Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Karen Finney Is A Sad Little Tool

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | 1 year,22 days

User Journal 16

Listen to Hugh Hewitt asks a simple question, and Little Karen just can't hang. Bwahahahaha.

Listen to Hugh Hewitt asks a simple question, and Little Karen just can't hang. Bwahahahaha.

cancel ×

16 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The legitimacy of his question is debatable (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | 1 year,22 days | (#44713333)

The host was trying to make a big stink over Alger Hiss [wikipedia.org] , who might or might not have been a communist. More so, the host insists not only that Hiss was a communist but that he "infiltrated the government". The former claim is dubious for sure, and the latter is only credible if you play fast and loose with the very meaning of infiltrating the government. Hiss never was elected to any role in the government, nor did he ever have a role in the creation or enforcement of laws. If McCarthyism - which is what the guest was trying to get to - was about preventing communists from forcing a Marxist agenda into the US government, then Hiss was of no value to it as he had no way to accomplish such a goal .

Furthermore, if we were to accept Hiss as a spy - and the evidence is flimsy for that as well - then what difference does it make if he's a communist, anarchist, capitalist, monarchist, islamist, or any other kind of spy? Is there some reason why a communist spy is worse than any of the other types of spies? Espionage is still illegal regardless of whose government you represent (or none at all). I see no reason why it is somehow a bigger deal if you happen to be a spy for country B instead of country A.

Re:The legitimacy of his question is debatable (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | 1 year,22 days | (#44714721)

It's a simple yes/no. If you think the question illegitimate, you say "no". You can cite Wikipedia as a source, but I don't think it reliable on questions such as this. I'd cite Stan Evans [amazon.com] , but you can question his bias just as readily.
Do I think that our government was/is rife with Commies?
I don't know: was Walter Duranty [wikipedia.org] a Commie sympathizer [youtube.com] ?

Re:The legitimacy of his question is debatable (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | 1 year,22 days | (#44715121)

It's a simple yes/no. If you think the question illegitimate, you say "no".

I probably would have been willing to go out on a limb and tell the host that I was not aware of any communist infiltration of the US government, but it was not my question to answer.

You can cite Wikipedia as a source, but I don't think it reliable on questions such as this.

I know a lot of people claim that wikipedia is heavily biased one way. However the question is about whether or not communists infiltrated the government and to me for that to have happened there would have needed to have been communists in relevant roles in the government. I have yet to hear of a lawmaker at the federal level who was actually a communist, and as I stated previously I don't see why a communist spy is any worse than any other kind of spy.

Do I think that our government was/is rife with Commies?
I don't know: was Walter Duranty a Commie sympathizer?

Smitty the way you wrote that suggests that if you were the caller and the host asked you the same question you wouldn't have had a direct answer for him either. The host was repeatedly aiming to get her to say that the government either was or was not infiltrated by communists and you just said "I don't know". I was not familiar with Mr. Duranty before your link today, but by skimming the wikipedia entry I could not find any office that he ever held in the US government so I don't think his views would really be sufficient to claim that the US government was somehow infiltrated by communists.

Re:The legitimacy of his question is debatable (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | 1 year,21 days | (#44717081)

I wrote the question so as to leave room for discussion.
That there was a multi-decade struggle between NATO countries and the Communist Block called the "Cold War" is not in dispute.
That infiltrating opposing governments during a struggle occurs is also not in dispute.
Where there seems to be some contention is the degree to which infiltration of our government was successful.
I submit that there is substantial denial about the extent. Whether Karen Finney is in denial due to ignorance (I'll give that a 'likely') or for some other motive is likely something I'll never no. Nor, frankly, do I care. But in terms of (a) understanding the past, and (b) protecting the future, I'd be happier with more clarity on this.
WHY? Because there seems to be a correlation between people ignoring significant issues of the past, and also supporting the collapse of liberty into an Orwellian, Socialist hell.

Re:The legitimacy of his question is debatable (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | 1 year,21 days | (#44717599)

If I may turn around the situation to clarify where I see a problem in the meaning of infiltration, do you feel that the current US government has been infiltrated by Tea Party operatives? From my vantage point, the Tea Party has easily infiltrated the US government to a more meaningful extent than the communists - be they American Communists or otherwise - ever did. The definition of infiltrate that needs to be applied in order to make an argument for communists having infiltrated the US federal government would also hold to claim that the US federal government has been infiltrated by anarchists, socialists, capitalists, monarchists, torries, yakuza, the KKK, seventh-day adventists, and any number of other social groups that anyone might care to name.

