidden from the Pres. He's everybody's President.

Sorry, I hope the links work. By the way, if anyone here uses firefox, there's a great extension called bugmenot that helps you get past the annoying registration page on most papers' sites.

Kevin B.,

"The question of whether Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks is a distraction."

It's only a distraction if you misinterpret the point of the argument, which was how people came to support the war. Look, I've read all the Wolfowitz docs, PNAC papers, NIE's, the '02 NSS, 9/11 report, etc nearly in full. I understand all the intents of the Bush doctrine (and even agree with a few parts). But the argument over that doctrine is separate and one that we might not be so diametrically opposed on. But it is different.

Your comments miss the point, being that most people haven't read and analyzed all this. And I'm not being condescending, but outside the wonky world of the internet, not a lot of people analyze things in such detail. At least the ones I've run into in the past 3 years.

The nation was hit hard by the 9/11 attacks and after Afghanistan, the administration wanted to get the country behind a war that they had been wanting to fight for a long time. Before 9/11, the chances of getting public support for a war in Iraq were minimal, and they didn't really try to convince people on the merits of their real objectives. Saying they used the emotion of 9/11 to get people to back them on Iraq without telling them the full story isn't all that far-fetched. Didn't anybody here find it strange that our soldiers were writing 9/11 revenge graffiti on bombs intended for Iraq? And yes, I understand not everyone thought this way.

Before anyone says that I don't think people were smart enough to see this, let's not forget that one of the main architects (but other neocons as well) of this policy and war, Wolfowitz, is a Straussian. There is a tendency there to hide esoteric messages or objectives within an exoteric shell. Basically, that sometimes, policy makers would have to deceive the people in order to protect the nation in a way that only they understood. I'm not a fan of that school of thought.

corpus christi --

"On the non-existent Saddam - 9/11 connection. Why is this spin? "

It's spin because the MSM keeps saying over and over that the 9/11 commision found no link between Saddam and 9/11, and then uses this to attack Bush. While they do this, they fail to mention that Bush never said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11, and that the 9/11 commision report documents quite a bit of interaction between Al Qeada and Iraq. Note here, the difference between "ties to 9/11" and "ties to Al Qeada".

The manner in which the MSM has been addressing this is highly deceptive. Most people will come away with the impression that Bush claimed Saddam was involved in 9/11, and that the 9/11 report showed him to be wrong. Back here on planet earth, he said Saddam supported terrorism, which the 9/11 report confirmed.

This is why I loathe the media. They are constantly moving the goalposts, begging the question, and so on.. the list is endless. Note how "no WMD's" has turned into "no stocks of WMD's" or "no deployable WMD's". The MSM has no shame.

Now, I realize that we're sort of arguing apples and oranges here, and for different reasons. You obviously don't like how the war was "sold", and I hate the media. If people thought back then that 9/11 was the justification for invading Iraq (as many did), so what? Most people, regardless of their political leanings, are profoundly ignorant. You can't blame the administration for people being stupid. They had, from my point of view, plenty of good reasons (strategic reasons, not justifications) to invade Iraq. They felt they needed to pick a justification that the American people would get behind. I feel they made a mistake, and should have presented the war on its face, on strategic and humanitarian grounds.

As for the media, with all the outright lies they peddled this September trying to take away some of my 2nd amendment rights, I don't really think I'd care if someone trampled their 1st amendment rights. I'm not any more a fan of police states than you are, but I can't bring myself do give a damn about the media if it came to that.

Tim in PA wrote:

As for the media, with all the outright lies they peddled this September trying to take away some of my 2nd amendment rights, I don't really think I'd care if someone trampled their 1st amendment rights.

That's a far cry from the attitude of giving the devil himself the benefit of the law for your own sake.  If the MSM can't take advantage of the First Amendment, do you think bloggers will be able to for even one minute longer?  Dream on.

One reason I am scared stiff by Bush's arrogation of power to the office of the President is that this power is only devolved again with extreme difficulty, and it is impossible to guarantee that the office will only be held by people of goodwill (assuming that GWB is one).  The USA has Constitutional limits and separation of powers for extremely good reasons, which we ignore (for anyone) at our peril.

Uh... did anyone here who's so outraged about the Suskind article actually... read it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html
you're taking a couple of paragraphs quoted on another blog and then, without looking at the full article, dismissing it? Talk about lazy editorializing!

