Sanction of the Victim.

Slave Morality.

Is Matthews a slave...or a master tying to fool you into becoming a slave? That is the question.

Isn't 'evil' just the opposite perspective of 'good'? Can't they have both a different perspective and be evil at the same time?

I think they can, and they prove it often.

Media: "We don't hate America. We don't blame America for all of the problems. Where do you wingnuts get that idea?"

Ace, there appears to be some confusion here-- Matthews may have been (in fact, probably was) speaking about *domestic* political squabbles over the war, i.e. mischaracterizing Republicans v. Democrats in terms of good vs. evil.

Or, at least that's what I hope he was saying.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Our perspective is we should be allowed to live and worship as we like in peace. Their perspective is that we should either convert to their fascist brand of Islam or die horribly.

What's the big deal? We say tomato, they say tomahto.

Clearly, we in the West just need to be more tolerant of such dissenting, diverse views.

Maybe Matthews was channelling my famous statement:

"I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords and their unique perspective on the tastiness of human flesh."

I henceforth coin the phrase "Yee-had"

I call for yee-had on Christina Mathews.

Dennis Miller beat you to "yee-had."

Sorry, but... it's old.

Chris Matthews doesn't deserve my witty, contemptous comments.

How can anyone understand what the guy is saying through buckets of spit anyway?

A letter to Chris Mathews:

(edited to fit your screen)

Dear tit,

I have figured out the "other side"

If they want me dead for eating a bacon, egg, and cheese croisannwich, I want to teabag a vat of bacon grease and skullf?ck them till they sh!t out a honeybaked...witha ll the fixins' too!

Got it, man-boob?

Nor does Matthews deserve the use of my spellcheck.

Matthews may have been (in fact, probably was) speaking about *domestic* political squabbles over the war, i.e. mischaracterizing Republicans v. Democrats in terms of good vs. evil.

That was my hope, too. Unfortunately, when you read Matthews' comment in context, it's obvious that he really was talking about the jihadists, and he really is the self-loathing, defeatist tool he appears to be.

How about a couple of egg attacks on his limo when he shows up for work and/or events? No pernament damage and therefore, no vandalism charges.

Utron-- I'm just trying to keep an open mind, and hoping that Matthews didn't step in it.

He's an insufferable blowhard, but I don't see him as being THAT stupid. Hell, even if he believes it, why the hell would he phrase it like that? Sheesh.

I've always stuck up for Matthews, because I think he has good insight on domestic politics and political campaigns, but he just loses me anytime he gets on foreign policy. At heart, he's still the idealistic kid from the 60's who joined the Peace Corps. This is just really too much, though. I usually switch the TV over to Hardball at 7 after Special Report is over, but I think now I'll just let my kid watch an hour of Scooby-Doo on Boomerang. Funny thing is, just a couple of weeks ago, one of my wife's liberal whacko friends told me how she can't stand Matthews because he's "too conservative." This the friend who tells my wife to stop listening to NPR so she can get the real story over at Air America.

If it is vague enough that it could be interpreted either way, then he did it on purpose, which, at least to me, answers the question.

This will be another 'you misinterpret my meaning even though my actual words convey just the opposite' as opposed to the standard held for conservatives by liberals, ie; ' you may not have actually said those words but we know what you meant'

Aside from being an ordinary garden variety jackass, he appears to be an exraordinary collaborationist jackass as well.

I'd like to see him interview Zarqawi. I wonder how many words he could get out before his mindless head was liberated from his body?

Severed head, eyes bulging in disbelief, and mouth flapping like a fish soundlessly...

...one can dream eh?

This from the man who has been flogging the CIA leak case endlessly for weeks trying to build it into some grand conspiracy.

He doesn't hate the Bush admin he just wants to understand how they could have done something so vile and traitorous.

The biggest obstacle to understanding the enemy is preconceptions about them not being evil, to maintain that precious prejudice, you've got to deny most of the available information about them. If he was saying that Democrats aren't evil, how is that any better or more true? They're monsters from some stygian vortex where it's immoral NOT to take other people's stuff away from them by force and misogynistic to ask women to find non-infanticidal ways to assert their autonomy.

