I tend to assume certain things about you, Gentle Reader, when I select items to write about, link to, or otherwise comment upon here at EIP. One of my key assumptions is you read a lot of the same stuff I do, so pointing you to, say Michael Yon’s place, would be redundant. Chances are you’ve either already been to those places before you came here, or you’re going there in short order.
That said, it never hurts to remember the ol’ saw about assumptions…the one about how they tend to make an “ass” out of “u” and “i.” So, in that spirit, I’ll simply point out the obvious, something I’m quite sure you know already: there’s no finer reporting coming out of
I’ve been noticing a lot of back-and-forth of late between leftie and right-of-center blogs concerning
A good place for the Left to begin reading would be this article in today’s WSJ. I quote, in part:
The apparent meaning of all of this pointless provocation and bullying is that the axis of radicals--
A large portion of modern wars erupted because aggressive tyrannies believed that their democratic opponents were soft and weak. Often democracies have fed such beliefs by their own flaccid behavior. Hitler's contempt for
Democracies, it is now well established, do not go to war with each other. But they often get into wars with non-democracies. Overwhelmingly the non-democracy starts the war; nonetheless, in the vast majority of cases, it is the democratic side that wins. In other words, dictators consistently underestimate the strength of democracies, and democracies provoke war through their love of peace, which the dictators mistake for weakness.
It’s the signal failure of the Left: they’re too damned good for their…our… own good. The inability to see evil, and evil intent, simply because you believe in your heart of hearts that all men want the same things…peace, love, and understanding…is a tragic and potentially lethal flaw. It continues to amaze me that otherwise rational people cannot recognize a mortal threat even as it screams out its hatred for you and all you stand for.
I really don’t get it.
Today’s Pic: A brightly lit shop in
January, 2004.
And now, Gentle Reader, I intend to take the remainder of this morning’s coffee and a portion of a Spanish Rosada out on the verandah. Before it gets too danged hot to do anything outside…
"The inability to see evil, and evil intent, simply because you believe in your heart of hearts that all men want the same things…peace, love, and understanding…is a tragic and potentially lethal flaw."
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, Buck. This flaw however, is also present within those who would blindly follow Bush, Cheney, et al, to the literal end of the earth ... Americans don't have a corner on the peace, love, and understanding market, and our current administration scares me very much (as did the administration of the Right's hero, Ronnie Raygun).
As to the "why shouldn't Iran have nukes?" question, I wish NO ONE had the goddamned things. However, why should the U.S. be allowed to have them? Explain that to me, 'cause I don't understand it.
Lori said: As to the "why shouldn't Iran have nukes?" question, I wish NO ONE had the goddamned things. However, why should the U.S. be allowed to have them? Explain that to me, 'cause I don't understand it.
ReplyDeleteWell, I wish Adam hadn't taken a bite out of that apple, if you wanna go way back. As for the US being "allowed" to have nukes, who's gonna tell us we can't? And with what moral authority? You and I BOTH know, Lori, that we had/have nukes to deter aggression. And MAD worked... for a period of time.
The Old World Order acknowledged the genie was out of the bottle and formulated a mechanism for managing the situation...the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It worked, as long as it lasted...which, in the general scheme of things (time) wasn't long. The challenge today is containing those irresponsible regimes from acquiring nukes. Say waht you will, wish for a better world, and all that, but the fact is we are RESPONSIBLE with regards to nukes, and most of us believe a regime driven by fundamentalist, apocalyptic, religious fervor (spelled I-R-A-N) would certainly be much less so.
So, what would YOU do about it?
The inability to see evil, and evil intent,
ReplyDeleteThen there's the flip side of that--imagining evil where none exists--as in a certain recent comment on my blog.
"Say waht you will, wish for a better world, and all that, but the fact is we are RESPONSIBLE with regards to nukes, and most of us believe a regime driven by fundamentalist, apocalyptic, religious fervor (spelled I-R-A-N) would certainly be much less so."
ReplyDeleteWe've been responsible, so far (unless you count comment by the commander of the Enola Gay) ...