Scott, the fact that, despite the last four years, Bush won more that half the votes cast tells me that, in fact, he does have the will of the people behind him. And that if anybody shouild be conciliatory it should be the loser of such elction. The people have spoken and backed the Bush program. The fact that the 'reality-based community' does not see this distinction tells me that the 'reality-based community' is actually anything but based in reality.

Uncle Bill quoted me: "There is a third, 'doubt-based' or 'inquiry-based' community that deliberately, consciously attempts never to come to rest in the faith that we know what is real." He himself continued, "Yes, this is the Scientific-Based Community. Not the junk/MSM/pseudo scientists but rather those that adhere to the scientific method deliberately or accidentally."

I respond, somewhat on the contrary: I appreciate the theoretical interest and practical advantages of the understanding that scientists have developed using the scientific method. Nevertheless, in order to avoid inadvertently joining a community based on faith in the scientific method, one must examine the method itself as a friendly critic. I'm not disparaging the scientific method or intuition when I point out that the scientific method is an intuition. As Leo Strauss said, the scientific method wasn't discovered by means of the scientific method. I don't disparage science or forget to be grateful for what it's done for us. However, I think the best scientists are those who come to realize that their knowledge is knowledge humanly speaking and that its much-acclaimed basis is mysterious, i.e. a matter for thoughtful investigation by the most profound. For more, read The Limits of Analysis by Stanley Rosen.

Thank you Eric, for having us. It's been a pleasure. I always enjoy reading your site - I don't always take the time to comment. You do spawn and host some fantastic discussions.

"you're taking a couple of paragraphs quoted on another blog and then, without looking at the full article, dismissing it? Talk about lazy editorializing!" - Christian

Possibly, on some, Christian. Not on others.

I for one was commenting on the appropriation of Susskind's "Reality Based Community" comment as a meme and tagline by a number of bloggers I consider somewhat divorced from reality on quite a few issues. Possibly being a bit unfair to Matthew Yglesias in the process - he's not as far out as some, but he's made a few statements over the course of the past year that fit the definition of "surreal" rather nicely, so he got lumped in.

That is NOT "lazy editorializing" as you would have it: that is commenting directly upon Eric's observations on blogdom that were tangential to the Susskind piece. Apologies if you were unclear on that.

I can't speak for the other commenters, naturally, however an even cursory reading tells me that quite a few of them were also commenting on the adoption of the slogan by left blogdom, and not on the article itself.

The WMD argument specifically invoked the UN resolutions in an attempt to get Security Council approval to remove Saddam. Also, we know Saddam had programs to produce nuclear weapons, and there is a lot of evidence he had WMDs just before the invasion, including Blix's 2003 Feb 14 report to the UN, which noted 1000 tons of missing chemical warfare agent as simply one example of what they were looking for.

Saddam and al Qaeda were connected, but I don't think Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and I don't believe Bush made that argument. However, Saddam had many terrorist links, and supported a number of known terrorists and terrorist groups in one way or another. In the wars he started and the terrorist groups he supported, Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Mideast.

More importantly, the Iraq issue had to be resolved soon, one way or the other. Although Saddam was responsible for it, the fact that Iraqi children were starving by the thousands (or tens of thousands, depending on your source) was unacceptable, and it was portrayed as the US's doing and was a big recruiting point for terrorist organizations. The three possible resolutions to this were:

1. To trust Saddam to comply with the resolutions, which would have been unrealistic, to say the least. Also, this would have ended the no-fly zones, which were the main protection the Kurds had against genocide. Betraying the Kurds was unacceptable on a moral basis, but also would have eliminated one of the US's few true allies in the Mideast, and of course the genocide itself would have been blamed on the US withdrawal (instead of Saddam's army) and undoubtedly used as anti-American propaganda.

2. Just to drop the sanctions, as France and Russia urged. Doing this was unacceptable primarily because it would have been a Saddam victory and would have probably increased recruiting into terrorist organizations, but also because it would have meant the end of the no-fly zones.

3. Invade.

Speaking of "reality-based community," here is a sanity test for you:

You are in a room. There are several faucets and a mop. The faucets are on full blast and the floor is flooding. Do you go for the mop or the faucets?

After the Afghan invasion, continuing after bin Laden was just mopping up. Regime change in Iraq was turning another faucet off.

And someone forgot to mention that the great leader and ex-president of the "reality based community" is the man who, steeped in the fundament of unchangeable reality, said, ´It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.´

That´s liberal reality base for you.

