105 Comments

1. Carbon:

In a word: Hubris.

Most of the elites have always been told that they are the “best and the brightest.” Duddy and Mummy have always told them so, and so have their college professors. The very idea that they might have limitations is alien to them. Anyone who voices doubts about their abilities is an ignorant fool, or so they think.

No one else ever managed to fly by thinking happy thoughts, but they smugly believe that, given time, they can.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:32 am 2. JohnJ:

Plus, they know that they have good intentions. And, as they’ve been taught, as long as they are pure of heart, they can do no wrong.

Mar 2, 2009 - 12:02 pm 3. Growltiger:

I think the answer is simpler than we’d like it to be. Leftists come in two sizes:
Supersize (the Dear Leaders) and minipack (the Useful Idiots). Supersize Leftists know exactly what they’re doing and the minipack Leftists are too stupid to do anything or believe anything but what the Supersizers tell them.

Read 1984? I doubt most of them CAN read, at least with any real understanding.

Mar 2, 2009 - 12:23 pm 4. Pajamas Media » A Strange Sort of Blindness:

[...] Read the entire post here. [...]

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:11 pm 5. Steve P.:

How can you tell me you’re a Lord of the Rings fan and yet not understand that evil exists and must be defeated? How can you give an Oscar to No Country for Old Men and not realize that nihilistic chaos follows the breakdown of cultural norms and good manners? How can you read 1984 and continue to be a leftist at all?

Okay, let me go ahead and answer that. Because The Lord of the Rings, No Country and 1984 are works of fiction, not to be believed literally, and we leftists understand that. Yes, there are important themes and messages throughout all those works listed above, but using a fictional fantasy battle between humans and orcs to draw real-life conclusions about humanity and philosophy is frankly pretty retarded. Though perhaps in Middle Earth there are beings of pure supernatural evil, and though perhaps many conservatives believe this is true of actual Earth, it is not the case and liberals seems to understand this better than conservatives. There is no real life Sauron. There is no real life ultimate evil, there are only real problems that have to be solved, and unfortunately they can’t be fixed by throwing a ring into lava. The world is a complex place, and you definitely should not look to the world of fiction for your compass.

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:35 pm 6. Robin:

Steve P.,
There isn’t a real life Sauron? I know him as Satan and he has always existed. Fortunately I believe in God, too, so I sleep soundly every night.

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:41 pm 7. Taggart Snyder:

Steve P.,
To what do YOU look for your compass?
Just wondering,

Tag

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:42 pm 8. Dave D:

I don’t agree entirely with steve p, mostly because despite the books being works of fiction, the reason why they are so resonant to people is that they accurately describe real human foibles. Saruman is bad because we understand that real life people who seek power get corrupted by it, even with the best motives. With blindness, the reason why it is horiffic is that it is likely-real people do act that way in similar situations.

My argument would be more that simply because some people can and will do that, not everyone will. Just because the potential is there, doesn’t mean there will always be abuse. It’s like people being against families because of Ibsen’s plays.

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:48 pm 9. Delia:

What are you talking about, Steve P.? “Global Warming” is the ULTIMATE work of fiction drummed up by you leftards.
~

“How can they be so blind”? Andrew, I wish I knew? It’s like being wide awake and lucid in a bad nightmare that turns out to be reality.

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:49 pm 10. blackhawk12151:

Steve P.

Great art looks for truth. I know you leftists don’t believe in truth, but it is real. Therefore, the themes and messages are connected to truth. Points for actually calling yourself a ‘leftist’ rather than a ‘progressive’ though.

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:52 pm 11. lyle:

Steve P:

Stunningly obtuse.

Mar 2, 2009 - 1:54 pm 12. ALEXISTAN:

Steve P., with all respect, substitute “Harvest of Sorrow”, “The GULag Archipelago”, or, “The Road to Serfdom”, for the three fiction titles. There is already a strong current of denunciation, of “exposing the enemy among us” becoming evident in the words and actions of the Administration and in its supporters. This in itself illustrates the dangers into which we’re heading.

Mar 2, 2009 - 2:12 pm 13. The Novel Blindness: Communist Author Criticizes Communism Without Knowing it « Jim Blazsik:

[...] read more [...]

Mar 2, 2009 - 2:20 pm 14. Bill C:

Mr. Klavan, I would be interested in your take on a book called “Arslan”. It too has a socialist agenda with the idea of a communist who takes control of the U.S. and forces all counties in the states to become self-sufficient. The idea seemed to be that though the people were brutalized by Arslan, they came to like him and realize he was right.

Mar 2, 2009 - 2:28 pm 15. Gary Ogletree:

Some liberals got mugged by the reality of 9/11, some will get mugged by the reality of the coming Obama economic collapse. Some times you have to be forced to grow up or get sober. The next two elections will be the conservatives to lose. By the way, who thought Michael Steele would go on a black TV show and turn into a pussy? Strange.

Mar 2, 2009 - 2:39 pm 16. GregGS:

I was not a lord of the rings fan as a kid in high school, because they were all “dead heads” and seemed to hate everything about America, especialy the military. They were all Anti Vietnam war and more pro “enemies” of America. They were all into the fight against evil in Fantasy land, but could not see it or accept it in real life.

Mar 2, 2009 - 2:56 pm 17. Chris B:

This is pretty astonishing.

George Orwell? He avowed himself a socialist in 1937.

Cormac McCarthy, who wrote NO COUNTRY, lives in librul enclave Santa Fe and pals around with the same kinds of scientists Bush and the right have been villifying for years.

Tolkien was a bit more conservative, but never ascribed his political views to a belief in good vs. evil.

This column is an almost embarrassing piece of writing. It reveals a sad lack of understanding about where fiction/myth ends and reality begins. But there’s Republican politics for you.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:00 pm 18. gnatsandcamels:

Chris B.: any ideas on Tolkien’s religious affiliation?

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:10 pm 19. Chris B:

Tolkien was a Catholic.

As are many, many liberals.

Your point?

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:12 pm 20. GregGS:

HA!

“It reveals a sad lack of understanding about where fiction/myth ends and reality begins. But there’s Republican politics for you.”"

A good psychiatrist would see that as “Projecting”.