As for a regime driven by fundy, apocalyptic, religious fervor, some also spell that U-S-A. May not be true, but some see it that way. I believe it has something to do with George W. "God speaks through me" Bush.
As for what I would do, I wish I had an answer. We're obviously too far along the weapons path to turn back now. I guess I have the same answer I've always had: when the time comes, I'll politely put my head between my knees and kiss my ass goodbye.
One of the main differences I see here though, is with our government, you are not going to be stuck indefinitely with the same crazy leader. We ELECT new leaders. Bush can't be a Ahm....whatever his name is in Iran, or a Castro, or a (fill in you favorite dictator here). And we have a lot more checks and balances than any other country in regard to what the country can do. All the Dems voted for the war. Do you think Iran has any of the same? I have to admit I don't know that much about it but I tend to think whatever Almondboy whatever his name wants to do, he does, and there is nobody to tell him otherwise.
ReplyDeleteLori said: As for a regime driven by fundy, apocalyptic, religious fervor, some also spell that U-S-A. May not be true, but some see it that way. I believe it has something to do with George W. "God speaks through me" Bush.
ReplyDeletePresent company excepted, right, Lori? I certainly HOPE so, because if not...you're perilously close to moonbat thinking (e.g., the ascendency of a neo-Nazi American theocracy), in all its irrational, paranoid, fuzzy-headed glory.
Good points, Laurie. But ya know the impending fascist theocracy is just gonna declare martial law and be done with it.
I wrote: "As for a regime driven by fundy, apocalyptic, religious fervor, some also spell that U-S-A. May not be true, but some see it that way. I believe it has something to do with George W. 'God speaks through me' Bush."
ReplyDeleteBuck asked: "Present company excepted, right, Lori?"
Yes, of course. ; )
I do have some moonbat tendencies, I admit, and I do think Bush is delusional (or possibly drunk) at times. I do think that Bush and other religious people should understand that their faith is a private matter and they shouldn't try to influence or convert anyone else -- the U.S. Constitution guarantees my right to believe what I want, including believing in nothing at all if I so choose.
However (or, more accurately, because of the above), I remain the occasional flag waving, always hand-over-heart national anthem singing, gun owning moderate I've grown to be. : )
All's I'm saying is that "some people" think things, and I can sort of understand why they do.
And ... it's ALWAYS good to question "authority." Always.
Laurie wrote:
ReplyDelete"One of the main differences I see here though, is with our government, you are not going to be stuck indefinitely with the same crazy leader. We ELECT new leaders."
Yes, we do, but four or eight years is plenty long enough to do some serious, possibly irreversible damage. I'm not suggesting a different term length, I'm just stating a fact. A lot of damage can be done in a short time.
"And we have a lot more checks and balances than any other country in regard to what the country can do."
We still have a lot more check and balances, yes. I think some of the fear of the "moonbats" is based on perceived erosion of same. I think that fear is somewhat justified.
"All the Dems voted for the war."
ALL of them? I don't have the record on hand, but I'm not sure ALL of them did. As for those who did, I wonder how many of them have wished for a "do-over?"
Further to that, the Dems and Reps voted for the war when 9/11 fear was still fairly fresh -- which created exactly what the terrorists wanted in the first place: a sustained fearful reaction. Nice going! Might a substantial, sustained covert operation have worked better? Just a thought.
"Do you think Iran has any of the same? I have to admit I don't know that much about it but I tend to think whatever Almondboy whatever his name wants to do, he does, and there is nobody to tell him otherwise."
True, and no, Iran probably doesn't have anything on us. (Ok, maybe better falafel.) Here's the thing, though: most of us wanted to keep the system that was in place, not circumvent it, not allow for sweeping executive branch decisions that ignored the checks and balances. To allow that system to erode even in the slightest is to let ourselves to begin to slip into something that no longer resembles a democratic republic.
AND ... the last person we need in office is a religious zealot of any sort. I doubt if an avowed atheist would ever get elected to the U.S. presidency, but I would love to see someone who eschews religion as a serious candidate.
Well, okay, 21 Dems voted against it, but still the majority voted for it.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Bush's faith the thing people point to as the source of his stance on the war on terror? I think it has less to do with religion and more the realization that hey, these Muslim extremists are out to kill us, it doesn't matter what we believe. They kill their own when it suits their purpose and they have not made any secret of their intents towards the U.S. Religious zealots of most religions do not want to kill people.
