Letters to the Editor
Renegade Iconoclast
Published Letters: 660 Editor's Choice: 11
-
Your strawman is showing
[Read the article: Al-Sadr's back]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. I didn't attack "liberals," after all, I am one myself. I attacked Kamiya and Juan Cole specifically. And no, I'm not Jewish, and no, I'm not a Christian either.
2. I never called anyone anti-semitic. I see people do that all the time and I tend to agree that usually it's over the line. However, sometimes people compare Israel to Nazi Germany, and that's when I'll play the anti-semitic card, because in their case it's true.
3. So, you believe what the terrorists say about their motivations, enough that you say it proves your point? Have you ever considered the possibility that it's just item #1 on their list, and once we abandon Israel, they'll come up with something new? I don't understand the idea of taking mass murderers at their word. As an example, Hezbollah claimed that it was fighting against Israeli occupation of Lebanon. When Israel pulled out of Lebanon, they continued their terrorism, using a completely specious claim to Shebaa Farms as a scapegoat (which the UN said was without merit).
Okay, now I'll respond.
1. Let's say for the sake of argument that Al-Sadr demanded that we cease all support for Britain. Would you say it was a good idea to cave to his demand?
2. Do you deny that a Caliphate is the eventual goal of fanatics like Al-Sadr? Do you ever listen to what they say in Arabic, in mosques?
3. Don't you think appeasement for no other sake than appeasement is a bad idea? Al-Sadr, or Bin Laden making a demand has absolutely no bearing on what our conduct should be. Agree or disagree? So why even bring it up? If what you want is for us to abandon our only ally in the region, can't you come up with something better than "because the terrorists asked us to, and say they'll stop attacking us"?
4. How do you explain violence against Buddhists and Hindus in India, bombings in India, etc? Is India a big ally of Israel?
5. How about the kidnapping of journalists in Palestine, journalists who are widely known for being sympathetic to Palestine, and anti-israel? Don't you think they were kidnapped just because they were American? They were forced to convert to Islam at the point of a sword. But that's just a couple bad apples, right?
6. When Israel completely pulled out of Gaza and handed it back to the Palestinians, the missile attacks began almost immediately. What does that say for appeasement?
Peace in our time, right?
-
Radical isn't the same as liberal. A point by point rebuttal.
[Read the article: Not exactly what we were thinking]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cohen starts with the claim that an
overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government.
While this principle certainly has been given lip service by conservatives until relatively recently (I really don't hear it much anymore), I've yet to find the evidence of it. The only place the conservatives wanted to limit government was in the enforcement of civil rights back in the 20th century. They had no problem with laws making porn and anything but missionary-position-unprotected-sex-during-marriage illegal, spending a ton of money on and hugely expanding domestic surveillance for, the "drug war," or any number of other incredibly intrusive things related to "morals."
No, the parts of government they wanted to limit were the parts that aided poor people, assured the rights of minorities, enforced safety standards in manufacturing, and protected consumer rights. George Bush is in fact the best achiever in this regard, and doesn't bother with the bogus small government claim, since it's so obviously not true.
Next, he brings up No Child Left Behind, but apparently his best argument that this is a "liberal" bill (haha) on the part of Bush is that Republicans used to call for the abolition of the DOE altogether, and so any bill at all must be liberal. That's the best I can get from it, and I read it a few times. Because, in his words, it "extended the department's reach in a manner that Democrats could not have envisaged."
I don't need to waste a lot of bytes tearing up the NCLB act. Suffice it to say: the NCLB doesn't do a whole lot good for any schools, mainly it threatens them with punishment if they don't perform. A truly liberal policy would provide funding for better pay for teachers, more materials and computers, more social programs, etc.
I'm not going to bother much with his next point either, except to say, nice to see Cohen admit that it's liberal to want diversity in the workplace and in government. You see conservatives deny their anti-civil rights roots all the time and it's refreshing when they come clean.
Next, he claims to find common ground between Bush's riduculous guest-slave program, and the long-held Democratic desire that immigrants be treated as humans. Bush's "soft bigotry of low-expectations," is not a bona fide of his liberal compassion. Rather, it's a completely cynical denouncement of his critics, one which he repeatedly uses as a straw man to avoid answering substantive questions about the issue, or engaging it in any credible way whatsoever. Yet it makes it seem as though he has some sort of compassion or sense of responsibility toward the actual children involved. In other words, it's business as usual.
And as far as the Iraq war? Give me a break! Since when is a bogus war of choice "liberal?" Grenada? Panama? Anybody? Who was prez again?