Here's John Perry Barlow with an interesting take on Cheney and what might really be going on in his head. I'm not agreeing with everything here, but it's really worth a read.
JPB is a wild man....
You ever meet him?
One thing about the New American Empire: it's going to require a wrenching change in our mythology. All our stories are about the little guy triumphing over empires or one sort or another. Star Wars; Braveheart; the American Revolution, forget 'em. We'll have to start making movies where the Romans are the heroes. This is going to take a generation or two to get used to…
Sounds to me like JPB has gotten a little batty from his proximity to the billionaires of Jackson Hole..I mean he's suggesting that the MX was a good idea in hindsight because we di d not use them & the Soviet Union fell...like these represent human acheivements of lasting value... & Bill Gates the smartest man he ever met... I mean does he mean like the smartest dresser? & don't get me going on the lameness of his songwriting...sounds like dude could use a visit from Hunter Thompson to recalibrate his reality compass.
"The compass card is spinnin'.
The helm is swingin' to and fro.
Ooh, where's the Dog Star?
Ooh, where's the moon?"
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis all by itself for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
The Cheney speech that came from is here. He does give quite a bit of lip service to the environment and alternative fuels in that speech, but in retrospect it's clouded by the sheer dishonesty of his scare remarks about "rolling blackouts." As we now know, those were caused by his Enron backers' manipulation of the energy market in California.
Barlow's defense is obviously colored by his early friendship with Cheney. But whatever Cheney once was, he's now joined the Dark Side.
Tom, I agree, it seems he's joined the dark side to me as well. But of course I've never met the man. I thought JPB's piece was worth it because he has met him, and as such his views on the man are a little more complex. That doesn't mean he's right, of course, but I found it interesting. I think the left (or whatever we want to call it - I mean the sane people) are in danger of simplifying matters too much. Does Cheney being on the dark side make us the forces of good? While I'm tempted occasionally to think so, this is obviously false, and probably does a disservice to the good points we do make.
Jim, I appreciate you posting that. I'm interested in Barlow's perspective, since he is a libertarian and someone who knows Cheney. It's just that his conclusions are so bad. I'd even say they're contrary to everything libertarians believe.
Barlow says: "Here is the problem I think Dick Cheney is trying to address at the moment: How does one assure global stability in a world where there is only one strong power?"
And Cheney's answer, which Barlow endorses, is that we must impose a "fearful peace" on the world. That's just outrageous! It's totally overstating the threat to us from disparate Muslim groups, Koreans, and other lesser powers. We can defend ourselves just fine without scaring the whole world to death.
I think our problem as left/libertarian/sane people is sometimes we don't oversimplify enough. We see both sides of the question. On the issue of Iraq and the "fearful peace," I think that's even more worse than just going after oil.
I believe Barlow no longer refers to himself as a libertarian, although he used to. Not sure what my point is there.
And yes, I completely agree that the "fearful peace" idea is 100% bonkers. But I don't think Barlow endorses it either. "If I were in charge, this is neither the flavor of peace I would prefer nor the way I would achieve it." What he does do is make a case for what Cheney might be up to that doesn't reduce Cheney to some sort of caricature.
Similarly, I don't think he's actually saying the MX missle was a good thing (although he comes closer in this case.) Again, he's just laying out the opposition argument (the missles weren't in fact used; the Soviet Union did in fact collapse) without turning it into a straw man to be easily knocked down.
But I think he is trying to knock down their argument.
Of course, I wouldn't be against Dr. Thompson paying him a visit either. We can all use a little recalibration...
OK, now this has been bothering me all night. In the light of my previous comments I'd just really like to stress the importance of not making a mockery of our supreme leaders. Really.
No really.
NO
or a weekend with FRANK:>):>)
but be nice on his songwriting....:>)
I should like to refer Messrs. Cheney and Barlow to
Ecclesiates 9:11.
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
|
- jim 2-26-2003 8:25 pm
JPB is a wild man....
- Skinny 2-27-2003 4:26 pm
You ever meet him?