Indeed we can use a definition of infiltrate where we say that infiltration occurs any time someone from any given group A manages to gain social entry into group B, regardless of their intent. However from my reading of McCarthyism in particular the notion of infiltration when it comes to foreign governments is defined much more maliciously than that, and implies that the person who has placed themselves into group B has now some ability to direct what the rest of group B does.

Re:The legitimacy of his question is debatable (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | 1 year,21 days | (#44718795)

Well, that's a cogent argument, and, if we set aside the principles inherent in our founding documents, it's even reasonable.
Yet I'd contend that any grouping of people in any category you can name can be judged by their fidelity to those founding documents.
The notion that all groups are morally equivalent, and thus whoever does the best job of gaining and holding power wins,
is not one with which I'm comfortable. Yet that's been the course of the last 100 years.
You can draw distinctions between domestic Progressives like Woodrow Wilson, who planted the seeds of our current disaster, and foreign foes like the Communists, who've trashed our culture and academia, if you like.
And you can go ahead and say "it was all just opinions", and equate Tea Partiers with these Commies. It's even substantially true that Progress begat our Team America: World Police hegemony in the world, and I, growing up as a Navy brat and serving in the military, benefitted from the very structures I decry.
I'll tell you that those founding documents laid out a course for the optimal society to steer. This last century, Alger Hiss and ilk have been taking us off that course. My task is to do my tiny, drop-in-the-bucket bit to get us back on that course. Karen Finney and ilk are not helping.

Re:The legitimacy of his question is debatable (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,21 days | (#44722079)

Communists. pffft! Bunch of pansies compared to Irish Republican whiskey runners.. Whew! Good thing we nipped that in the bud..

Re:The legitimacy of his question is debatable (1)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,21 days | (#44720351)

"From my vantage point, the Tea Party has easily infiltrated the US government to a more meaningful extent than the communists"

From my point of view the exact opposite - it is the Tea Party which has been infiltrated, very early and very heavily (with plenty of media support.)

In fact I am having a hard time thinking of anyone associated with the Tea Party by the media that actually had anything to do with it at all.

Re:The legitimacy of his question is debatable (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | 1 year,21 days | (#44720825)

Erick Erickson at RedState is an example of somebody. Michelle Malkin is closer to a mainstream journalist, but I saw her at Lafayette Park in DC, shortly after Santelli's famous rant [cnbc.com] , right out of CPAC.

It is, but perhaps you miss his point as well (1)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,21 days | (#44715325)

Alger Hiss' story may be debatable but she just wasnt prepared to debate it. She doesnt appear to even know who Alger Hiss is. And she's supposed to be an expert, she speaks with (false?) authority.

It is simply historically illiterate to claim that the US government was not infiltrated with communists. Whether or not Hiss personally was involved the USSR clearly had multiple sources reporting to them inside the State department going back to the 30s when Hiss worked there. Chambers wasnt a great witness and his credibility is easy to impeach, but in large part his story is backed up by the old CPUSA records which the Russians inherited from the USSR and declassified back in the 90s.

Re:It is, but perhaps you miss his point as well (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | 1 year,21 days | (#44715729)

It is simply historically illiterate to claim that the US government was not infiltrated with communists.

That depends on how you define infiltrated. If you set the bar as low as to say that there were people working for government officials who had communist sympathies, then sure. But another way to view infiltrate is that it implies the people who were communists (or communist sympathizers) had some influence in the direction of the government. If you take the latter view then the only way you could claim the government to have been infiltrated by communists would be if there were elected officials who had roles in shaping laws who were communists. This, of course, did not occur.

the USSR clearly had multiple sources reporting to them inside the State department going back to the 30s when Hiss worked there

We had a large number of sources inside the USSR that reported back to us, does that mean we infiltrated the USSR government? I would argue that no we did not. If all you have is a source inside another country you have only committed a classic act of espionage, you haven't "infiltrated" anything. Granted, it is valuable but it is not infiltration due to the fact that the source has no influence on the direction of the other country. Being as McCarthy (dare I go back to what the caller actually referenced) claimed to be concerned with communists who wanted to make the USA into the USSR, his goals were never realized as there were no such agents present.