Chris Matthews is an asshat. He is not nearly as willing to 'look at the other side of the coin' on issues such as gay marriage or abortion. I suppose this makes him a hypocritical asshat.

Hey Chris, we are at war, choose our side or go f*ck yourself!

Yeah, that crazy wacky zeitgeist. I wonder what caused all that.

Man, were we on a bender. I'm glad the rest of the world is there to talk us down, man, cause when we're blinded by hate, bad things happen to people.

Fortunately, it's just us.

At least no one in the nice, sane world out there is blinded by hate for us.

Thank God.

I feel so much safer now. Group hug.

Immediately after that first quite about people with "different perspectives," Matthews said: "The smartest people understand the enemy's point of view, because they understand what's driving them." That doesn't sound like he's talking about domestic political opponents.

Actually, I have a hard time seeing Matthews or most of his ilk giving Republicans that much credit. They contort themselves in all sorts of unlikely, uncomfortable ways to legitimize terrorist whackjobs, but Republicans are generally described as acting out of pure malice.

He was talking about the terrorists. How do I know this? Because the fucker said the exact same thing before on his show a year ago. I remember reading the transcript at the time and was amazed that he didn't get nailed for it.

If this were the other side and we were watching an enemy soldier, a rival — I mean they’re not bad guys especially, just people that disagree with us. They are, in fact, the insur gents fighting us in their country. If we saw one of them do what we saw our guy do to that guy, would we consider that worthy of a war crimes charge?

— MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on the November 16, 2004 Hardball, asking retired Colonel Ken Allard about video of a U.S. Marine shooting an injured Iraqi insur gent.

There ya go, people. "Enemy soldiers...not bad guys" Tough to say that he's talking about Dems or GOPers. Tough to spin that one. Tough to take it out of context. Read it again: "Enemy soldier...just people who disagree with us." In this light, there's just no goddamn way he didn't mean the terrorists when he said "not evil," because it's a recurring idea with him. He fucking fancies it. He'll say it again, too, because he believes it and thinks he's being insightful when he says it.

You Matthews fans? Give it up. Don't get all Mary Mapesey and defend the indefensible or say the jury's still out. It is quite simply objectively true that Matthews is a loathesome terror apologist, Vonnegut-style.

(The filter wouldn't let i-n-s-u-r-g-e-n-t through unmolested)

I'm with Dave, hoping that Matthews was taken horribly out of context. My gut reaction is that he must have been.

It is very possible (likely, I believe) that, in the course of Matthews's speech, he made the independent points that (1) he doesn't like the war in Iraq, and (2) domestic disputes in the U.S. are overblown. I've heard him make both points many times, but I've never heard him apologize for terrorists. Don't forget, the guy absolutely LOVED Bush after 9/11 (though his opinion changed after Iraq).

I say we should give Matthews a reasonable amount of time to dispute the paper's account. But if he doesn't address the subject in the next few days, we can safely assume that he's scum.

I was going to write something full of righteous umbrage, but I just don't feel it. Chris Matthews is a turd, but then he's always been a turd. And like a turd, his main function is to funk up the atmosphere until someone gives him a flush.

Does anyone actually watch CNBC?

Actually, re-reading that Matthews quote I posted above, it seems the man is incapable of communicating coherently when he's riffing. It is possible to spin the above quote, implausibly, as the following: if we were on the other side (jihadis), the (other side of the other side) Americans would be the not so bad guys. But then his parenthetical clarification, "They are, in fact, the insur gents fighting us in their country," cuts the definition back to it being the terrorists who are not such bad guys otherwise he would have said "our country". Maybe that's what he meant, but it's definitely not what he said. You know what though? I don't care. It's clear that Matthews thinks it's extremely important to sympathize with the head-choppers. Fuck him, either way.

most Americans have still not learned to know their enemies instead of just hating them,

What's to misinterpret? Most Americans does not refer to the GOP or conservatives in a 50/50 country but rather to most Americans who don't think the jihadists are "freedom fighters" or the new "Minutemen."