That’s statement is the classic “opposite of reality” that I’ve every heard, since leftism in all forms never created an ounce of good in this world, but they have created a Titanic amount of “good intentions”.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:19 pm 21. sifty:

Tolkien was a “bit more conservative”? Please. The man was a devout Catholic and wasn’t afraid to say it. He disliked the concept of allegory, but only a buffoon ignores his repeated statement that the story was tied to the human condition. He wrote about it in the forwards of his books.

As to how liberals can ignore the conservatism in works of art:

Liberals are absolutely fearless in opposing any evil that can be fought from the comfort of the sofa in the corner of the coffee-house.
See the claws and fangs of the castrati when they bravely face down the evil of conservative thought,and while away the afternoon on the hooka! Coem one, come all.

Actually facing down tyranny, terrorism, communism, manual labor, bathing, or not sucking away honest people’s paychecks are a little harder to do without a little risk to the precious sedentary life and pasty tattooed limb.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:20 pm 22. Chris B:

Greg, I’m not here to defend any “isms.” I’m simply here to provide smelling salts. This column is rubbish.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:23 pm 23. Chris B:

Sifty: Tolkien’s themes also include things like anti-industrialism, conservation, the celebration of human diversity, and racial tolerance. Not exactly plucked from the Republican platform, is it?

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:25 pm 24. sifty:

Actually, that sounds exactly like the Republican platform.

I believe sticking people into little categories of victims (each with it’s own Al Sharpton-esque grievance-monger)and intolerance of opposing view-points is the domain of liberals in general and communists in particular.

I do agree that anti-industrialism is owned by liberals. Only liberals would be dumb enough to seek to destroy all post-stone-age civilization.

Got to hand it to liberals. No group on Earth can get us wiping our asses on leaves and eating dirt again faster.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:32 pm 25. Rotwang:

I guess if you shave your head and read a book, Roger will let you pretend you’re a cultural critic and write for PJM.

If Andrew had watched, say, “Good Night & Good Luck” and read, say, “The Grapes of Wrath,” his entire premise would have evaporated…and he’d have to retool this truncated little essay for possible placement on Salon.com, with the title “Crap, Liberals Really Understand Art.”.

Apparently, Andrew only knows a handful of “works of art” or artists, and he’s guessing that all the rest — including Brecht, Upton Sinclair, the Cubists, the Dadaists, instrumental jazz, Ben Hecht, Shakespeare, Da Vinci, Juvenal, Sophocles, Victor Hugo and the Cave Paintings at Alta Mira were all somehow loaded with obvious exhortations to own guns and eliminate the Capital Gains Tax.

Judging from his pub list, Klaven knows how form sentences into a complete thought. It’s unfortunate he didn’t take time to do that here.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:36 pm 26. Chris B:

Conservation sounds like the Republican platform? Racial tolerance? That’s awesome. You go.

If you swallow the premise of this column, then you also must ask yourself how you can appreciate Bruce Springsteen and not support labor unions. Or how you can love Dickens novels or Slumdog Millionaire and not see the benefit in social programs.

Your contempt for me drips off your post. I am sad to say I can’t compete. I don’t despise you, or even your philosophy. I do question how surely you are tethered to reality, though.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:37 pm 27. GregGS:

Republicans freed slaves forced civil rights on democrats in congress and in democratic southern states. As far as anti-industrialism I’ll have to think about that one, some people see what they want to see. and conservation comes from conservatism, you are most likely thinking of post modern environmentalism.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:37 pm 28. sifty:

Wife, job, and infant Son tethered, Pal. Firmly in contact with reality. Like, pay my OWN bills without sucking on Mama America’s tit tethered.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:42 pm 29. Chris B:

“conservation comes from conservatism”

Conservation came from Thoreau, and was introduced to American politics by Theodore Roosevelt. I’m proud of Teddy for that. But I’m speaking about the here, the now, and recent history, and you don’t get to pretend that the last 8 years didn’t happen.

Drilling in Arches, deregulating dirty industries unilaterally, intimidation of climatologists, muzzling of NASA, etc. The actions of an administration who believed that God would just magically replace the resources we so casually destroyed, and magically cleanse our air.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:44 pm 30. GregGS:

Slum dog is liberal poo, that as always is not grounded in reality(Hollywood happy ending), Dickens was more grounded. the precise point were liberal and conservative divide is is social programs gov. or individuals teaching others to fish not just stealing fish and then handing out fish willy nilly its self perpetuating poverty.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:45 pm 31. Chris B:

Congratulations on your infant son. Parenting is the greatest joy there is.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:45 pm 32. sifty:

Sorry for the dripping, though Chris. A little tonic water will get that contempt out of your Che T-shirt.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:46 pm 33. sifty:

Parenting a child is a magical, life affirming thing. It’s amazing that so many people want to kill them.

I almost named him in honor of Planned Parenthood. I thought about calling him “The One That Got Away”

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:47 pm 34. Chris B:

Hahahahaha….glad to see that being a Republican has not flattened your sense of humor.

You do have a way with straw men, though. I’m no Che fan. His aims might have been noble but his methods were wrong.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:51 pm 35. GregGS:

“Drilling in Arches, deregulating dirty industries unilaterally, intimidation of climatologists, muzzling of NASA, etc. The actions of an administration who believed that God would just magically replace the resources we so casually destroyed, and magically cleanse our air.”"

I guess you believe in “GLOBAL WARMING” or “CLIMATE CHANGE”
the only people that believe that the Bush administration has deregulated
industry and polluted the world are Academics and the proletariat your one or the other My scientific advice about this so called “climate problem” is to what mankind has always done, dress accordingly.

and DILL BABY DRILL ! Some reactors around the county would do some good,
for Christ Sake, even the wimp french do that.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:53 pm 36. sifty:

When Communism and it’s retarded cousin Environmentalism destroy our ability to function as a civilization above the level of Congo, I am not so sure that peace and love will rise to the top.

More likely, the greater the number of environmentalists, peaceniks, and other assorted liberal children there are, the better the cannibals shall eat.

People with conservative principals are all that stand between the starry-eyed dreamers and the cannibals’ stomachs.

We would like a thank you every now and then.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:54 pm 37. Bonnie_:

A beautiful article, Andrew, and poses a question that reminds me of what I feel when a beautiful exterior turns out to be rotted within. How could the handsome and talented Viggo Mortenson be such an empty nihilist? How could Spielberg make a movie like Schindler’s List and then walk past the inmates being tortured in Fidel’s Cuba to kiss the monster’s ring?