Is any mention of God or faith in general by a Christian or a Jew or a Buddhist considered trying to convert somebody, or imply that everyone must believe the same thing? You have the right to worship (or not) as you see fit, but does that also mean that people of some other faith have to scrub any mention of their own faith so as not to offend? The freedom door works both ways.
Since you say you really don't get it, with emphasis on the "really," I'll take a gander at what might be throwing you off -- not your fault, since the mindset has engineered itself to confuse others. You're reading things from The Left way too literally here, I think. The issue isn't whether it's possible for different humans to hold different things in their hearts. If that was it, the left would be displaying an inconsistency that would hobble recruiting and fundraising efforts...and other things, that clearly aren't hobbled.
ReplyDeleteA central tenet of leftists, one that is used to keep the movement solidified with the passage of time, is that Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, and something called "The Christian Right" are all evil scum. So the liberal movement, from leadership right on down to rank-and-file, clearly understands different people are motivated by different things. This is not the defining issue.
The issue is whether the human condition is worth defending. This would decide whether Iran should even be an issue...and they don't think it should be. On that question, the left is consistent, for they behave as if nothing is worth an aggressive defense, save for the political movement itself, which seeks to assert nothing is worth an aggressive defense.
In short...our species is a pox upon this planet. They are all about coercing people into apologizing for their existence. And the oldest, most effective method of genocide, is to cudgel a people or race into apologizing for it's very existence.
Re: The Lori/Laurie exchange...
ReplyDeleteI have to side with Laurie on this, er, these, things. All y'all on the Left have built this "omnipotent religious right" meme into what looks like acute paranoia, Lori. While there may be isolated instances or events that might lead an insecure, fearful person to believe Americans' rights are being abrogated left and right (or maybe that would just be "left"), I just don't think it's happening. But then again, I'm not tracking every little event and aggregating them into an overwhelming body of evidence that plainly shows the gulag is just around the corner.
Laurie is also correct about the general proscription of the word "God" from American political discourse. If Dubya were to deliver speeches pulled verbatim from the repertoires of Jefferson, Madison, or FDR the heads of the secular Left (as it exists today) would freakin' explode. The pendulum has swung waaay too far to the Left where the public expression of faith is concerned. Just my opinion, YM Most Certainly will V.
Morgan: As good an explanation as any. Today's Left would reject FDR's foreign policy in a heartbeat, and I find that simple fact amazing, as well. In fact, the whole "nothing is worth defending" nihilism is just beyond my understanding. I guess I AM way too literal.
Buck: "But then again, I'm not tracking every little event and aggregating them into an overwhelming body of evidence that plainly shows the gulag is just around the corner."
ReplyDeleteI'm not tracking and aggregating, either. But maybe we should. It's very easy to get blindsided when one isn't paying close enough attention.
"Laurie is also correct about the general proscription of the word "God" from American political discourse. If Dubya were to deliver speeches pulled verbatim from the repertoires of Jefferson, Madison, or FDR the heads of the secular Left (as it exists today) would freakin' explode. The pendulum has swung waaay too far to the Left where the public expression of faith is concerned."
I don't have an issue with public displays of faith. What I DO object to is the insistence that we all buy into the idea that U.S. is a "Christian nation" and we should therefore buy into the "majority rules" b.s. The U.S. was intended to be a nation where citizens could practice their faith freely. No one said that faith had to be Christianity or Judiasm. There should be room for all of it here, at the same time recognizing and honoring separation of church and state.
I'm not an atheist, but I'm damn sure not a Christian either. And I get so very tired of religious folks trying to "save" me. Go save yourselves. Leave me alone, stop knocking on my door, stop asking me what church I attend. Religion is PERSONAL. Respect that. Judge not ... etc.
Btw, I'm a big fan of Thomas Jefferson. He questioned EVERYTHING. Gotta love that.
