Comments on: Naomi Klein

By: GOD

GOD — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:18:27 +0000

O Children of Israel, remember My favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I blessed you more than any other people, Beware of the day when no soul can avail another soul, no intercession will be accepted, no ransom can be paid, nor can anyone be helpedRecall that we saved you from Pharaoh's people who inflicted upon you the worst persecution, slaying your sons and sparing your daughters. That was an exacting test from your Lord. Recall that we parted the sea for you; we saved you and drowned Pharaoh's people before your eyes.
Yet, when we summoned Moses for forty nights, you worshipped the calf in his absence, and turned wicked, Still, we pardoned you thereafter that you may be appreciative. Recall that we gave Moses scripture and the statute book, that you may be guided."
We made a covenant with the Children of Israel:… We made a covenant with you, that you shall not shed your blood, nor shall you evict each other from your homes. You agreed and bore witness. Yet, here you are killing each other, and evicting some of you from their homes, banding against them sinfully and maliciously. Even when they surrendered, you demanded ransom from them. Evicting them was prohibited for you in the first place. Do you believe in part of the scripture and disbelieve in part? What should be the retribution for those among you who do this, except humiliation in this life, and a far worse retribution on the Day of Resurrection? GOD is never unaware of anything you do.

Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve. (Al-Baqarah)

By: GOD

GOD — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:18:27 +0000

By: Cameron McCormack

Cameron McCormack — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:25:03 +0000

I think it's ridiculous that some of you are either hinting at, or directly saying that what Klein has done doesn't matter. I don't have a strong pull to either side of this argument, because honestly I just don't know enough about it to make a stance. What I do know is that what Klein has done is convince a lot of people, whether on well founded grounds or not, that her views are correct. In turn there will certainly be more people gravitating to the left. I'm sure she will also solidify some quasi-right thinkers into a mind set to defend their weak believes (“weak” referring to their level of conviction; not their arguments), but the overall effect will be more of a shift to the left. Whether you agree with her or not, it's hard to refute that “The Shock Doctrine” was a compelling book that has been read by a lot of people in a lot of different countries. It will and has had an effect on people, and whether she'll be forgotten in the end or not her sentiments will live on (for better or worse). And truth be told, if what she's done doesn't matter we all wouldn't be responding to this blog.

By: Greg N.

Greg N. — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:31:31 +0000

How about a more formal debate like those Economist things in NYC?

By: Cool Cal

Cool Cal — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:01:15 +0000

I would love to see that. What truly infuriates me about Klein, Maher, Olbermann, Maddow, Chomsky, etc. is perfectly articulated by a sentiment by Malcolm Muggeridge (arguably an extremist himself near the end). He once mused that in the long run Roosevelt was far worse than Mussolini, because while Mussolini had been discredited, Roosevelt continued to be hailed as a great man. Now many may disagree on the virtue of the comparison (Amity Shlaes perhaps would not), but the logic applies. While polite, that is coastal liberal urbane, society rejects O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, and Limaugh as know-nothing boors, the Huffington Post gang of previous mention is nevertheless respected as a throng of legitimate commentators, journalists, and intellectuals. But I challenge even the most ardent leftist of any serious intellect to accept that a man, whose program has as its centerpiece a constantly updated list of the ten worst people in the world, is any more a legitimate journalist than his Fox counterpart.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:30:57 +0000

Hell yes. If they can book her, I'll debate her.

By: ericccr

ericccr — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:27:48 +0000

does will have the balls to debate klein on bliggingheadstv???

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:00:57 +0000

berger,

Thank you for noting how off-target Will and his commentators are in their assessment of Rorty, his ideas, and his language. Indeed, as you recognize, Will criticizes Rorty by all but plagiarizing the terminology and thrust of Rorty's own claims.

If one cannot see that "banal" is a positive term in Rorty's vocabulary -- precisely because it is pragmatic and not theoretical, reformist and not revolutionary, based on the struggles of consensus and not on the revelations of apocalyptic Truth (secular, sacred, or ideological) -- then a closer reading is definitely in order. Rorty is nothing if not deflationary. His is a liberalism of doubt, not dogma.

By: Rubbadubdubicus

Rubbadubdubicus — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:14:12 +0000

A thorough critique of The Shock Doctrine already exists. It's called “The Klein Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Polemics” by Johan Norberg, and is on the Cato Institute website. It addresses all of what Klein says and reveals much of it to be not only incorrect, but slanderous of Milton Friedman, a great humanitarian and pacifist.

Considering that, Will's post is a very articulate summation of what many market liberals think about Klein.

By: Knemon

Knemon — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:02:00 +0000

“Tyler has to be making this up, right???”

No. The line is something like “think tanks – by which I mean people paid to think by the makers of tanks.” Funny cuz it's a homonym.

“a logical argument refutating Marxism”
1) Refutating?
2) Dunno how “logical” this is, but how about: It's failed miserably every time it's been tried? Sorta like a “logical” argument against unaided human flight …