(excellent thread/discussion btw - the bigotry and arrogance of the Reality Based crowd knows no bounds - there are bigoted rednecks, but bluenecks match them everytime )

alessandrab.blogspot.com

Doug writes:

As Leo Strauss said, the scientific method wasn't discovered by means of the scientific method.

It wasn't discovered so much as invented, and could only come about after previous logical fallacies such as the argument from authority and the argument from antiquity had been rejected.  If you would like to read a popular treatment of this, I suggest picking up Neal Stephenson's "Quicksilver" (which is a fun book in its own right).

However, I think the best scientists are those who come to realize that their knowledge is knowledge humanly speaking and that its much-acclaimed basis is mysterious, i.e. a matter for thoughtful investigation by the most profound.

Science can only proceed by rejecting the assumption that things are mysterious.  Science assumes that they are subject to human inquiry which can yield knowledge, which is the opposite of mystery.  The scientific process is not mysterious at all; it is merely a very sophisticated system for verifying and validating hypotheses and information, and using each verified hypothesis as a starting point for revealing more information.

Ironic that the "reality-based community" has chosen a sterotype (the moronic, hypocritical, bigot) to describe those with whom they disagree. This, of course, allows the RBC to create their own reality - one in which there are no good-faith disputes over policy or culture - and insolate their beliefs from any debate or empirical examination.

The RBC have already decided that anti-gay bigotry cost them this election. This will become the "Bush stole Florida" meme of 2004 - no matter how much evidence contradicts this "reality", 4 years from now it will still be gospel for those who believe themselves to be influenced only by their superior understanding of the real world.
posted by: Daniel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alessandra-->> This comment by Daniel that the RBC crowd does not allow for discussion or examination is particular acute in the universities. This is where most of the worst harm is done. Media is second.

For example, pro-homosexuals have equated anti-homosexuals with haters. This maligning trick has seeped in popular culture so much so, that we see anti-homosexuals and/or anti-gay marriage supporters having to state that they are not full of hate. As if they ever were.

This is exactly the same as equating people who are anti-pedophilia, anti-prostitution, anti-SM as full of hate. A bigoted and cheap tactic to malign people who have opposing viewpoints with some ad hominen attack label.

Fortunately, it seems slowly but surely many Americans are catching on that the slimy "label your viewpoint opponent as full of hate" tactic is nothing but the sign of bigot incapable of discussion.

Engineer-Poet:

Science can only proceed by rejecting the assumption that things are mysterious.

I urge you to think about the quote you posted, especially:

its much-acclaimed basis is mysterious, i.e. a matter for thoughtful investigation by the most profound.

The claim is not that science rejects classifying things as mysterious, but rather, the definition of something mysterious is "a matter for thoughtful investigation by the most profound."

It is the mistaken claim by some scientists that nothing is mysterious that destroys the romance of science for many. Mystery is part of human experience; exploration is part of the romance of existence. It is this kind of anti-emotional phraseology that removes the romance and thrill from science for many people.

If scientists could communicate that their field is indeed full of mystery and exploration, they would find their fields more popular, their findings more acceptable, and their funding opportunities increased. People pay for mystery and exploration.

No mystery? Yawn.

Thank you Engineer-Poet, but I would go a bit further.

First the remark by Leo Strauss is illogical nonsense. He presumably believes that this statement totally invalidates all science although I have no idea what in context, if any, the statement is embeded.

Science does not address matters of faith by which I mean that science does not prove axioms, procedures or methods and does not even attempt to.

The scientific method cannot possibly be 'discovered' or proved by the scientific method, it would be circular reasoning – not logical.

To my mind the scientific method is simply a method, a procedure that one follows in an attempt to minimize, if not eliminate, human bias.

The scientific method discovers nothing. It invents nothing. It is simply a technique used by scientists (and could be used in many other fields of human endeavor if folks chose too do so) to home in on the 'scientific truth'.

Science is normally done by intuition, guessing, puttering about and other totally non-scientific techniques. Then the scientific method (procedure) is applied by the appropriate (hopefully) scientific community which does it's best to destroy the conjecture. NOTE: a conjecture is a guess that has not yet successfully passed the test described by the scientific method.

Note carefully, that unlike a mathematical theorem, a scientific theory cannot be proved correct.