Besides what's to know and why can't you know them and hate them?

Matthews hit bottom with me when he argued with Stephen Hayes over whether GWB said Saddam was connected to 9/11. Hayes pointed out two specific instances where GWB denied there was a direct connection when responding to reporters. Then Matthews tried to blame the Bush administration for for poll results showing a public perception that there was a connection. Hayes reiterated Bush's specific denial regarding 9/11 but pointed to evidence of Saddam's connection to Al Quaida. Matthews argued that Bush should have sent spokespeople out to hammer home that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11.

What an asshole.

The smartest people understand the enemy's point of view, because they understand what's driving them.

This much is true.

The part about sympathizing with their cause is crap. I understand what drives a rat that chooses to invade my house. That doesn't mean I'm not going to terminate it or lose any sleep over doing so.

The smartest people understand the enemy's point of view, because they understand what's driving them.

It is true but not because Mathews says so. Sun Tzu said this about 2400 years ago. He also said it was important to know them not so that you could have them over for tea but so that you could kill them more effectively.

Understanding the enemy's perspective doesn't prevent them from being evil assholes. It just specifies what brand of evil asshole they are.

Matthews perhaps fails to comprehend that it is a purely subjective thing to identify something as evil. It is very rarely, outside of comic books, a label people choose for themselves. Did Hitler think himself evil? Probably not but that doesn't prevent him from being identified as one of the most evil people in human history. No amount of appreciating his view of the world changes the fact that he thought it a good idea to commit genocide. It matters not a bit how heartfelt and elaborately reasoned his motives were. They were in the minds of most people extremely wrong. If Germany had been victorious and most humans alive in the world today were those who existence was permitted by the Third Reich's laws, then probably very few people would label Hitler evil. They would be the products of a world shaped by Hitler and thus of a very different perspective on things like racial mass murder.

I don't care how dedicated a Islamofascist is too his cause. If his goals require my murder or erasure of my basic freedoms, that guy is evil.

What's really infuriating is that uninformed, unserious dumbasses like Matthews are not just employed, but handsomely rewarded for spewing nonsensical tripe on television. Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and other assorted news-douches aren't qualified to run a ham radio station, yet here they are fucking up my cable with hurricane force hot air. At least some of the stupid show business types are entertaining or attractive. Matthews has a pumpkin for a head and a voice that would take paint off a tank at 50 paces, and Olbermann is a preening dickhead who constantly looks like he just screwed his mother.

I recently added a "weapons grade crazy" set of links on my blog.

Maybe I'll have to add Matthews...

Matthews has a pumpkin for a head and a voice that would take paint off a tank at 50 paces, and Olbermann is a preening dickhead who constantly looks like he just screwed his mother.

I always appreciate UGAdawg's dispassionate analysis. I wish I had his cool head sometimes ;>)

I wonder if Matthews has the same attitude about good and evil when he's talking about people like slavers and child-rapers and Klan members.

Certainly these people see things differently than most Americans as well.

I wonder if Matthews has the same attitude about good and evil when he's talking about people like slavers and child-rapers and Klan members.

Matthew doesn't buy into the concepts, else he'd address them. When he preaches to us that we need to seek understanding, he's calling us dumbasses. We aren't smart enough to find a way to reach them and assuage their grievances.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

"I wish I had his cool head sometimes ;>)"

What can I say, laura my dear, I'm just a vessel of urban torment, preaching truth to power.

And it all started with this rather innocent misunderstanding

Amazing how so much can be summarized by a sentence and a picture.

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

Dude, when that line was uttered in that horrible, overrated, bloated movie a groan went out in the theater.

Or was that just me?

fugazi, they booed it here.

we're cranky that way.

Why dont he tell that to the victims of the World Trade Center and in the PENTIGON why dont he quit being such a fool