I believe the answer is that to a leftist, there is no truth and no right and no wrong. There is only power.

See Chris B’s posts above for illustration. Leftists shriek like vampires being shown a cross when they are told there is a right, and a wrong, and there is evil and there is good. They must deny it. To believe in right and wrong means that someone might judge them, and they can’t have that.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:55 pm 38. sifty:

The method to communism is always the same. The accent is just different. Sometimes it’s Russian, sometimes it’s Cuban.

This time it sounds like Chicago.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:56 pm 39. Chris B:

GregGS, do you really want your grandchildren to refer to you long after you’re gone as “Grampa Greg, the Flat-Earther?” Or “Gramps Greg, the Guy Who Made Fun of School?”

Gotta run. Good luck with all that.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:57 pm 40. Chris B:

“People with conservative principals are all that stand between the starry-eyed dreamers and the cannibals’ stomachs.”

I see. Jim Webb sends his thanks.

Mar 2, 2009 - 3:58 pm 41. sifty:

I said people with conservative principals. I don’t think I narrowed it down to party. Every brave man is different, but all cowards are the same.

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:05 pm 42. Moogie:

As Milton Friedman once told Phil Donahue: “…and tell me, just where are you going to find these ‘angels’” … who will manage other people’s money?

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:08 pm 43. ricpic:

The fact is that Orwell himself remained a staunch socialist to the end. My stab at the reason most intellectuals are almost fatally attracted to socialism is its grand (to their sensibility) vision: the egalitarian brotherhood of man bit, led, of course, by an intellectual vanguard, them.
In comparison capitalism’s vision is paltry: left to their own devices, individuals pursuing their own selfish advancement will advance the good of all. And it works, magnificently. But where’s the command structure? Other than some mild policing there is none. And so on top of the lack of grand sounding themes there really is no place for the intellectual – as a builder of grand thought structures – in capitalism.

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:17 pm 44. Dave M.:

GregGS: You’re absolutely right- Historically speaking, Republicans have done a great deal to advance tolerance, reason, even equality. The Party of Lincoln was indeed a Grand Old Party.

The issue is that the Republican Party is no longer standing for tolerance, increased freedom for individuals or environmental stewardship (Teddy Roosevelt would be branded a “Green Weenie” in today’s political climate.) The only place those values are found in *modern* Conservatism is in the Libertarian Party, or those libertarian-leaning Republican party members- Ron Paul, anyone?

The modern Republican Party endorses criminal behavior (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, DeLay, and yes, I think Bush knew what they were up to, which means he’s a crook, too, more’s the pity) the rollback of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, (Warrantless wiretaps, the PATRIOT act, district gerrymandering, voter suppression,)intolerance (The Defense of Marriage Act- my marriage is fine, thank you, even though Gays can marry in Massachusetts, not to mention the racist drivel found at sites like RedState- it just ain’t cool to call a black dude a monkey, folks, no matter how much you disagree with his policies. That’s Klansman talk.)

Oh, and about forcing civil rights legislation on Dems in Congress? Well, yeah, but after Nixon’s Southern Strategy, all those horrible racist Dems you talk about? They switched to your party, and LBJ’s Dems became the civil rights party. Read up on it.

The only viable (Sorry, Libertarians, you’re not there yet. Keep working hard!;)) national party that CURRENTLY stands for the expansion of liberty, the safety of America’s citizenry and new economic ideas is the Democratic Party, warts and all.

Republicans can be proud of the work their party did for America right up until the latter part of the 20th Century. But you lost your way when you trashed Goldwater, and you haven’t found your way back. And until you do, don’t expect this Independent voter to vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name.

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:18 pm 45. Carbon:

ricpic wrote:
And so on top of the lack of grand sounding themes there really is no place for the intellectual – as a builder of grand thought structures – in capitalism.
Yes–in a capitalist world there is:
(1) no market for their “product”
(2) a severe lack of guinea pigs they need for their utopian experiments–the lab animals flee. You need to have really expensive structures like the Berlin Wall to keep them in place.

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:35 pm 46. chris b:

“Leftists shriek like vampires being shown a cross when they are told there is a right, and a wrong, and there is evil and there is good.”

I’m a liberal. If you want to call me a leftist, that’s fine, but liberal is more accurate.

That out of the way, I’m not sure where you get the idea that liberals don’t believe in right and wrong. In fact, I believe very strongly in right and wrong. I teach it every day to my child. And I know legions of liberals who do the same.

Where you and I differ is (I’m guessing here) you believe that “right” emanates from some bearded heavenly being wearing flowing robes and Birkenstocks, and “wrong” emanates from a guy with a forked tail and horns. Whereas I believe right and wrong are choices that human beings make.

Mar 2, 2009 - 4:47 pm 47. Dave M.:

In response to the article- Firstly, props to you for enjoying speculative fiction! Tolkein’s great, isn’t he? And Cormac McCarthy’s one of the best writers working today. If you’re ever up my way, I’ll buy you a beer and we can jaw about books ’till the cows come home. You seem like an intelligent guy, and I respect the strength of your moral compass- the country and the world need more folks who try to think morally and ethically not just in their own lives, but who encourage others to do so, as well.

Here’s where I disagree with you. (Sorry ; ))

Progressives or Liberals DO believe there is evil in the world. They just don’t %100 agree with you about what evil is, and what ought to be done to fight it. Both conservatives and liberals, broadly speaking, want to leave the world a better place than they found it, for their families and humanity at large. The big differences? Methodology and priorities.

For example: people on the right and the left both see this economic crisis as an opportunity to repair the system. Everyone wants fair dealing rewarded and wrongdoing punished. The devil, as they say, is in the details. Who are the wrongdoers? Are they bankers who practiced predatory lending, or the folks who bought homes they couldn’t afford? I’d say we’re probably in agreement that it’s both. Where do you start to fix the system, though? Letting those who are defaulting on their mortgages wind up on the street? Jailing or fining the bank execs who knew what they doing? Some of column A, some of column B?

Reasonable people of good faith can disagree, without demonizing each other or misrepresenting their opponent’s position. If conservatives believe that government spending is bad on the face of it, then you have enough legitimate, honest reasons to oppose the Stimulus/Porkulus/You-name-it-us without literally making stuff up about marsh mice in San Fran. You can work with all your might to oppose a direction for the country you believe to be disastrously wrong without comparing the President to a monkey. (Or, on the left, comparing the former President to a chimpanzee.)