If the theory is proved wrong, it is dead or must be modified or supplemented.

A scientific theory becomes accepted at some level of confidence as the attempts to fault it fail and as predictions based on the theory are shown to be correct.

This is why scientific-based reality must be by definition be both inquiry-based and doubt-based.

In the final analysis, a scientific theory is accepted as approximating (for the time being :-) ) reality by virtue of the fact that it has not been invalidated (disproved by use of the scientific method) and is useful (i.e., correctly predictive).

posted by: corpus christi on 11.06.04 at 09:13 PM [permalink]

It's only a distraction if you misinterpret the point of the argument, which was how people came to support the war.

Abakan
I'm not quite sure you are qualified to pass judgement on how people came to support the war. The point that many are making and you are ignoring is the fact that the distortion and the talking points by the Democratic Campaign began almost immediately and continues to this point. The Iraq war has always been supported by roughly half of the American populous.

posted by: corpus christi on 11.06.04 at 09:13 PM [permalink]

Look, I've read all the Wolfowitz docs, PNAC papers, NIE's, the '02 NSS, 9/11 report, etc nearly in full. I understand all the intents of the Bush doctrine (and even agree with a few parts). But the argument over that doctrine is separate and one that we might not be so diametrically opposed on. But it is different.

Abakan
This is your opinion. My opinion is that the noise generated by out of context and exerpted remarks about who we were fighting and why was designed to create these distractive arguments.

posted by: corpus christi on 11.06.04 at 09:13 PM [permalink]

Your comments miss the point, being that most people haven't read and analyzed all this. And I'm not being condescending, but outside the wonky world of the internet, not a lot of people analyze things in such detail. At least the ones I've run into in the past 3 years.

Abakan
I really can't lose sleep over how many make judgements without analyzing the situation in detail. What I do lose sleep over is the fact that the talking points from the Democratic party seem to be largely lies and distortions.

posted by: corpus christi on 11.06.04 at 09:13 PM [permalink]

The nation was hit hard by the 9/11 attacks and after Afghanistan, the administration wanted to get the country behind a war that they had been wanting to fight for a long time. Before 9/11, the chances of getting public support for a war in Iraq were minimal, and they didn't really try to convince people on the merits of their real objectives.

Abakan
I think this is incorrect. I think the case was made for the merits of the war in Iraq quite clearly.

posted by: corpus christi on 11.06.04 at 09:13 PM [permalink]

Saying they used the emotion of 9/11 to get people to back them on Iraq without telling them the full story isn't all that far-fetched. Didn't anybody here find it strange that our soldiers were writing 9/11 revenge graffiti on bombs intended for Iraq? And yes, I understand not everyone thought this way.

Abakan
No, I didn't think it was strange. Did you think it was strange that painted murals of the WTC in flames were found all over Iraq?

posted by: corpus christi on 11.06.04 at 09:13 PM [permalink]

Before anyone says that I don't think people were smart enough to see this, let's not forget that one of the main architects (but other neocons as well) of this policy and war, Wolfowitz, is a Straussian. There is a tendency there to hide esoteric messages or objectives within an exoteric shell. Basically, that sometimes, policy makers would have to deceive the people in order to protect the nation in a way that only they understood. I'm not a fan of that school of thought.

Abakan
I think the primary sourse of the deception was the Democratic challengers to a Republican incumbent and a partisan media.

Dear Eric:

I'm glad you got another well-deserved Instalanche. An extremely interesting post and an extremely interesting thread proceeding from it. Much to think about here. Many thoughts come to my mind.

1) The man's statement: "...We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Sounds like one of Oswald Spengler's men of action, a man of Destiny, speaking to a man of Causality of the Late Civilization, a modern rationalistic intellectual. As Spengler wrote long ago in the conclusion of his "The Decline of the West": "...the Caesarism that is to come approaches with quiet, firm step..."

The Caesarism of the West already began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and it continues under George W. Bush. "...We're an empire now..." The Caesarism, and, as I have been remarking upon and will continue to remark upon, the Second Religiousness of the West. The _style_ of it all!

2) I keep thinking of "reality-bound cognitive functioning", as Nathaniel Branden wrote of back in the good old days before 1968, before Ayn Rand broke with him.

I have a button that says "Question Reality". It would be interesting to juxtapose that with that T-shirt that says "Reality-Based Community Member", though I far prefer the phrase "Reality-Bound Cognitive Functioning" or "Unobstructed Reality-Bound Cognitive Functioning". The latter just has so much more _style_!