ReplyDeletehttp://atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=2
Lori sez: I'm not an atheist, but I'm damn sure not a Christian either. And I get so very tired of religious folks trying to "save" me. Go save yourselves. Leave me alone, stop knocking on my door, stop asking me what church I attend. Religion is PERSONAL. Respect that. Judge not ... etc.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely correct on this point. I've mellowed out a lot in my old age and simply smile and say "I'm not interested, thank you very much" as I gently but firmly send the door-to-door missionaries on their way. And I get four or five "calls" at my door per year here at Beautiful La Hacienda Trailer Park. Lord knows trailer parks are fruitful ground for such people. We NEED saving. ;-)
It's been a while since I was asked what church I attend, but the stock answer to that question would be "why does it matter?" accompanied by a smile, of course.
Thanks for the link, Lori. Jefferson is in my "A" rank of heroes. But I have the feeling the atheistic quotes were cherry-picked; I'd like to see them in full context. Here's the complete link, in case someone wants to follow it. Your original was truncated in the comments box.
I don't like door to door evangelism, and I don't think it is particularly effective either, so basically a waste of time for the doorbell ringers. It is construed by most people, I think, as an invasion of privacy. However, there is a big difference between that and "public displays of faith" or however you want to describe it. What offends me when somebody brings it to my door does not necessarily offend me when it is excercized elsewhere in public.
ReplyDeleteIt is a whole 'nother conversation about why said doorbell ringers do what they do in spite of the results or lack thereof.... Most I can think of do so because it is their way of "earning" their way to heaven. But again note the difference between radical Islam, they aren't strapping explosives on themselves and knocking on your door or going down to your local market to blow people up. I'm sure everyone is glad that isn't happening here... but how long will it be if our politicians and the "majority of the public" (if you believe polls) allow us to lose the WoT before it does? Take a look around the world and see where that is happening.
"But again note the difference between radical Islam, they aren't strapping explosives on themselves and knocking on your door or going down to your local market to blow people up."
ReplyDeleteTrue, and thank god or whom/whatever for that. Otoh, we have seen cases of radical Christians blowing up abortion clinics, murdering doctors who perform reproductive choice services ... any difference between that type of behavior and that of radical Muslims? Methinks not.
"I'm sure everyone is glad that isn't happening here... but how long will it be if our politicians and the "majority of the public" (if you believe polls) allow us to lose the WoT before it does?"
I think the WoT includes radicals of ALL religions. Yes, I think it's definitely preferable to fight the WoT on "their" lands, and not in the U.S. I'm still not convinced we should've started this present shit in Iraq, but we're there now, and it looks like we're going to be there for a very, very long time.
Anyway, as far as radicals in the U.S. are concerned, I think I may have taken "The Handmaid's Tale" too seriously ... or not. It has caused me to be even more suspicious of politicians who claim to have been "saved" or "born again."
Me ... I was born okay the first time.
"Otoh, we have seen cases of radical Christians blowing up abortion clinics, murdering doctors who perform reproductive choice services ... any difference between that type of behavior and that of radical Muslims? Methinks not."
ReplyDeleteThe difference being that the Christian Bible does not teach that behavior, it is just a few disturbed individuals who are warped and take those actions on their own. Whereas the "religion of peace" or at least certain radical leaders teach that the way to heaven is by martyring oneself while taking out as many infidels as possible.
I wrote:
ReplyDelete"Otoh, we have seen cases of radical Christians blowing up abortion clinics, murdering doctors who perform reproductive choice services ... any difference between that type of behavior and that of radical Muslims? Methinks not."
Laurie responded:
"The difference being that the Christian Bible does not teach that behavior, it is just a few disturbed individuals who are warped and take those actions on their own. Whereas the 'religion of peace' or at least certain radical leaders teach that the way to heaven is by martyring oneself while taking out as many infidels as possible."
Which is it? The "religion of peace" teaches martyrdom through taking out infidels along with oneself, or certain radical leaders teach that? There's a distinct difference. Are you saying the Koran/Quran teaches this? I haven't read the book; if you have, can you point me to the place(s) where that is stated? Or is it just the nuts who are teaching it?
