Con Dinesh D’Souza once again demonstrates the rightist mindset when it comes to terrorism (previously espoused by folks like the very prominent Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson): We must do everything radical Islam wants us to.
Related
Conservative Bigot Eruption: Dinesh D’Souza
Dinesh D’Souza And The Liberal Media
Ashcroft Is Back (In Spirit)
Must be a slow day in the left blogosphere. That was from Doubleday - their web site. Hate D’Souza all you want, if that’s your thing, but at least maintain some vague touch with reality.
Yes, good point, Dugger. The press release about the book has absolutely nothing to do with the book itself, and I don’t understand why everyone is getting all uppity about criticizing an author’s line of reasoning based on a summary of the author’s work issued by his publisher’s press office.
Tool.
Anyway, for another perspective, I give you a Dan Savage column from October, 2001:
Nevertheless, the press release was written by Doubleday and not D’Souza. If you wish to spefically demonize D’Souza you should at least pretend intellectual honesty and use his own words.
You don’t know that the book will actually read as the exact opposite of the blurb on the back! Everyone knows blurbs have liberal bias!
This is the same argument the right always uses - how are possibly responsible for the material marketing our own books. Look, my hand is writing on its own!!!
“same argument the right always makes”
Yeah, about everyday I hear myself saying that some conservative author or the other is really not responsible for the publisher’s blurb on his book. We know nothing! Nothing! Do it so much, I just call it conservative excuse # 27 (we have lots of excuses).
Are you being sarcastic or honest?
Jeez, Dugger. The press release says: “He [D'Souza] argues that…”
Are you thinking that his own publisher is misrepresenting his work?
I’m actually thinking OW and the left blogosphere is misinterpreting the publisher’s blurb remarks. However,as is the case quite frequently here, a rational non-demonizing conversation re anything Bush is impossible so I point out the quickest and most non-rebuttable argument against the anti-Bush screed.
“so I point out the quickest and most non-rebuttable argument”
And that argument is: “He didn’t really say that even if his own publisher says he did”?
Good work.
And it’s a press release, not a blurb on the jacket.
“Nevertheless, the press release was written by Doubleday and not D’Souza.”
Brain damaged.
For Christ’s sake, Dugger, this is embarrassing. For your own sake, try to cling on to at least a scrap of dignity.
And that argument is: “He didn’t really say that even if his own publisher says he did”?
Actually the argument is “he really didn’t say that.”
And his publisher is not saying he said that. Merely it is their interpretation of what to say on a press release re the book. And I think neither are saying: “We must do everything radical Islam wants us to.”
That is the central claim of this post by OW. Do you believe either D’Souza or Doubleday is actually saying that?
“That is the central claim of this post by OW. Do you believe either D’Souza or Doubleday is actually saying that?”
Comatose.
To borrow a coy turn of phrase from many-a-right-winger from the runup to the Iraq war:
If one argues, as D’Souza apparently does, that to make Islamist radicals less annoyed with us we should give up most of the freedoms that find objectionable, then yes, that makess one “objectively pro-Islamist radicals”.
From the press release:
Which dipshit right wingers want to go on record agreeing with this?
“apparently”
Ho hum.
Apparently I’m rich.
Apparently Thomas Dewey was president.
Apparently storks bring babies.
No, you’re just really, really stupid or really, really desperate.
Jeezus Keerist, Dugs, you don’t think an author vets the press releases that go out about his or her work? Do you think D’Souza woke up this morning and called his agent, “My publisher is misrepresenting my work, god damn it! Everyone knows I think that the sexual liberty of women, to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce are what make America strong!”
Give. Me. A. Break.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Dugs, you are truly King of the Idiot Trolls.
Apparently?
Apparently you haven’t bothered to read the press release:
It’s not the meddling in the affairs of other countries they mind so much–it’s abortion!
yes “apparently”
Are you saying I’m wrong and D’Souza wrote that instead of Doubleday?
I believe I would see what the book itself says or the author himself (to evaluate it) rather than promo material from the publisher. To each his own, but if we take your position then there is no need to read any book is ther. We can just read a ten second blurb from the publisher and be done with it.
“To each his own, but if we take your position then there is no need to read any book is ther.”
Stoopider and stoopider.
Dugs, the press release is a summation of the book’s central argument to entice people to read it. Do you think that the publisher is deliberately misrepresenting the views of its own author? That would be rather surprising don’t you think?
Well, I suppose it’s possible that the publisher misunderstood what this book is about.
And that they asked someone who hadn’t actually read the book to write the press release.
I suppose that the book, titled “The Enemy at Home” could really be about a visit with Mr. bin Laden at his mountain hideout.
But then, there might really be alligators in the sewers of New York City too.
Perhaps the publisher quote is somewhat hyberbolic - made controversial so it will sell books. Controversy does sell doesn’t it? But then I admit I don’t know whats actually in the book, what D’Souza actually says and what the book proposes, because I haven’t read it. You?
Um, Dugger, hyperbolic or not, as described by the press release, D’Souza’s central thesis is pretty offensive and most certainly fits the phrase “blame American first.” Although, aparrently if one blames liberal Americans that’s okay.
But as Quaker points out, WTF is up with that title, The Enemy At Home? Obviously, D’Souza is not talking about terror cells in the United States, unless you think that the publisher is misrepresenting the book that seriously. Do you think that’s possible.
I highly doubt that the book’s central argument will be any different than what is presented in the press release.