But, it all raises a question in my mind as to whether today's Left may be dividing into the "post-modern" subjectivist, social constructionist or de-constructionist (destructionist), nihilist Left vs. a "modern" Enlightenment Left, which could possibly align itself with certain Left-oriented Objectivists such as Arthur Silber, adhering to a secular metaphysics of objective reality and an epistemology of rational empiricism, in opposition both to the Caesarism ("Attila") and to the Second Religiousness ("Witch Doctor") symbolized by Bush. Hmmm....

3) The spectrumology of this post and thread is EXTREMELY interesting, and shows what I have been thinking for a very long time. Contra Thomas Sowell, it is not necessarily the Right that has the pessimistic realism of "the constrained vision" nor is it necessarily the Left that has the visionary idealism of "the unconstrained vision". In many ways, it is the other way around. It is the Right that has faith, idealism, vision, on its side. The only question, which we must decide, is: What shall be our faith, ideal, vision?

4) In case the HUAC wishes to know, I hereby testify that I myself am not now nor have I ever been a member of any community, and obviously not of any reality-based community. I far prefer myth and fantasy.

Holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma vs. wicked Wanda and her women (Wendy, Cindy, Sandy, Candy, Brandy, Brenda, Glanda, Stella, Hannah...)....

Alessanda wrote here (on a man's man's blog):

"For example, pro-homosexuals have equated anti-homosexuals with haters."

Anti-homosexuals are indeed motivated solely by hatred of the good for being the good, though some of them may be merely confused fellow-travelling dupes.

"This maligning trick has seeped in popular culture so much so, that we see anti-homosexuals and/or anti-gay marriage supporters having to state that they are not full of hate. As if they ever were."

The truth is that they are and have always been motivated by hatred of the good for being the good.

"This is exactly the same as equating people who are anti-pedophilia,"

Equating homosexuals with child-rapers is a despicable lie.

"anti-prostitution,"

Prostitution, while it should be legal, is not in the same moral category as the eternal faithful love (marriage) between two women or two men.

"anti-SM as full of hate."

S&M is hate inverted into love, agony into ecstasy, which is indeed the leitmotif underlying all sexual passion, the sexual bond, the holy bond, bondage, of wedlock.

"A bigoted and cheap tactic to malign people who have opposing viewpoints with some ad hominen attack label."

The favorite tactic of the anti-homosexual movement, e.g., the lie that homosexuals have an "agenda", are irreligious, promiscuous, degenerate, out to corrupt children, linking them with Communists, etc.. These are all lies.

"Fortunately, it seems slowly but surely many Americans are catching on that the slimy "label your viewpoint opponent as full of hate" tactic is nothing but the sign of bigot incapable of discussion."

I may very well be a "bigot" (dogmatist) incapable of discussion with the enemies of my freedom and values. I know that I am right, and that is good enough for me.

Michael Janich wrote:

"I have created a new word to address these people who worship their "own reality". We all know the term "reality-based" is an antonym for "faith-based" programs which were proposed by Bush."

I support faith-based programs initiated by President Bush or by any other individual man or woman under the First Amendment. The freedom of worship is absolute. I myself choose to be faith-based, myth-based. Unfortunately, your faith and mine are diametrically opposed.

Therefore.....

"For these people proponing "reality-based" humanist centered government rule."

I prefer individual self-rule.

"I have created a new word for them... the word is "Christaphobia" . People, mainly liberals, who are suffering from an acute form of pathological hatred manifested in today's post modern socialist anti-god movement, shall hereby be reffered to as "CHRISTAPHOBES"."

I am certainly not "Cristaphobic". Is not Osiris the archetype of the Christ-myth? And Isis, the Queen of Heaven. And I oppose socialism and Communism. I am pre-modern.

"I say we use their socalled "tolerance" against them."

That is your deadliest error, as I have no tolerance whatsoever nor have I ever professed to be tolerant. I am and have always been intolerant, a dogmatist, as well as an egoist. Proudly.

"They call Christians homophobes because Christians think sodomy, fallacio, and cunnilingus are sins."

"Sodomy", as you call it (buggery?), and fellatio are holy to an androsexual man, a man's man, and to an androsexual woman, the worship of the Holy Phallus. Cunnilingus and tribadism are holy to a gynosexual (Lesbian, Sapphist) woman, and to a gynosexual (Lesbian-worshipping) man, the worship of the Holy Clitoris.

