Letters to the Editor
-
@ James Elliott 12:58
Labeling Mr. Greenwald “liberal” or “civil libertarian” is far more a distinction without a difference than Mr. Greenwald labeling Mr. Kirchik “right-wing” as a euphemism for “conservative” when Mr. Kirchik isn't really anything of the sort. (snip)
The point is not, Mr. Hayward, who “re-aligned” the political spectrum, but that liberals (or civil libertarians, if you must) need not – and indeed must not – buy into it. Using someone's foreign policy position on the Middle East as the bellweather on their political allegiances isn't merely specious, its caustic to reasoned debate.
Mr. Elliott, I respect your desire to have the political categories/labels make sense. I long fought against the term "neo-conservative" by applying my own "pseudo-conservative" to these people.
As it happens, however, the neo-conservatives and their lapdog media have framed the debate for a long time in the way I described. So long, it seems to me, that if you try to say "Chuck Hagel is a conservative" you get the vehement response (especially from neoconservatives) that he is not. They have fallen prey to the Manichean "us v. them" mentality. I cannot change that, no matter how toxic it is to accept that frame. Therefore, to keep using words in an archaic way just to satisfy my own sense of propriety, I risk being misunderstood.
It has been suggested by many on this forum to use this to our advantage. If you look at the attitudes of most Americans, they are "liberal." So if we allow the neoconservatives to tar anyone anti-war as "liberal" or "not conservative" we may finally get Americans to stop thinking of "liberal" as a bad word, and stop thinking of "conservative" as an inherently good word. If indeed this tactic gets more people to think of themselves as "liberal" I am not going to object, and willingly am I complicit.
Finally, I have no earthly notion about Mr. Kirchik and his relative "liberalism" or "conservatism." I think it is awfully hard to define oneself as "liberal" and support the occupation, agitate for further war, and make broad, unsupportable claims about the evils of Islam (as greater in kind and magnitude from any other religion). I've yet to see anyone successfully do it.
Does TNR actually have any liberals on their staff? I wouldn't know. I would be cautious about making any assumptions about Kirchik's politics based on any personal habits, though. I'll stick to what he writes.
-
So?
It turns out that there IS a group in Gaza that would behead Britney and Madonna. -shooter
It turns out that there's a Baptist group in Kansas that believes gays should die.
Phelps: The prescribed punishment for homosexuality in the bible is death.
What's your point?
-
In fairness to Shooter
He has said that we should pull out of Iraq (as well as our other military forces around the world).
-
Oh Shooter! It's just hot air
"If I meet these whores I will have the honor – I repeat, I will have the honor – to be the first one to cut the heads off Madonna and Britney Spears if they will keep spreading their satanic culture against Islam," said Muhammad Abdel-Al, spokesman and senior leader of the Popular Resistance Committees terror organization.
- Shooter242
Shooter, people say all kinds of things but it doesn't mean they are actually going to follow it up with ACTION.
For example, if all you pro-war bushies left your keyboards and showed for the fight, why, we would've built Iraq twice over by now.
P.S. "Senior Leader of the Popular Resistance Comittees terror organization"? WOW! I'm scared. Wonder what makes them "popular"? I never heard of them. I've heard of the Resistance Front for the Popular Terrorist Committes, but not these guys.
P.S.S. Speaking of Judean People's Front Vs. People's Front of Judea Vs. Popular Judean Fron, wasn't Monthy Python's Flying Circus' "Life of Brian" widely banned in this country by fundementalist Christians who objected to its humor?
-
shooter242
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.
As I stated, the enhancement--or reduction--of criminal sentence based on intent is an established part of American jurisprudence, pre-dating the very concept of a hate crime. Given that genuine "thought crimes"--such as pedophiles writing about imagined crimes--are now a very controversial aspect of criminal law, your expansive definition has no basis in reality. If you don't like this on principle, then that's fine, but don't pretend that your disapproval of the practice puts you in the mainstream, or even on a sensible legal footing. It doesn't. It puts you at odds with the entire criminal law establishment in America, including the federal prosecutors who work for the Bush administration.
More importantly though, anything that restricts Muslims can be considered a hate crime.
Not at all. The act would have to be a crime first, such as vandalism, assault, or murder.
That meme is working wonderfully for Muslims in the UK and Sweden.
Evidence?
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.
So... you don't want to refute Glenn's quite thorough analysis? Or you can't? Other than to declare that your interpretation--which is just a projection of your political loyalties onto the results, sans any analysis at all--is correct?
More specifically, a religion that is antithetical to western culture.
Ah. So you feel lucky because you don't have to come into contact with people whose culture is drastically different from yours. Well, it's a natural human response, I suppose, but nothing a adult with a modicum of self-confidence and a modest sense of identity can't handle. Unless you have neither?
You may approve of a religion that has prominent sects which encourage murder, subjugation of women, and theocracy, but I don't.
I don't have to "approve" of any belief to accept the fact that I might come into contact with its believers on a regular basis. I'm an atheist living in the Midwest; I'm surrounded by people whose beliefs I don't "approve" of. Of course, I suspect you aren't trying to personally impugn my character so much as you're trying to poison the well and thereby safely ignore anything I say. But thanks for playing.