One part of President Obama’s message that resounded especially well with we independent voters was the demand for civility in political discourse. I’ve had problems with many of his decisions so far, and I’ve agreed wholeheartedly with others. I do not believe him to be any kind of socialist- and I know from socialists. I live in Soviet Canuckistan, they run around loose in the corridors of power, here. Obama ain’t one. Argue all you want about creeping socialism, but don’t say he’s a commie or a pinko. He really, really isn’t. Sorry. Neither are most American liberals. It just ain’t true, any more than Bush and the Neo-Cons were Fascists. They weren’t. Sorry, too bad, lefties.

Where the heck am I going with this? Well, I think you err in your analysis of the liberal mindset, and liberal morality. Totalitarianism is evil, whether you get there via left hand turns or right hand ones, I think we all agree on that, conservatives and liberals alike. He’s the point where I think you Republicans have some great points to make- there is evil in the world, and it must be fought! It’s exclusively in the “how” and “where” that you part company. It does no one any good to pretend your opponents are soulless, thoughtless, inhuman monsters who must “hate American” or “hate the poor/blacks/gays”. Your article maligns people of good will who are simply trying to make a better future for America, and the fact that they’ve done it to your team in the past doesn’t make it right- it just means you should know better.

Anyhoo, keeping writing (and reading!) and so will I.

All the best,

DaveM

Mar 2, 2009 - 5:04 pm 48. Roger L Simon:

“Where you and I differ is (I’m guessing here) you believe that “right” emanates from some bearded heavenly being wearing flowing robes and Birkenstocks, and “wrong” emanates from a guy with a forked tail and horns. Whereas I believe right and wrong are choices that human beings make.”

I’m guessing here, but I think you’re dead wrong about the author.

Mar 2, 2009 - 5:47 pm 49. Jephnol:

I won’t speak to what authors intend or what readers perceive but I will say I agree with the truthiness of this article.

Mar 2, 2009 - 6:13 pm 50. therealist:

Recruit the youth through idealism. Tell them the system is unjust and that they can change the world and make it right. Then get those “useful idiots” to work for you and/or fight for you and hand you the country. Finally, consolidate power and hang on for dear life.

Mar 2, 2009 - 6:26 pm 51. Moogie:

chris b: “you believe that “right” emanates from some bearded heavenly being wearing flowing robes and Birkenstocks, and “wrong” emanates from a guy with a forked tail and horns. Whereas I believe right and wrong are choices that human beings make.”

You say that conservatives “believe” right and wrong emanate from somewhere other than themselves; the secularist in you says it comes from you, as shown in the choices you (”human beings”) make.

Question: Are you saying, then, that you “believe” right and wrong emanates from yourself? Do you believe the ability to distinguish one from the other is innate? Or is it learned (nature vs. nurture)?

And if right and wrong are learned, how was it introduced to human beings in the first place? Who was the first person to point and say “that is wrong!” or “that is right!” And how did that first person discern the difference? To what would he or she have compared right and wrong to?

If it is innate, why do we have this characteristic, but animals (besides trained ones, which really doesn’t count, as their distinction between right and wrong are based on consequences rather than conscience) do not have this characteristic?

Just a few questions… nothing too heavy.

Mar 2, 2009 - 6:46 pm 52. chris b:

“Question: Are you saying, then, that you “believe” right and wrong emanates from yourself? Do you believe the ability to distinguish one from the other is innate? Or is it learned (nature vs. nurture)?”

Morality has both an innate origin and a learned, or societal, origin.

“And if right and wrong are learned, how was it introduced to human beings in the first place? Who was the first person to point and say “that is wrong!” or “that is right!” And how did that first person discern the difference? To what would he or she have compared right and wrong to?”

There’s lots of academia on this.

What we recognize as law and morality is widely believed by anthropologists to have originated in early tribes — long before religion emerged — as a means of preventing schisms that could destroy the tribe.

“If it is innate, why do we have this characteristic, but animals (besides trained ones, which really doesn’t count, as their distinction between right and wrong are based on consequences rather than conscience) do not have this characteristic?”

Some do, in fact. Capuchin monkeys have been demonstrated to have an innate sense of fairness (one dimension of what we know to be right and wrong). If you play reward games with two capuchin monkeys and deliver greater rewards to one over the other, and the monkeys can see each other, the one who gets “the shit end of the stick” will protest violently. The same reward system is just fine with the same monkeys as long as they don’t see the other monkey being more amply rewarded.

Mar 2, 2009 - 6:57 pm 53. GregGS:

David M_

“”(Teddy Roosevelt would be branded a “Green Weenie” in today’s political climate.)”"

You must be smoking pot, Teddy in today’s world would be a cigar chomping capitalist pig.

“Republicans can be proud of the work their party did for America right up until the latter part of the 20th Century. But you lost your way when you trashed Goldwater, and you haven’t found your way back. And until you do, don’t expect this Independent voter to vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name.”

Your Dam right! When the right lurched left to Nixon by dropping Goldwater
the whole nation lurched left Kennedy flooded the nation with the Brain trust of Academic Marxist.

chris b: “you believe that “right” emanates from some bearded heavenly being wearing flowing robes and Birkenstocks, and “wrong” emanates from a guy with a forked tail and horns. Whereas I believe right and wrong are choices that human beings make.”

Yes right and what’s wrong and morality come from God and his foundations If moral right and wrong were to come from man as many believe there is where the constant sliding morality scale comes into play. I mean really
hitler reasoned jews need to be gassed, Mao created his own marxist morality that also left a big stack of bodies. That’s what happens when right and wrong are left to minds of man with no foundation.

Mar 2, 2009 - 7:43 pm 54. GregGS:

David m

“The only viable (Sorry, Libertarians, you’re not there yet. Keep working hard!;)) national party that CURRENTLY stands for the expansion of liberty, the safety of America’s citizenry and new economic ideas is the Democratic Party, warts and all.”

the democrats new economic “Ideas” you’re not smoking pot you’re on speed

The democrats believe the gov. should run everything that’s as old as the
pyramids.

Mar 2, 2009 - 7:54 pm 55. chris b:

“I mean really
hitler reasoned jews need to be gassed, Mao created his own marxist morality that also left a big stack of bodies. That’s what happens when right and wrong are left to minds of man with no foundation.”

You’re not a serious person.