The linear angularity of Man. The encircling curvaceousness of Woman. The eternal Divine polarity.

"Being as such, we should call them "christaphobes" because they are scared shitless by moral absolutes."

You are scared shitless by me, as I stand up for these absolute moral-aesthetic values against your negation of values.

"By using liberal judges to pass precidenct rulings, left wingers are trying to abolish the "old norms" of society. First they are starting with legal sodomy, which was passed by activist judges in Texas,"

Error: John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner (a Negro man's man, by the way) were vindicated in their sacred right to privacy by the United States Supreme Court led by Justice Kennedy (a conservative who was appointed by President Reagan).

"next was legal gay marriage, which was passed by activist judges in Mass. (home of John Kerry), then its legal illicit drugs like pot and hash, coming soon from a lib judge near you.. the list of liberal moral decay is long, and I could keep on going."

Drugs should be legalized. I myself do not use drugs.

The total commitment, the tight and high bond of eternal fidelity, of marriage, including homosexual marriage, is absolutely holy.

"Modern liberals seem to have a problem with the basic rules of civilization. Summed up, one could say liberals only have 1 REAL problem with these accepted common moral rules of society - they really have a probelme with the 10 commandments!

What it really boils down to; Their true qualms lie in : the 1st commandment from God, and what God says about homosexuality.. "you can have no other gods before me"."

That is wrong. There are many Gods and Goddesses. Indeed, for there to be any God at all, then there absolutely MUST be a Goddess. That is absolute holy Divine dogma.

"and to lie with another man is an abomination".

False, for a man's man. And for a woman to lie with a woman is also holy.

"All the other commandments are hard to disagree with, such as you shall not kill, or you shall not lie, or steal, bare false witness (give false testimony) etc."

Lying about, bearing false witness against, stealing from, raping or murdering, homosexuals is indeed a most unholy sin.

"All of this needs to be addressed, because the "reality based" liberal movement, is BASED upon the one true reality--- that "reality" is the hatred and debunking of ANY moral absolutes..."

I uphold absolute moral values such as the holiness of homosexual marriage.

"personified in the what I just wrote above about the liberal agenda : legal sodomy, gay marriage, legalizing drugs like pot,"

All of these must indeed be legalized. Government must be kept out of our bedrooms.

"removing "under god" from the pledge, removing any reference to god from public buildings, and even going so far as to PREVENT kids from bringing a bible to school to read during their lunchtime."

I oppose any restrictions on the freedom to worship any God or Goddess, by you or anybody else.

"If all of this is not classified as "christaphobia" then I don't know what is!'

It is an incoherent mess of contradictory premises, both on your part and that of the liberals you condemn.

Prostitution, while it should be legal, is not in the same moral category as the eternal faithful love (marriage) between two women or two men.

by Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Idiot)
==============================
The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association has recently disclosed: "Domestic violence is a hugely ignored health issue in the LGBT communities, affecting one in three LGBT relationships."

Cato the Idiot above calls this love. Cato the Idiot is obviously too steeped in denial about how violent GLBTs are to have a clue. People who are too irresponsible to face mass violence problems (such as 1 in 3 violent GBLT relationships) are not fit to opine on such issues, much less serve office, school, parish, military, etc.

Prostitution, either legal or illegal, accounts for the destruction of millions of lives of children, adolescents and adults around the world. People like Cato the Idiot are too dehumanized to care or know. The only thing their small minds can muster is that people who are not ignorant, self-serving pro-homosexuals like them are full of hate.

Cato the Idiot, and the throngs of idiots like him, are not full of hate, they are full of joy and comfort with the destruction of so many human lives, and shoving sexual violence and denigration wherever they go, covering it up with a veneer little speech about freedom.

"This is exactly the same as equating people who are anti-pedophilia,"

Equating homosexuals with child-rapers is a despicable lie.

by Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Idiot)
==============================
First, homosexuals were not being equated to pedophiles. ( As two asides, second, not all pedophiles end up raping children. Third, a number of pedophiles are not straight, guess what that makes them?)

Pedophilia, homosexuality, prostitution, SM are all examples of sexuality problems and having a critical viewpoint towards any or all these issues (and all other sexuality problems we have in the world) does not equate anyone to being full of hate.

