Letters to the Editor
-
Dress Codes
I hate it when they put on their tweed jackets with leather elbow patches before coming here to smash crockery, don't you? I know that they think that educated liberals have a dress code, but I've seen FBI agents at peace rallies who were less conspicuous.
-- William Timberman
I do find it disconcerting that they believe our dress code to be patronizing smugness offset by an inability to comprehend the simplest of arguments. Or maybe their skills in impersonation are just lacking?
-
Criminy!
It is demonstrable that neither the origins, doctrine, or practice of Islam is or was peaceful, and now we have some data on just how extreme the Muslim population in America really is.
Yes. As I noted upthread, this poll presents evidence that American Muslims are less tolerant of violence towards civilians than the general American populace.
I'm not being protective of Muslims while criticizing Christians or any thing like that, I'm attacking embarassingly bad logic.
-
dresden
The first link pulls up a Wikipedia entry which points out that RAF had the lead role in the bombing campaign. But regardless, I did not say that the US was strict, I said it was stricter than the British when it came to bombing targets in Germany. Certainly the US was less restrained in Japan.
-
"some standard failings of our political discourse"
Glenn states it clearly, valentinian shows the bare logic of it and prunes reiterates it. Glenn citing two different polls, says
One of the questions they asked was whether "bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified"? Americans approved of such attacks by a much larger margin than Iranians -- 51-16% (and a much, much larger margin than American Muslims -- 51-13%)…
Americans express greater support for "attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria."
Glenn's argument is not saying, well, since Americans generally are more in favor of violent attacks, one cannot criticize the beliefs of the small percentage of Muslim Americans who are in favor of them. He is saying (in part) it is dishonest to focus differentially and exclusively on Muslim Americans (and condemn that group) when an even greater percentage of Americans generally share similar beliefs. (He's also making a separate point about how some people, Muslim Americans and others, might conceivably answer a poll question not wanting to rule out under all circumstances violence against civilians.)
The Pew poll of Muslim Americans, in fact
finds them to be largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world
which the chief assessment of the survey.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/483/muslim-americans
Even if one might be alarmed at the professed beliefs of a percentage of Muslim Americans that attacks of violence could be justified under some circumstances, those beliefs should be assessed in light of the relative assimilation and moderation of American Muslims.
-
Polls are superficial
Polls are superficial questions, asked to the ill-informed, who give ill-thought-out answers. Do not put too much stock in polls.
-
Before I forget
Thank, you, zahed, for joining the discussion today. Your comments are much appreciated, especially considering the clouds of ignorance and obfuscation which you've helped dispel. I don't mind defending the truth from the attacks of these jerks, but it's always heartening to have the assistance of those who have first-hand knowledge of it.
-
Orwell, ever on point in such matters
"All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side ... The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - Orwell, Notes on Nationalism
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
-
Attention Mr. and Mrs. America and All Ships At Sea!
From Fraud Guy's recent post: "The police can act if there is reasonable suspicion. Golden Boy's suppositions are not a reasonable suspicion."
Hence the need for a Culture of Fear (tm). The Culture of Fear is critical for the administration and the monarchy supporters in order to overcome things like reasonable suspicion, innocent until proven guilty, and other cornerstones of a free society.
Scare folks, then tell 'em that extreme measures are the only response possible. Don't let your conscience or basic human decency get in the way of defending your very life! After all, this is the ultimate conflict we have left to fight (presumably, just like all the other ultimate conflicts we've ever had to fight. The penultimate conflicts? And before it's used against me, I'm not saying there haven't been conflicts we've had to fight)!
Followed by the classic, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact!"
No kings,
Robert
-
@Golden Boy
I drew no conclusion from it at all
And the last tattered shred of your credibility just fell to the ground.
Kindly forgo lecturing others on the use of fallacious arguments in the future. A bald-faced lie is perhaps the oldest of rhetorical cheap-shots.
-
Intent matters to these people...in everything
I can pretty much guarantee you that any reference to the poll of American soldiers, or to polls of civilians in this country, that show similar or worse results in terms of support for civilian deaths, or willingness to condone civilian deaths, will be dismissed by Bushwar supporters based on intent because with this crowd that is literally the deciding factor. Note that Monica Goodling in her testimony today used the same reasoning when pressed to admit she broke the law "I didn't mean to". It is literally her defense and I'm betting she actually believes this makes her innocent.
When civilians die because of our actions or when we admit that we're willing to inflict civilian casualties in pursuit of a greater goal it is OK with this crowd because or intent is pure, our intent is inherently good and we are inherently good. So our actions are justified.
But when evil Muslims (or whoever) say exactly the same thing it is unjustified and evil because they are inherently evil and their intentions are bad.
This has been an ongoing theme with this crowd for many years, encompassing just about every policy position and action taken by this administration or advocated by supporters.
There is a clear inability to face up to outcomes as determinant of good and evil, acceptable or unacceptable, and a substitution of intent as justification of every inconceivable action and result from torture to subversion of the Constitution to invading anyone we want to invade (let's not forget Grenada or Panama).
The first candidate who successfully wraps his/her rhetoric around accountability for outcomes rather than purity of intent will find him/herself earning a political high ground no one has noticed even existed before.