History is replete with stories of genocide and cleansing in the name of God.

History is also replete with atheists who’ve done remarkable and humanitarian deeds.

Morality does not require religion. Nor does religion ensure morality.

Mar 2, 2009 - 7:57 pm 56. GregGS:

I’m not serious? Hart attacks got nothing on me. You’re implying that believing in God means you’re believing in the correct God. There are many Gods many religions, many are earthy and material, and many Genocides, lets look at Muslims they think they are part of the Jewish and Christian religion, forget it,just because they say so! Their actions prove otherwise they are the opposite. They are out to genocide all that are not Muslim. So in our case we may be pushed to the wall and the answer will be to fight fire with fire. And in the end like many great human catastrophic wars there is in the end a side that is actually right. I guess in my romantic view of the world I’d rather fight and die in the name of god than in other thing.

And go ahead and call me a flat-earther there are no facts to support “man made global warming” but many fact disputing it.

I view you climate alarmist as “flagellants” but unlike the medieval flagellants you “post modern socialist flagellants” will flagellate all of society as a whole.
ciao

Mar 2, 2009 - 8:36 pm 57. Moogie:

chris b: “There’s lots of academia on this. What we recognize as law and morality is widely believed by anthropologists to have originated in early tribes — long before religion emerged — as a means of preventing schisms that could destroy the tribe.”

Why did those early, non-religious tribes have schisms? Wouldn’t a schism denote the confict of right or wrong existing amongst the tribal members in the first place – before law and morality were put into practice? Who threw the first stone? And how did they judge that the stone throwing was a wrong thing to do, if they had no barometer with which to measure the subjectivity of right or wrong? Did they view right and wrong as subjective ideas, or as objective realities?

“Capuchin monkeys have been demonstrated to have an innate sense of fairness (one dimension of what we know to be right and wrong). If you play reward games with two capuchin monkeys and deliver greater rewards to one over the other, and the monkeys can see each other, the one who gets “the shit end of the stick” will protest violently.”

Does this behavoir demonstrate “fairness” or “selfishness?” If fairness had been demonstrated, wouldn’t the monkey who received more food share it with the other monkey? Rather, the short-end-of-the-stick monkey demonstrated selfishness by having a fit.

Do we not see this selfishness displayed in nature, when animals fight over a dead animal carcass? Or, on the other hand, if a mother lion shares her food with her young, could that be construed as a certain morality in that she is being fair?

Better yet, is right and wrong being demonstrated if that mother lion takes food from another lion and gives that food to the lazy lions who didn’t participate in the hunt? Perhaps that would be a better gauge for fairness.

Eventually, the lion whose food was stolen will get angry and kill those lazy lions. I guess in that scenario, we are seeing a “wrong” (the taking of the lion’s food against her will) being addressed by another “wrong” (the killing of the lazy lions) – although the lion doing the killing to get her food back probably thinks she is “right.”

Sorry this was so long… sometimes I have a hard time turning my brain off.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:13 pm 58. joeblough:

There is an act of will involved in understanding anything.

One can simply refuse to understand.

Or as the poet said, there are none so blind as those that will not see.

This is cognition reduced to the role of emotion’s errand boy.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:17 pm 59. joeblough:

BTW: the responsible thinker does well to remember these facts before leaping to the warrantless and fatal conclusion that leftists are misguided or uninformed, but otherwise well meaning people.

Leftists are most decidedly not well meaning people.

They judge by their emotions, the results are destruction, and then they make the same choices again on the same basis.

Guess what, those are not friendly emotions.

Mar 2, 2009 - 10:21 pm 60. Daniel Crandall:

How blind can Leftist’s be?

Here’s China Miéville’s (Miéville is describing SF books every Socialist should read “because the politics they embed (deliberately or not) are of particular interest to socialists”. Miéville is a vocal Atheist and Socialist.) take on Yevgeny Zamyatin’s dystopian classic “We”, which set the stage for Orwell’s “1984″, and many others:

Zamyatin was “[a] Bolshevik, who earned semi-official unease in the USSR even in the early 1920s, with this unsettling dystopian view of absolute totalitarianism. These days often retrospectively, ahistorically, and misleadingly judged to be a critique of Stalinism.”

The “semi-official unease” Miéville describes actually means that, according to Wikipedia, Zamyatin’s “works were banned and he wasn’t permitted to publish, particularly after the publication of We … in 1927.” But good ole’ Uncle Joe Stalin did allow Mr. Zamyatin to leave USSR in 1931. How could Zamyatin, son of a Russian Orthodox priest, possibly be critical of Stalin? I wonder what loving tributes Mr. Miéville might write about England were he not allowed to publish anything in his home country.

The rest of the list is quite interesting and can be found here: http://www.fantasticmetropolis.com/i/50socialist/full/

BTW, Miéville includes “Atlas Shrugged” with the qualifier, “Know your enemy.”

My attraction for SF-F author Gene Wolfe was reinforced by this list. If Miéville is going to describe someone as “a religious Republican, [with a] tragico-Catholic perspective”, then that is someone I want to read.

Mar 3, 2009 - 2:44 am 61. G Alston:

#51 — If it is innate, why do we have this characteristic, but animals (besides trained ones, which really doesn’t count, as their distinction between right and wrong are based on consequences rather than conscience) do not have this characteristic?

I’ll have a go at it.

Primates evolved with communities, which is felt to have been one of the major triggers for intelligence. When primates get smart they think less in terms of self and more in terms of community. Fossil record suggests this. Animals that aren’t community wired “think” in terms of self. This is self-evident. Right and wrong are concepts that make sense only to that which uses community for a reference point.

What we perceive today as right and wrong aren’t that different as we view things at a group level because unlike animals, we can. A proto-human is aware of his community. Of others. And their thoughts. (Only genus Homo can do that.) Stealing the neighbour’s food is wrong because those childen starve and die, and the community suffers. If the community suffers, so does he. Survival requires cooperation. Wrong is that which damages the community.

And so it began.