That is only a maligning tactic of slimy, ignorant pro-homosexuals.

I may very well be a "bigot" (dogmatist) incapable of discussion with the enemies of my freedom and values. I know that I am right, and that is good enough for me.

by Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Idiot)
===================
"When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities"

David Hume (Scottish philosopher, historian, economist and essayist)

Alessandra wrote:
"Cato the Idiot, and the throngs of idiots like him, are not full of hate, they are full of joy and comfort with the destruction of so many human lives, and shoving sexual violence and denigration wherever they go, covering it up with a veneer little speech about freedom."

To the contrary, I am indeed full of hate, as well as an intolerant dogmatist and a completely deviated prevert.

Steven,

Thanks for the kind remarks.

(Looks like you've found a new fan here -- although I wasn't thinking about "sodomy" when I tried to analyze the "Reality Based Community.")

:)

Ironbear, I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for visiting.

Equating resistance to gay marriage with being anti-homosexual (whether that is hateful or not) is not reality based. My proposed bumper sticker:

Marriage equals one man and one woman
Civil union equals whatever floats your boat

Any truth to the rumors that the "Reality-Based Community" is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Ministry of Truth?

Triticale wrote:
"Marriage equals one man and one woman
Civil union equals whatever floats your boat"

The spectrum as I see it is:

Marriage (or Total Commitment Marriage) = one woman + one woman, one woman + one man, one man + one man, for life or for eternity = Conservative (holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma)

Civil union = "fuzzy" Liberal

Promiscuity, adultery, orgies = Liberal, Libertine (wicked Wanda and her women (Wendy, Cindy, Sandy, Candy, Brandy, Brenda, Glenda, Stella, Hannah...))

Eradication of homosexuality = Communist

Wow, what a bunch of cultists! You guys rock!

I must also mention that that statement by the Bush aide ("we create our own reality") reminds me of the Objectivist dualism of "the primacy of existence" vs. "the primacy of consciousness" as opposing fundamental philosophical premises. Objectivists side with the former, the Bush man clearly with the latter.

Bishop Michael de Bey of the One And Only Holy Christian Apostoloic Tridentine Tribadentine Catholic Church of the Cathedral of Our Most Holy Virgin Mother, the Queen of Heaven, wrote in his tome "Origin, Meaning, and Destiny: The Theology of the Holy Sacraments" wrote:
"We must presuppose a Supreme Being, for all philosophy must necessarily begin with the primacy of consciousness over mere existence. Nothing can exist unless it is itself presupposed by a consciousness, by a higher consciousness, by the highest consciousness of all: God (the Trinity) and the Goddess...."

Uncle Bill said: "First the remark by Leo Strauss is illogical nonsense. He presumably believes that this statement totally invalidates all science although I have no idea what in context, if any, the statement is embeded."

The point is not at all that science is "invalidated." The point is that human inquiry can't be entirely guided by method; else the methods themselves could never be devised. The point isn't illogical or nonsensical. If one bristles at my merely pointing out that the scientific method wasn't self-generating, one tends to support my point that some scientists or scientific-minded people are holding on to some sort of faith.

Poet-Engineer said, "Science can only proceed by rejecting the assumption that things are mysterious. Science assumes that they are subject to human inquiry which can yield knowledge, which is the opposite of mystery. The scientific process is not mysterious at all; it is merely a very sophisticated system for verifying and validating hypotheses and information, and using each verified hypothesis as a starting point for revealing more information."

He was responding to my remarks, in part, "However, I think the best scientists are those who come to realize that their knowledge is knowledge humanly speaking and that its much-acclaimed basis is mysterious, i.e. a matter for thoughtful investigation by the most profound."

I see that I confused matters by using the word "mysterious." Instead, I should have said that there are some respects in which the basis of scientific knowledge is "little-examined" and "little-understood." Analysis is meant to replace intuition, but it is only partially successful, because analysis and the analyses it produces are grounded in various ways in intuitions. As I mentioned, this is clearly and persuasively set forth by Stanley Rosen in The Limits of Analysis. If it really is true that analysis and, thus, the scientific method are bound up with intuitions, then one must at least be willing to own up to this and allow that the matter is a subject of inquiry in its own right, unless one is willing merely to have faith in these intuitions or deny their existence.

If it needs to be said, I'm not trying to shoot science down. I'm trying to help make it better by helping people wring out some of their residual faith.