Letters to the Editor
-
@ James Elliott
If you look closely at the right-wing rhetoric, this is the definition they have chosen for themselves.
Anyone pro-war is "right" and right-wing.
Anyone who criticizes Bush, the war, the ensuing occupation, or neocon policies (warrantless surveillance, etc.) is automatically "left-wing" no matter how reasoned, careful, or respectful those critiques were presented. (And the epithets used are rarely just "left-wing" but peppered with other maliciously-intended modifiers.)
Also, anyone who is pro-war is a Serious expert, and anyone who warns against a war or war-like act is Unserious (and ignored) no matter how truly expert (i.e. having correctly predicted consequences and reactions of others as a result of policies) that person is.
Civil libertarians, "old-fashioned" conservatives of either party, centrists, fundamentalist Christians who oppose the Iraq occupation, and life-long Republicans have been smeared with the "left-wing" (usually including words like "traitor" and "terrorist sympathizer" and "surrender monkey") label.
It is the neocons, not the liberals, who have re-aligned the political spectrum. (Glenn has written about this before.)
-
Paradoxies
As Mr. Elliott states, the burden on the liberal thinker is two-fold.
First, they must develop their positions by rational thinking, in the classical liberal tradition.
Second, they must refute the positions of their opponents by rational means.
Thus, liberal orthodoxy is an oxymoron; however, there can be a consensus, and progression, of opinion. Trying to tie Kirchick's position to previous liberal standards (such as Wilson) is anachronistic; as thought progresses, and we not only find out more about the world, but also develop our morality and ethics so that what could have rationally been said before is surpassed by later improvements in thought. Thus, Jefferson, while a liberal thinker, can now be decried for his stances on women and slaves, as well Wilson for his racism (as he segregated the armed forces, which lasted until WWII). Basically, liberals have abandoned previous positions because of the development of their logic.
On the other hand, conservatives only have to toe the party line. They can state that Christian theology should be based on the Old Testament, instead of the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, and since that is the orthodoxy, that is sufficient for them. If it was good enough for Zwengli, then it's good enough for them. Unfortunately, this means that they hold their position on issues no matter how many times it has been refuted, and so it is very tempting to take the shortcut of dismissal. This will allow them to clamor long and hard that you don't take their arguments apart logically, even if they will not do you the same favor and simply try to win via repetitive assertion.
At some point, liberal thinkers should take shortcuts, especially if the question has been asked and answered numerous times. The danger is trimming too much, as when someone has some well thought out positions, while others are dogmatic. It's easy to lump the one in with the other, especially when the overall effect is dogmatic.
-
OMYALLAH
Do you realize that the imams were returning from a conference in Minneapolis on how to increase Muslim political power in the States?
OMYGOD!!!!
Hey, that's "OMYALLAH" to you bub!
Come to think of it, I'm much more fearful of Christian Conservatives increasing political power in the US.
-
Oh, my!
"My name is Joe Holland. Don't forget it."
-- tiberius
Pounding your dick on the table isn't really that impressive, "Joe Holland."
Are you into foot tapping also?
-
@ kimoco
"I think that the right wingers simply need a 'bad guy' and cannot survive emotionally if they don't have one."
While I agree completely about the wingers need to hate/fear/(let someone else) fight some enemy, I'd be tempted to change "emotionally" to "economically."
War is, after all, a racket.
-
golden boy pseudocode
do {
vague_allegations(stated_as_fact)
$WILD_FEARMONGERING
if(caught)
move_goalposts
} loop(forever)
-
Add Tancredo to the list
GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, speaking in Iowa last week and trying to cement his image as the leader of the Party of Radical Intolerance:
"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do."
In other words, any attack in the US that can be blamed on "Muslims" will be followed by a collective assault on the religion of 1 billion people. Funny, I don't remember him calling for a bombing of the holy sites of Christianity after the Oklahoma City or Atlanta Olympics bombings.
-
re: shooter242
Hate crime statutes provide for yet another enhancement to sentences based on the intent to terrorize a specific subgroup or community. It ain't a thought-crime. It's a sentencing modification based on intent, which is a tradition as old as common-law itself.
I love to see you really explain how criminalizing "intent", as in "state of mind", as in "what someone was thinking" is NOT a thought crime. More importantly though, anything that restricts Muslims can be considered a hate crime. That meme is working wonderfully for Muslims in the UK and Sweden.
As Glenn has previously demonstrated through some straightforward poll analysis, Congress low approval ratings are due to failure to vigorously investigate and resist the White House. But thanks for repeating a thoroughly discredited lie and revealing yourself to be a dissembling rat.
Tsk. And you started out so well too. If you want to believe that there isn't enough Bush-bashing in the world, be my guest. But like I tell Glenn, maybe the Congress people know something you don't.
Fortunate, how, exactly? That if you have to encounter and interact with people of a different ethnicity, at least they won't be a different religion?-- sphodros
More specifically, a religion that is antithetical to western culture. You may approve of a religion that has prominent sects which encourage murder, subjugation of women, and theocracy, but I don't.
-
So you are all conceding the point?
Prunes, no one has taken me up on the offer to debate Ward Churchill's analysis of 9/11. There is a very uncomfortable contradiction lurking in there for anyone who wants to follow Churchill; if it comes up I'll point out what it is.
Um, orbitboy and nasruddin? I've shown a definitive link between the Shahin, the leader of the flying imams, and 9/11. Want me to spell it out again? I'll use fewer and shorter sentences this time:
Two Muslims, Muhammed al-Qudhaieen and Hamdan al-Shalawi, are suspected by the FBI of dry running 9/11. This is because they twice tried to open the cockpit door of their America West flight. When they filed suit against America West, guess who defended them?
Shahin.
Now there is a tremendous amount of other, circumstantial evidence around Shahin as well. The fact that it is circumstantial doesn't mean it's false, it just means the FBI can't prove he is a terrorist. But that really confused some of you so I've distilled it down.