Mar 3, 2009 - 3:09 am 62. don:

Some of the respondents replied there is good and evil, but they are not defined by some spurious deity, but by men . . . one answer to that; if there is no god, there are no such things as good and evil, both are relative to the needs of the organism “at the moment”. Right and wrong (are therefor) concepts that deny the reality (and dominance) of evolutionary law which is the strong survive (as does their genetic code), the weak? Fall by the wayside. So it makes perfect sense for the progressives to urge that abortion become more available, and that socialized medicine becomes the norm. In both the state becomes the chooser of who will reproduce, who will live and who will die (and when). It’s surprising that we don’t have a congressperson (must be PC must’nt we?) urging the adoption of a “Kevorkian” resolution, allowing those encouraged to eliminate themselves from the gene pool to do so . . . quickly.
Almost forgot . . . “Morality”? Without good or evil it is meaningless.

SOcilaism? Is a myth created by a man who lived in fantasy, where human beings (excepting “Capitalists”) are tolerant, “humane” and will “do as they are told” (his impression of what German workers “should” be). The reality? People are selfish, when given the opportunity most will take advantage, we see this in every socialist state, in every socialist system (from the “Nomenclatura” in the Sovstate and Cuba, to the evolving Venezuelan “workers paradise”)., to the abuses of the socialized medical systems in every state where it is utilized. The left either is living a lie they do not comprehend, or they lie to a public they know they’ll be living off of, once the revolution occurs.

Mar 3, 2009 - 6:23 am 63. zimmy:

“One thing that has always astonished me is how leftists can be blind to the wisdom of the very arts they love and sometimes even the arts they create.”
————–

That’s because with liberals everything is relative.

Mar 3, 2009 - 7:55 am 64. G Alston:

#43 — In comparison capitalism’s vision is paltry: left to their own devices, individuals pursuing their own selfish advancement will advance the good of all.

Capitalism left to it’s own end will inevitably result in the sale of human flesh in the marketplace. Governmental oversight is required in the form of regulations. It’s why they exist at all. There are no successful capitalist societies that do not have regulation. Nor have there been.

(The edict about human flesh being sold is Babylonian, so this is a well known phenomenon. Babylon wasn’t exactly a bastion of communists.)

Mar 3, 2009 - 8:16 am 65. TalkinKamel:

Bill C., my own, personal take on “Arslan” is that is was a big, wet, sloppy valentine written by someone unhealthily in love with power, and the idea of the big strong man, who will come rescue us all.

It has some communist elements in it. It has facist elements in it (like there’s a big difference between the two, right?) It has a lot of the-earth-would-be-better-without-evil-mankind. It also has a completely unbelievable plot, a cast of characters that range from incredible to repulsive (there are no likable characters in this), and really nauseating pedophiliac elements. Arslan rapes children. The nominal “hero” is publicly buggered by Arslan in a school auditorium (Sorry, but in cases like this, you have to be blunt about what an author’s trying to push on you). He falls in love in with Arslan, and becomes his righthand man. The author presents this as a good thing. She also presents Arslan’s mass sterlization of women as a good thing.

Really, “Arslan” contains some seriously warped stuff.

Mar 3, 2009 - 8:18 am 66. Self-hating Boomer:

What this shows is, quite simply, that for the arts crowd, leftism isn’t a deeply held belief system, but a fashion statement. If conservative values were “in”, they’d all be rock-ribbed conservatives. They don’t understand political philosophy, and don’t care to. They just want to be “in”.

Mar 3, 2009 - 8:40 am 67. deguello:

Your misunderstanding of the uses of fiction is retarded in its literalness. No evil,Eh, Hitler,Stalin. Castro, and Ted Bundy just problems to be solved? In the 20th century, nearly 300 million peopple died in warsand slaughters fostered by totalitarianism, and you can’t see that evil exists? You have the gall to call Tolkien retarded?What a tenth rate intellect you are.

Mar 3, 2009 - 10:09 am 68. deguello:

#5 STEVE P SEE ABOVE YOU DOLT!

Mar 3, 2009 - 10:10 am 69. don:

Soylent green is people . . . Regulation, absolutely, Government ownership of the means of production . . .?

Mar 3, 2009 - 11:31 am 70. TalkinKamel:

Daniel, interesting list. Has anyone ever done a list of science fiction/fantasy books conservatives should read?

Narnia would have to be on there, and Lord of the Rings; Heinlein’s “Citizen of the Galaxy,” and “Moon is Harsh Mistress”, lots of stuff by Gene Wolfe, R.A. Lafferty, Robert Bloch; “We”, by Zamyiten.

“Arslan” could be included in the know your enemy section.

Mar 3, 2009 - 11:38 am 71. GregGS:

“Capitalism left to it’s own end will inevitably result in the sale of human flesh in the marketplace.”

That’s why God was so Important to those who created America. The individual soul and it’s connection to God (Judeo Christian God), no matter how thin it becomes at times, it’s what brings humanity back from the brink with moral law, the foundation. Without God, individual freedom cannot exist including the will to fight for it, it looses it reason to exist. Moral law will be constantly on the move in the form of all collective forms of Gov. including ours, if the foundation of law and morality is 100% left up to and reasoned by man.

Mar 3, 2009 - 11:56 am 72. TalkinKamel:

“Capitalism left to it’s own end will inevitably result in the sale of human flesh in the marketplace.”

Hmmm, and what does Marxism, left to it’s own end, usually result in? Gulags. Famines. Millions killed by their own governments, perpetual war against other, freer nations, hunger, misery and oppression.

Mar 3, 2009 - 12:25 pm 73. TalkinKamel:

Not that they’re so capitalistic as to buy and sell human beings, of course; they ship them off to Gulags, or re-education camps, and work them to death there.

But it’s not capitalism, see, so, you see, it’s really not bad, you see, and it’s not like they’re really being bought and sold, you see, because that would be bad, see?

Mar 3, 2009 - 12:26 pm 74. TalkinKamel:

Here’s an article by Dennis Prager, talking about good and evil: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0309/prager030309.php3

Mar 3, 2009 - 12:31 pm 75. TalkinKamel:

Seriously, looking at recent history, and articles such as Prager’s, I am starting to believe in supernatural evil, and creatures like Sauron. Oh, they don’t look mystical or weird, they look just like ordinary human beings, and can even pass themselves off as being human, until those occasions when the mask falls, and the rottoness within stare out at you. . .

Mar 3, 2009 - 12:34 pm 76. Pete:

Tolkien also had a rather strong dislike of industrialization and pined longingly for the idyllic agrarian England of the history books. Lord of the Rings has a distinct anti-industrialization bent to it (especially with the Ents), are you sure this is the guy you want to hitch your wagons to?