If it's the latter, then I again compare those activities to certain radical Christians preaching/teaching something quite similar ... except of course that the pussies who blow up clinics never put THEMSELVES in harm's way. I kind of have to admire the courage and conviction of someone who will at least die for his cause.
"Which is it? The "religion of peace" teaches martyrdom through taking out infidels along with oneself, or certain radical leaders teach that? There's a distinct difference. Are you saying the Koran/Quran teaches this? I haven't read the book; if you have, can you point me to the place(s) where that is stated? Or is it just the nuts who are teaching it?"
ReplyDeleteI have not read the whole book. But Wikipedia has quite a section on Jihad, including many references to the passages in the Koran. So many passages in fact that Wiki displays this message: Jihad as warfare
This article or section contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry.
We know there is a large segment teaching, preaching and practicing it. Are they nuts? I think so. Is it just the radicals? I don't know, and it doesn't matter. We know there are huge numbers of them carrying out terrorist activities in countries all over the world.
Christianity doesn't teach, preach, or practice bombings or murder against abortion clinics or anyone. Those who carry out such things are acting on their own as individuals. Are those people nuts? I think so. But there is not a whole religion of preachers and teachers going around saying that it is okay. If they were, there would be a whole lot more instances of it than the handful of incidences that have occurred.
You really can't compare the two, and I wonder why people would want to draw that comparison. Is it some way to try to minimize the monstrosity of what one group does by saying well this other religion does it so it is okay? Or, they just hate Christians so they want to try paint them all the same.
I read something this morning that's reasonably applicable to the on-going exchange between you two, Lori and Laurie. It's long, but you might want to check out Beyond the Human Margin of Politics. The thrust of the essay is very much in support of Laurie's POV, though. Fair warning. And the essay is way too long to quote at length, but here's a blurb:
ReplyDeleteThere is a "natural" left and right which is healthy and to which no true American should be opposed. This represents the realm of alternative points of view within the Constitution, somewhat analogous to different traditions that cohere around the divine revelation of Christianity. The Constitution allows for a certain latitude, for certain "divergencies within orthodoxy," in which different theologians -- or constitutional scholars -- can hammer out their differences at the human margin.
But at some point in our history -- different people will argue whether it was, say, with FDR's usurpation of federal power, or with the rise of the anti-American left in the 1960s -- the honorable left-hand side of American tradition veered well beyond the acceptable human margin and began embracing doctrines that were frankly extra-constitutional, un-American, and completely at odds with our traditions.
Running out of time here, but the examples are too numerous to mention. For example, America was intended to be a Judeo-Christian nation -- not government, but nation, which is something much deeper, and from which the government derives its just powers. If you argue that America was somehow intended to be a secular nation, or a Muslim nation, or an anti-religious nation, then you are simply un-American. You are "out of bounds."
Ya really need to read the whole thing to "get" where he's coming from.
Laurie wrote:
ReplyDelete"I have not read the whole book. But Wikipedia has quite a section on Jihad, including many references to the passages in the Koran."
I like Wikipedia a lot, although the fact that it's edited by "everyman" does cause me some healthy skepticism of its accuracy.
That aside, at face value, saying that passages in the Koran suggest or support Jihad ... hmm ... this reminds me of all the INTERPRETATION required to understand these "holy" books. Is it at all possible that some (okay, a whole bunch of) religious zealots READ WHAT THEY WANTED TO READ?
Looks like I'll have to read the Koran myself ... sigh ... or maybe I'll just go back to reading Tom Robbins.
Buck sez, of "Beyond the Human Margin of Politics":
ReplyDelete"Ya really need to read the whole thing to 'get' where he's coming from."
I certainly will, because the snippet below, taken by itself, makes no sense to me at all.
"If you argue that America was somehow intended to be a secular nation, or a Muslim nation, or an anti-religious nation, then you are simply un-American. You are 'out of bounds.'"
So if I disagree that America was intended to be only a Judeo/Christian nation, I'm UN-AMERICAN???
(Not that having served in the military makes me more American, but I would like to know if Gagdad Bob ever served.)
I understand the distinction he makes between "government" and "nation." However, my impression is that the founding fathers (were there any mothers involved?) used the Constitution to document their intentions -- for the nation as well as for the government.
