Letters to the Editor
-
That's a lot of broad-brushes, Rowan Berkeley. Most of them thin and inaccurate.
Obama is unlikely to be the next president of America. Not because he is black - his tacit offer to white voters of absolution from the sin of slavery is his greatest political asset - but because his values are not those of most Americans.
"Most Americans" being how many of the population don't want (a) an end to the occupation of Iraq, (b) comprehensive immigration reform, (c) improved access to health care, and (d) serious reforms to both Lobbyist access to government and Government regulatory power?
In the battle for the Democratic nomination. Obama invariably won university towns and state capitals - i.e., the redoubts of the talking classes.
You mean all those speeches by Edwards, Clinton and Obama took place only in the aforementioned forums? What race were you watching?
The Jacksonian values are quintessentially American.
More accurately, said values are "quintessentially" held by a segment of the American population, not the population as a whole. It also harkens to a more mythic time in the county's history that was no less rife with moral and ethical shortcomings than any other period; to pretend it was the apex of the county's development and ideals is shortsighted and erroneous.
The promotion of liberty has played a far more prominent role in American foreign policy than that of any other nation.
In in the last couple generations, and only in the context of the Cold War. The US, after all, didn't lift a finger to assist the Hungarians in 1956, the Czechs in 1968, or the Chinese students in 1989.
Americans are far more ready to join the battle against Islamic jihad than Europeans.
Given there's no actual jihad as such?
Free speech is better protected in the US today than in Europe or Canada, where various human rights councils have stifled free political speech in the name of "cultural sensitivity."
Can't argue that. Maybe the Europeans don't have the extra space (geographically) to give their wack-jobs, hence they're being more circumspect about the safety of their minorities? Just a thought.
Only on American university campuses do speech codes threaten freedom of speech.
I believe Parker's op-ed in question nicely torpedoes that idea.
THE CORE Jacksonian values explain in part why the US is the only country in which Israel enjoys overwhelming popular support.
And support of Israel trumps all other considerations? Mind if I call that complete madness?
Americans view Israelis as doughty defenders of their freedom, relying on no one but themselves against a host of enemies.
Well Israel certainly hasn't been shy about getting military hardware from other countries, nor were they shy about working with the Brits and French back in 1956. If they're isolated these days, one could argue its due to the policies they've taken vis a vis the Palestinians.
American religiosity - another crucial component of American uniqueness - also helps explain the widespread support for Israel, which for millions of evangelical Christians is the fulfillment of the biblical promise to Abraham.
American 'religiosity' is another chimera in my view. Yes, Americans are 'religious', but on balance not fanatical about it nor does it necessarily dictate their every move and opinion. The rise of 'mega-churches' like Hagee's is nothing new, merely more visible and wider known these days.
What get you into trouble is those same evangelical Christians liking Israel, purportedly more due to its role in the reported 'Second Coming' of the Christ than the mythic promise of prosperity to Abram. The evangelical's focus on the Books of Daniel and Revelation (both outstanding pieces of propaganda, in my reading) is perhaps understandable given the likes of Hagee, Hal Lindsey, Tim La Haye and others treating them a detailed blueprints for a future apocalypse (in the divine revelation sense) coinciding with the secular Armageddon that just so happens to focus on Israel. Given these idiots are best sellers its hard to think their readers and parishioners don't feel likewise.
Religiosity in America tends to reinforce core Jacksonian combativeness. The more one believes that morality is not just a lifestyle choice, the more inclined one will be to fight to protect one's moral values.
You've just given THE single best argument to keep 'religion' of ANY stripe OUT of government policy-making. Thanks.
Not only in the minds of their enemies, then, are the United States and Israel invariably linked. Obama's world view (which might be termed irrational rationalism) is that of European elites and Ivy League campuses.
Oops. You were doing so well up this point. Now you've tripped up on your original error again.
Its central premise is that virtually all conflicts can be solved by more talk.
If only that were true, either of Obama's outlook or the actual world we live in. Sadly, it isn't.
Thus his signature foreign-policy promise has been that he will immediately engage in unconditional talks with Iran, North Korea and Syria - as if the only problem with these folks until now has been that we weren't sufficiently nice.
Funny, I thought his signature vow was to get Usama Bin Laden no matter what and bring the occupation of Iraq to a responsible end.
Still, if 'Israel' is your only concern, I guess you have a different attention span.
-
er... I didn't write it, fella, i just cited it
no text necessary i hope
-
Let's be clear on the meaning of "Liberal Media" --
If one evaluates publications by such political labels as "conservative" and "liberal," one finds the following:
"Conversative" publications publish only "conservative" views.
"Liberal" publications publish all forms of views, including the "conservative".
Thus the "Boston Globe," as example, publishes, as example, the views of George Will, despite the fact of his being caught with the stolen Carter "briefing book," and publishes the views of an extremist right-wing wingnut Jew, despite his having been found guilty by the "Globe" of plagiarism.
By contrast, the "conservative" "Boston Herald" only publishes "conservative" views.
Right there one can see the bigotry of the "conservative," and its suppression of alternative views.
And right there one can see the meaning of "liberal media": it also publishes views which are not "conservative".
And right there one can see the "conservative" beef against the "Liberal Media": it also publishes views which are not "conservative".
And what is the "conservative" excuse for excluding views other than their's, and demanding that the "liberal media" stop being "liberal" by ceasing to publish views which are not "conservative"?
That "liberals" are unpatriotic/anti-American/commie-so-chul-ist/gay-nigger-minority-Jew-loving-anti-Americans. In a word: are not "conservative".
The foundation of "conservative" "thought": "Free speech for me and for only those who agree with me."
It appears, though, the "conservatives" are correct on one point: "liberals" "coddle" law-breakers, such as "conservative" George Will and the "conservative" plagiarist, by continuing to publish them.