Mar 3, 2009 - 2:12 pm 77. G Alston:

#72 — Hmmm, and what does Marxism, left to it’s own end, usually result in?

Human flesh sold in the marketplace by the government.

Do you honestly equate basic western economic thought and the necessity of regulation with being *against* capitalism?

Holy cow. No wonder idiots like Rush Limbaugh are having influence.

Mar 3, 2009 - 3:02 pm 78. G Alston:

#71 — That’s why God was so Important to those who created America.

Read a book, zippy. Please. The founders were deist. I won’t waste time with you.

Mar 3, 2009 - 3:03 pm 79. TalkinKamel:

On the other hand, Tolkien was one of the few Oxfordians of the time to drive a car, use a typewriter or a dictaphone machine. Despite his agrarian stand in his books, he was actually more comfortable with actually using machinery, than many men of that time in England, in his station.

Tolkien described the modern lust for power, the grimness of the Mordor (industrialism run amok; industrialism that serves only the purposes of the powerful, not human beings). He saw good and evil, and described it quite clearly.

And he created the Hobbits. Ordinary, silly, brave, irascible and heroic—ordinary human beings; the very sort of creatures the power hunger and cruel despise, and want to enslave. He reminded us what’s really at stake in all wars, and power struggles, and he was on the side of the Hobbits at a time when most of the world was (and still is) on the side of Sauron and the orcs; the big, mean guys, with power. Yes, I’m sure I’d like to hitch a wagon to him. I’m not an Ayn Randian; I don’t think liking, or admiring an author means I have to accept everything he or she says, but there’s a lot in Tolkien to admire, and listen to.

Mar 3, 2009 - 3:23 pm 80. TalkinKamel:

Well, G. Alston, I thought basic Western economic thought pretty much was capitalism, moderated by the Judeo-Christian values those same founding fathers, deist or not, seem to have admired.

We’ve seen what government regulation, without traditional ethics or morality to back it up, leads to in the modern monster dictatorships.

Mar 3, 2009 - 3:27 pm 81. Pete:

Talkin,

What “government regulation” are you actually talking about? The FDA? OSHA? Civil Rights? The SEC? The FDIC? The FCC? A lot of you “small government” guys talk a good game about the eeeeevvvvullls of regulation, so I think it’s a pretty good question to ask exactly how much of the current governmental structure you’re looking to dismantle.

Tell me, when Bush’s lawyers wrote the memo asserting that the President had the unilateral right to ignore or suppress the 1st and 4th Amendments in the name of a “war” that Congress had not actually formally declared, was that “traditional ethics and morality”?

Mar 3, 2009 - 3:31 pm 82. TalkinKamel:

Tolkien was also interested in science fiction, about the technical sort of literature there is, and didn’t despise it, as some form of pulp trash, beneath intelligent notice.

He certainly pined for the green England of his youth (understandable; the industrialization of England at that time really did create some ugly things, and destroy a lot of the landscape, which England, a small country, doesn’t have as much of as, say, America).

I see his reservations about technology as making him human, like the rest of us. Again, it’s the entire traditional ethics thing coming in here; we can admire industrialization and progress, and still not want a Starbucks on every corner, a Wal-Mart every mile or so, and we would like at least some Ents (trees) around.

Mar 3, 2009 - 3:33 pm 83. TalkinKamel:

Well, Pete, turning the tables on you, how small a government do you think is too small? How big do you want it to be, and how much of our lives do you want all these initials: OSHA, OHNO, NICE, DMV, etc. to have? How much more control over our lives do you think we should give them? How much more taxes to support them? Should we have food cops, telling us to exercise, and what we should eat? social workers, ruling every aspect of family life?

People who work for the government are the same as people everywhere. Some are nice, some aren’t; how much power do you think they should have?

Speaking of the DMV—do you really want, say, hospitals, banks and other businesses run with the same—heh!—politeness and efficiency as that famed institution?

Oh yes, and when Bush’s lawyers did that, it certainly wasn’t traditional ethics and morality; that’s the point. When you give government lots and lots of power, it tends to want more and more of it. So, I ask again, just how big do you really want government to be—always remembering that a lot of officials are going to want more, and more.

Myself, I think the government should handle national defense, domestic laws—law and order—build the roads; anything else we let it handle, we should think about it, long and hard. I also think, talking about traditional ethics and morality, that it would be a good idea to regard it as a necessary evil, not the voice of G-d on earth, or the source of all power.

Mar 3, 2009 - 3:41 pm 84. AlexinCT:

Chris b @ 55 says:

History is replete with stories of genocide and cleansing in the name of God.

The simple fact is that marxist ideology has managed to kill and enslave more people in 100 years than 3000 years of religious war though. Hundreds of millions killed. Billions imprisoned in shared misery. It is a matter of simple math, and the fact that collectivism sooner than later leads to the culling of dissenters. And still we have people telling us that the only reason that this stuff has not worked is because they where not the ones in charge. Insanity is doing the same stupid thing over and over, expecting a different result. Besides, I am sure that, just like liberals, the people that did all the evil in the name of religion, meant well….

History is also replete with atheists who’ve done remarkable and humanitarian deeds.

I am sure our concept of humanitarian deeds will vary, but that’s not the issue. The point is that the most horrible people in our history where also avowed atheists or worshipped darkness. Remove the fear of being judged by some higher power, and suddenly everything goes.

Morality does not require religion. Nor does religion ensure morality.

I guess morality then is in the eye of the beholder. If it is left to man to redefine morality, then sooner or later everything goes. Back to the usual relativism libs love, I guess. If it feels good, it was good. The consequences be damned. This ambivalent modernity has allowed us to throw out all the taboos that 6000 years of civilization thought us. And we are now paying for it. Civilizations that let their sense of morality slip have a history of going down in flames. We seem to be repeating that folly.

Mar 3, 2009 - 5:23 pm 85. TalkinKamel:

And here’s some more of that swell government regulation we need so badly. I rest my case; http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0212wo.html

Mar 3, 2009 - 9:12 pm 86. G Alston:

#84 — The simple fact is that marxist ideology has managed to kill and enslave more people in 100 years than 3000 years of religious war though.

If marxism was invented 10,000 years back and religion invented in the 1800’s the numbers would be reversed.

Mar 3, 2009 - 10:20 pm 87. G Alston:

#84 — The simple fact is that marxist ideology has managed to kill and enslave more people in 100 years than 3000 years of religious war though.