Even if America was intended to practice or lean toward this or that religion, TIMES CHANGE. The founders of our great country couldn't have guessed at an nth of the technology we take for granted everyday. Nevertheless, they built into their founding principals a lot of room for growth of all sorts, including spiritual and philosophical -- at least that how I see it.
But arguing that point is probably like trying to argue that the Christian Bible is open to a whole lot of interpretation (nevermind that some of its books were left out for political gain, nevermind that it's been translated so many times that we can't really rely on its accuracy, nevermind that the original Hebrew was/is a language of mystical NON-absolutes).
Because I question the religious intent of the nation's founders doesn't mean I'm necessarily arguing for a secular America. I'm arguing to remind Christians and others that America was certainly intended to be a religious nation -- one where a citizen's right to his own faith should be honored. That has to also include a citizen's right to his own lack of faith.
(See the writings of Thomas Jefferson, particularly Section II of "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," for validation of this concept.)
I am not saying and would never say, "Stop showing your faith in public." I am simply asking people of ALL faiths to stop insisting that others believe and live as they do. I would ask the same of an atheist. It's one thing to have an intelligent, educational, friendly debate or discussion. It's quite another to insist that others do and think as you do. And I'm sorry, but I see a whole lot of that insistence in the U.S., particularly in the South and parts of the Midwest.
More later ... going to go read Gagdad Bob's essay now ...
Okay, I read the essay, although I nearly stopped reading it at several places. I'm glad I stuck it out, though, because I wouldn't have wanted to miss this gem:
ReplyDelete"The indecent Left's willingness to sabotage their own nation in such a thoroughgoing manner -- all due to an infantile hatred of the current President -- should elicit a stronger response than it does."
Maybe I'm not as "left" as I sometimes believe I am (although I do describe myself as moderate, which most Americans truly are). 'Cause I do not wish to sabotage my nation. I do have to admit to disliking GWB very, very much (I don't think it goes as far as hatred). I have thrown a sock or two at the TV when he has blathered something that struck me as particularly stupid.
But regarding this "infantile hatred" that Gagdad Bob speaks of ...
Oddly, I was thinking about this very thing last night, and trying to recall if there was such infantile hatred of presidents prior to Clinton. There must have been some, but I don't remember it. However, I DO remember a WHOLE BUNCH of infantile hatred toward Clinton. And of course (and unfortunately) the left has reacted in kind toward Bush.
Back to that hatred of Clinton, though ...
Buck, you wrote something recently about feeling uncomfortable at hearing citizens disrespecting their president so virulently. I can remember so clearly being at work (in Texas, then) and listening to my coworker (a self-professed fundamentalist Christian) say the MOST VILE things about Clinton. I thought to myself, "But this is the PRESIDENT! Aren't we supposed to show respect, even if we disagree, even if we didn't vote for him?"
At times, most of the country seems to have devolved to an infantile state when it comes to politics. Any classiness we may have had is gone (then again, as NASCAR, Wal-Mart, and crappy beer like Miller Light have taken hold, it should be no surprise). It's as if we've all -- ALL, on both sides and in the middle too -- have become so used to getting our way, everytime and no matter what, we can't remember to show the respect we were taught to show, or we simply refuse to show it.
When Bush first came into office, I worked at a conservative education foundation in Washington DC (to learn how the other half thought, and I never figured it out). They were very supportive of "No Child Left Behind" and all that. I thought Bush might one way stroll into our office one day (Bill Bennett certainly did, and frequently), and I dreamed of extended my hand and greeting him with these words: "Your Fraudulency."
I still think it would've been funny (although I probably would've ended up in jail, somehow). However, I'm glad it never happened, because I would be mortified now if I had shown such disrespect to the President.
More another time ...
Ya know, I realize I've been remiss in answering some of the questions posed here (like "Why is Bush's faith the thing people point to as the source of his stance on the war on terror?"). That's one of those things Moonbats are known for: avoiding the hard questions. And I swear, I'm not a complete Moonbat! I'll try to answer some of those questions, AFTER my return from the far reaches of outer space ... I mean, North Dakota. : )
ReplyDelete