- jim 2-27-2003 5:13 pm
One thing about the New American Empire: it's going to require a wrenching change in our mythology. All our stories are about the little guy triumphing over empires or one sort or another. Star Wars; Braveheart; the American Revolution, forget 'em. We'll have to start making movies where the Romans are the heroes. This is going to take a generation or two to get used to…
- alex 2-27-2003 7:21 pm
Sounds to me like JPB has gotten a little batty from his proximity to the billionaires of Jackson Hole..I mean he's suggesting that the MX was a good idea in hindsight because we di d not use them & the Soviet Union fell...like these represent human acheivements of lasting value... & Bill Gates the smartest man he ever met... I mean does he mean like the smartest dresser? & don't get me going on the lameness of his songwriting...sounds like dude could use a visit from Hunter Thompson to recalibrate his reality compass.
- frank 2-27-2003 7:25 pm
"The compass card is spinnin'.
The helm is swingin' to and fro.
Ooh, where's the Dog Star?
Ooh, where's the moon?"
- jim 2-27-2003 7:36 pm
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis all by itself for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
The Cheney speech that came from is here. He does give quite a bit of lip service to the environment and alternative fuels in that speech, but in retrospect it's clouded by the sheer dishonesty of his scare remarks about "rolling blackouts." As we now know, those were caused by his Enron backers' manipulation of the energy market in California.
Barlow's defense is obviously colored by his early friendship with Cheney. But whatever Cheney once was, he's now joined the Dark Side.
- tom moody 2-27-2003 7:38 pm
Tom, I agree, it seems he's joined the dark side to me as well. But of course I've never met the man. I thought JPB's piece was worth it because he has met him, and as such his views on the man are a little more complex. That doesn't mean he's right, of course, but I found it interesting. I think the left (or whatever we want to call it - I mean the sane people) are in danger of simplifying matters too much. Does Cheney being on the dark side make us the forces of good? While I'm tempted occasionally to think so, this is obviously false, and probably does a disservice to the good points we do make.
- jim 2-27-2003 7:44 pm
Jim, I appreciate you posting that. I'm interested in Barlow's perspective, since he is a libertarian and someone who knows Cheney. It's just that his conclusions are so bad. I'd even say they're contrary to everything libertarians believe. Barlow says: "Here is the problem I think Dick Cheney is trying to address at the moment: How does one assure global stability in a world where there is only one strong power?"
And Cheney's answer, which Barlow endorses, is that we must impose a "fearful peace" on the world. That's just outrageous! It's totally overstating the threat to us from disparate Muslim groups, Koreans, and other lesser powers. We can defend ourselves just fine without scaring the whole world to death.
I think our problem as left/libertarian/sane people is sometimes we don't oversimplify enough. We see both sides of the question. On the issue of Iraq and the "fearful peace," I think that's even more worse than just going after oil.
- tom moody 2-27-2003 8:02 pm
I believe Barlow no longer refers to himself as a libertarian, although he used to. Not sure what my point is there.
And yes, I completely agree that the "fearful peace" idea is 100% bonkers. But I don't think Barlow endorses it either. "If I were in charge, this is neither the flavor of peace I would prefer nor the way I would achieve it." What he does do is make a case for what Cheney might be up to that doesn't reduce Cheney to some sort of caricature.
Similarly, I don't think he's actually saying the MX missle was a good thing (although he comes closer in this case.) Again, he's just laying out the opposition argument (the missles weren't in fact used; the Soviet Union did in fact collapse) without turning it into a straw man to be easily knocked down.
But I think he is trying to knock down their argument.
Of course, I wouldn't be against Dr. Thompson paying him a visit either. We can all use a little recalibration...
- jim 2-27-2003 8:20 pm
OK, now this has been bothering me all night. In the light of my previous comments I'd just really like to stress the importance of not making a mockery of our supreme leaders. Really.
No really.
- jim 2-28-2003 6:14 am
NO
- Skinny 2-28-2003 4:28 pm
or a weekend with FRANK:>):>)
but be nice on his songwriting....:>)
- Skinny 2-28-2003 4:30 pm
I should like to refer Messrs. Cheney and Barlow to
Ecclesiates 9:11.
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
- Tom G 3-01-2003 9:39 pm