Re:It is, but perhaps you miss his point as well (1)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,21 days | (#44716889)

"That depends on how you define infiltrated. If you set the bar as low as to say that there were people working for government officials who had communist sympathies, then sure"

Infiltrate: to enter or become established in gradually or unobtrusively usually for subversive purposes

You seem to be reversing the meanings of the words from how they are normally used. Infiltration is simply getting people into position. Depending on how it's done it may not be illegal at all. Espionage is one of the more common things infiltraters may be used for after they are in position - but it's not the only one.

The fact is we know the US government had been infiltrated - and not just by citizens with communist sympathies who wanted to make the US more like the USSR, but also by those who actively relayed information of interest to the USSR.

"We had a large number of sources inside the USSR that reported back to us, does that mean we infiltrated the USSR government?"

Doh.

"Granted, it is valuable but it is not infiltration due to the fact that the source has no influence on the direction of the other country. "

That word just doesnt mean what you think it means. An infiltrator doesnt have to be in a position to influence policy in order to be an infiltrator (though it is more than reasonable to suppose that some were) and he doesnt even have to be attempting to gain a position specifically to influence policy either.

"Being as McCarthy (dare I go back to what the caller actually referenced) claimed to be concerned with communists who wanted to make the USA into the USSR, his goals were never realized as there were no such agents present."

McCarthy was a fool and a demogogue, but if you think there were no communists you would have to be an even bigger fool.

Re:It is, but perhaps you miss his point as well (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,21 days | (#44720011)

Infiltrate: to enter or become established in gradually or unobtrusively usually for subversive purposes

That word. "Subversive". It's a poor choice. Becoming established gradually or unobtrusively is how a lot of social movements work. Someone could say that the efforts of the Christian or Jewish lobbies in Washington are working "gradually or unobtrusively" to influence things, but you wouldn't call them "subversives".

A subversive is anyone you disagree with, apparently, and that simply does not comport with a First Amendment. The first amendment guarantees freedom of association, freedom of speech, etc. It doesn't say anything about "...but only if you really love capitalism".

A free society does not work by ferreting out and removing people who have different beliefs, does it?

As far as spying...You could easily say that Jonathan Pollard, or some of the other Israeli spies did a lot more damage to US national security than Alger Hiss, but there are actually lobbyists working right now, outside and inside of government to release him. Are these people "subversives"? Would you call the American Legislative Exchange Council "subversives"? They are most definitely working "to enter or become established in gradually or unobtrusively". And they're working directly to "subvert" the direction American society has been taking since the New Deal? Should we have a McCarthy-style hearing to check into their activities? Should we be worried?

but if you think there were no communists you would have to be an even bigger fool.

You still have to make a case for it mattering, though.

Re:It is, but perhaps you miss his point as well (1)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,21 days | (#44720321)

"That word. "Subversive". It's a poor choice."

I was merely quoting from a dictionary.

And subversive can have either positive or negative connotations btw. All depends on what you are trying to subvert (and the way you go about it.)

"Someone could say that the efforts of the Christian or Jewish lobbies in Washington are working "gradually or unobtrusively" to influence things, but you wouldn't call them "subversives"."

How do you know I wouldnt?

"As far as spying...You could easily say that Jonathan Pollard, or some of the other Israeli spies did a lot more damage to US national security than Alger Hiss, but there are actually lobbyists working right now, outside and inside of government to release him. Are these people "subversives"?"

Of course they are.

"Should we have a McCarthy-style hearing to check into their activities"

You might re-read what I just said about him and his activities.

"You still have to make a case for it mattering, though."

No, you just need to go back up the thread for context apparently.

Re:It is, but perhaps you miss his point as well (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | 1 year,21 days | (#44717139)

We had a large number of sources inside the USSR that reported back to us, does that mean we infiltrated the USSR government? I would argue that no we did not.

Well, we're operating from widely disparate definitions, then.
I can buy some amount of moral equivalence, governments being what they are, and doing what they do.
Case in point: Radio Free Europe [wikipedia.org] . Granted, this is a very soft electromagnetic example, but if you think that was the extent of our efforts, well, fine. Think away, sir.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>