Dugger, your point is simple. Doubleday is making an argument, not D’Souza. You are factually correct but making a stupid point. Doubleday isn’t pulling this out of their ass - they are doing it to publicize the book and make it attractive to the intended audience. You would buy the book because you wanted to see how he backed up that premise. You would buy the premise if you were willing to give up hard fought American civil liberties for the sake of appeasing Middle Eastern terrorists.
Full disclosure: when I was a Republican, I sent D’Souza’s “The Virtue of Prosperity” to all of my family as a Christmas present. It was particularly ironic because the book extolled the virtues of the dot-com extravagance about six months before the market disappeared. I still get shit for that.
Shit I hand’t even seen the sub-title:
“The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibilty for 9/11″
Nice. Dugs, you’re total idiot.
Amazon link.
But then I admit I don’t know whats actually in the book, what D’Souza actually says and what the book proposes, because I haven’t read it. You?
Me? As a former bookseller, I’m confident that the good folks at Doubleday know their business.
Here’s an experiment Dugger. Let’s pose the title of D’Souza’s book as a question.
Do you think the cultural left bears some responsibility for 9-11?
My guess is that if your answer to that question is “No” you’re next step would not be to write a 304 page book explaining why.
Now what’s your answer to that question, Dugs?
Thanks for the Amazon link, Frame.
Did you notice that you can add tags to describe the book?
FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST DUGGER NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY YOU CANNOT SPIN THAT DINESH D’SOUZA DIDN’T SAY WHAT THE PRESS RELEASE OF HIS BOOK SAYS HE SAID IN SAID BOOK JUST STOP IT BEFORE YOU MAKE YOURSELF BLEED TO DEATH THROUGH YOUR OWN EARS
but at least maintain some vague touch with reality.
Posted by: Dugger |
Wow, look who’s talking.
No, no, no…let’s give Dugger the benefit of the doubt. He’s right that D’Souza probably didn’t write the blurb, and he may not have had any control over it; I’ve heard publishers can be funny that way. But Dugger, you can’t deny that the blurb purports to summarize what D’Souza actually says inside the book. I mean, it’s clearly trying to do that. It may be sensationalizing the message, but the message is there nonetheless: D’Souza (according to Doubleday) says that the reason we are the target of terrorists is because of liberals pushing libertine lifestyles on the U.S. and, via our global cultural influence, the world. It’s right there in plain English.
I’d revise Oliver’s final sentence like this: “We must do everything THE WAY radical Islam wants us to.” Because what D’Souza is really (apparently!) talking about is how liberal success in the culture wars is what has really incensed the Islamists, and if America had merely enforced rigid Judeo-Christian lifestyles (whatever that means) on everyone in the West they’d be more willing to live and let live. It’s BS, of course.
D’Souza has excerpts from his various books on his website, http://www.dineshdsouza.com/. I just hit the first one, “letters to a young conservative”, and immediately saw all I need to know about Mr. D’Souza’s viewpoint:
“Before the sixties, most Americans believed in a moral order in the universe that is external to us, that makes demands on us. Our obligation was to conform to that moral order. Earlier generations, right up to the “greatest generation” of World War II, took for granted this moral order and its commandments: work hard and try to better yourself, be faithful to your spouse, go when your country calls, and so on.
[...]
Liberals tend to believe in Rousseau’s proposition that human nature is intrinsically good. Therefore they believe that people who fail or do bad things are not acting out of laziness or wickedness; rather, society put them in this unfortunate position. Since people are innately good, liberals hold that the great conflicts in the world are not the result of good versus evil; rather they arise out of terrible misunderstandings that can be corrected through ongoing conversation and through the mediation of groups like the United Nations. Finally the liberal’s high opinion of human nature leads to the view that if you give people autonomy they will use their freedom well.
Conservatives know better. Conservatives recognize that there are two principles in human nature—good and evil—and these are in constant conflict. Given the warped timber of humanity, conservatives seek a social structure that helps to bring out the best in human nature and suppress man’s lower or base impulses. Conservatives support capitalism because it is a way of steering our natural pursuit of self-interest toward the material betterment of society at large. Conservatives insist that there are evil regimes and destructive forces in the world that cannot be talked out of their nefarious objectives; force is an indispensable element of international relations. Finally conservatives support autonomy when it is attached to personal responsibility—when people are held accountable for their actions—but they also believe in the indispensability of moral incubators (the family, the church, civic institutions) that are aimed at instructing people to choose virtue over vice.
”
At least he’s consistent, and I agree with his description of the differences between Liberals’ views and Conservatives’; but I think he’s the one on the wrong side of history. And I’m not going to be buying his books.
Dugger’s whole point is to avoid talking about D’Souzas’ thesis which is batshit insane no matter how you spin it.
I wonder what “moral incubator” allowed him to pork Laura Ingraham in college at Dartmouth.
Batshit insane, but in the mainstream of the modern conservative movement unfortunately.
Funny how these folks always bring up the 60’s as the beginning of our moral decay. Any coincedence that it is when America started treating minorities and women as real people?
Dugger | Sep 8, 2006 4:18:23 PM
Apparently I’m rich. Apparently Thomas Dewey was president. Apparently storks bring babies.
Nimrod Gently | Sep 8, 2006 4:29:51 PM
No, you’re just really, really stupid or really, really desperate.
The exact same point I was making on another thread. Funny how consistent Dugger proves to be.