LeCastor:

The Teddy himself started an illegal war in Panama, and I'm sure you won't be surprised to find out that the US government subsequently padi $25 million to Colombia in compensation.

-------

Wow, we paid that much? I knew he started or at least got the U.S. involved in the 75 year old fight between Columbia and their then then territory, Panama. Colombia and Panama had been joined as The New Granda 75 years before. There had been off and on uprisings against the Colombian authorities and revolts by some Panamanians who wanted their own country. Teddy got the U.S. involved on the side of the Panamanians, rekindling and cranking up the violence and eventually leading to the "independence" of Panama so that we could control it and do as we wished in the Isthmus without the interference of the Colombians.

He also continued the U.S. occupation of The Philippines began by McKinley, after we fought the Spanish for control alongside the Filipinos and then wouldn't leave when the people we'd helped "liberate" asked us to. We stayed and killed an estimated 1,000,000 of them.

This was around the same time that a village in Belize refused to let Cornelius Vanderbilt dock his yacht in their port. Upon getting back to NY, he hired a bunch of mercenaries who went back to Belize and torched the village.

We're in our second Gilded Age.

Anyway, back to my false dichotomy argument. Is there really no other way to deal with right-wing ad hominem viciousness, than to either, (a) ignore it, and ignore its effectiveness, or (b) dive into the gutter with them?

-- psyberdawg

Yes, there is a better way. All the ways you describe. It's just that Glenn's is faster, more visceral and therefore more memorable. Why isn't the guy who insists that everyone who doesn't agree with him is a "sissy Mary" fair game? The right ringers have no scruples for chopping away at the personal attributes of those who disagree with them as you insist Glenn, and those of us who agreed with his post, have. They mean to rip out your throat. (See Drew Westen "The Political Brain")

Every time I read or hear of someone's criticism of the US/Israel relationship, I right away hear the chorus I know is coming. Just like when it rains you can expect to get wet, the first volley out of the gate is going to be the smear of anti-Semitism. That said, the problem is not U.S. support of Israel. It is perfectly understandable and right that the U.S. should support Israel. What is not okay, is UNCONDITIONAL support. There is essentially little or no discussion or analysis, at least publicly, about the nature of the relationship nor about what our response should be when Israel acts like a fascist state. Not because Israel always or in every way acts like a fascist state, just that it sometimes acts and in some ways acts like a fascist state. Partially because the country Israel is synonymous with Jewish State, so that any criticism of Israel is considered an attack on Judaism. The U.S. is perceived to give its unconditional support and endorsement to Israel in every situation. That is what needs considering.

Gary,

Brilliant! Every word of it. How do we make this insight, right analysis and courageous truth the national policy?!

David W: I was sat in a bar in Beijing when I first heard about the 9/11 attacks and my very first thought once the initial shock had subsided was 'Oh God, please don't let America do something really stupid'.

That's exactly what I thought at the time. I lived in NYC at the time of the attack. I said to friends on that day: "The National Security State just got the green light to impose a total police state, and the God's have just smiled on George Bush's presidency." He would have been a one term President, perhaps even have been impeached for his rampant croynism. Walking through Union Square two days later seeing the outpouring of grief and community and hope and love and fear and anger, but overwhelmingly messages of peace that were pinned to the maintenance fences there, I remarked to a friend..."Imagine the moral authority, the power, that would accrue to the United States if we did not respond to this event in violence." I quickly added, "Rest assured that that is not what will happen. Oh no, not with this President, this Congress and this Administration. A lot more people will be dead before this over. Maybe all of us."

I'm not a pacifist. Afghanistan I accepted and understood. I hated the Iraq war from the beginning. I was appalled and sickened by it as were all of my friends. It felt like the country was going over a cliff into an abyss. We knew it was wrong then, but like Kamiya details, we didn't do enough to stop it. Not that we did nothing, or that we would have prevailed, but we could have done more. That is true.

There is practically no cultural group that I can think of which draws more sarcasm and more insults -- indeed, more government-funded ridicule (thanks, Andres Serrano) -- than Christian conservatives.

-- Elephantman

-----------------

Homosexuals.