And besides, the religious wars aren’t done yet. Let’s see what happens when the muslims get hold of modern tech and still don’t like the west much.

Mar 3, 2009 - 10:26 pm 88. don:

G alston, if #84 reveals the trepidation you feel about the Salafists (I don’t condemn Islam, I do condemn the Salafist death cult) why do you think much of the left refuses to recognize them as the threat they are?

Mar 4, 2009 - 4:30 am 89. Pete:

#83

So, you would like the FDA to be abolished then? So who would guarantee that our food and medicine is safe? The free market? Would you feel comfortable having surgery using devices that weren’t tested or deemed to be safe by an impartial agency? Do you think banks should be completely unregulated, consequences be damned? I guess clean air and water standards won’t be needed either. And obviously, there’s no need for the EEOC or Civil Rights attorneys either.

The problem with the extreme “small government” philosophy is that it is ultimately nihilistic and completely impractical for a country that has 300+ million citizens.

Mar 4, 2009 - 6:57 am 90. TalkinKamel:

#86 G. Alston: yes, and if pigs had wings they could fly, and if I had a million dollars, I’d be a millionaire, and if money grew on trees, we’d all be rich.

The fact is, Marxism wasn’t invented 10,000 years ago—or, I suspect some societies did try it, found it didn’t work, and dropped it. Certainly, a lot of early American socialist communities gave it up, and early Christians did too, when they found it wasn’t practicable.

It’s silly to start throwing around hypotheticals, to excuse Marxism’s bad record. If Rome had survived into, say, the 19th Century, things would have been different. If the Mongols had conquered Europe, things would be different. If space aliens had landed and conquered the world, things would be quite different. But none of those things happened, at least not on our earth. We have to look at how things have worked out in real time, and, in real time, Marxism’s bad record stinks to high heaven (you should only pardon the expression).

And you have absolutely no way of proving that “the numbers would be reversed”—not unless you have a time machine, or something like that.

Mar 4, 2009 - 8:20 am 91. G Alston:

#88 — G alston, if #84 reveals the trepidation you feel about the Salafists (I don’t condemn Islam, I do condemn the Salafist death cult) why do you think much of the left refuses to recognize them as the threat they are?

Because currently the muslims couldn’t organise a boy scout campout, much less a credible military threat. (You don’t have to be on the left to know this. This has been repeated many times in “American Conservative” mag.) At best what the muslims could actually do is cause mischief with WMD’s e.g. nuking Tel Aviv; they’re incapable of actually destroying the west via military conquest.

That said, however, I wasn’t speaking to their abilities as much as to their intentions. If we woke up tomorrow and magically all out technology was from 700 AD there would be a problem. Similarly if the west sits back and the muslims become technologically equivalent, there can and will be a problem.

#89 — The problem with the extreme “small government” philosophy is that it is ultimately nihilistic…

And it’s also just plain stupid. Same poster says in #80 that capitalism worked solely via judeo-christian values, which sort of begs the question re why the USA started out with a department that was responsible for standardisation of weights and measures. Oh. My. God. REGULATIONS! Run for the hills!

Mar 4, 2009 - 8:26 am 92. TalkinKamel:

Pete, did you even read the post I linked to in #85? If not, please go do so now. Burning kids books. Placing financial burdens on thrift stores, and making sure—during a financial melt-down—that parents won’t be able to buy cheap toys, clothes and books for their kids. Uh-huh, we just wouldn’t be safe without lots and LOTS of government regulation.

I believe we need some regulation, but we need a lot less of it than the government insists on giving us. We also need it to act with some common sense. AND we also need to keep a closer eye on the agencies we already have, which are often rife with incompetence and corruption.

I don’t think I can make it much clearer than that. If you still don’t get it, sorry. Maybe you’d like to tell us in what way you’d like government to get even bigger, and what more you’d like it to be doing? All for our own good, of course. . .

(Really, I think that article I link to pretty much makes the case against too much government meddling).

Mar 4, 2009 - 8:26 am 93. TalkinKamel:

I don’t know, Islam certainly managed to organize 9/11. And 7/7. And the bombings in Spain. And their Spanish terrorist act did manage to sway the election over there. And Islam seems to be in a good way to take over Great Britain. And there are all those rioting Moslem “youths” in France, Denmark, and other European hot spots, not to mention places such as the Philippines, Indonesia and Chechnya, where they do seem to be moving towards a military conquest.

By the way—love your description of Tel Aviv getting nuked by WMD’s as “mischief”.

Mar 4, 2009 - 8:31 am 94. TalkinKamel:

In the west, I don’t think they’re going for out-and-out military conquest, but I think they are trying to undermine us via stealthier methods. And, in places like Kashmir and Darfur, they do seem to be opting for open war. But, I guess as long as they confine their “mischief” to the third world, all is swell.

They don’t need to develop their own technology, by the way. They’re perfectly comfortable with using ours, and buying more from the Russians, something they can afford to do, given all their oil money, and the State Department stooges who support them. Iran reportedly has the wherewithal to make an atomic warhead, and the missiles to deliver it.

Mar 4, 2009 - 8:34 am 95. Pete:

Burning kids’ books? Oh, that’s right, that was the WND hysteria about two months ago. That’s funny, nothing really came of that, did it?

Mar 4, 2009 - 10:57 am 96. TalkinKamel:

Who’s talking about WND’s? I know, I know, Pete, you’re desperate to bash Bush, and Republicans, and burble some about Iraq, but try to stay on topic for the moment, ‘kay?

Sorry, but it is happening, and nothing good’s going to come of it.

Mar 4, 2009 - 11:32 am 97. TalkinKamel:

Oh, you meant World Net Daily, not weapons of mass destruction? You might want to drop all the dumb initials.

I don’t read World Net Daily, so I didn’t hear about it from there.

Mar 4, 2009 - 11:33 am 98. TalkinKamel:

Here’s another article: http://overlawyered.com/2009/02/cpsia-the-childrens-product-safety-crisis-that-wasnt/

Mar 4, 2009 - 11:39 am 99. TalkinKamel:

The article I linked to isn’t World Net Daily, but City Journal, which I’ve always found to be thoughtful and well-written, not alarmist.

What is it in the article that you disagree with, and why do you think it can’t happen?

Mar 4, 2009 - 11:41 am 100. TalkinKamel:

And here’s an article from a library blog: http://bookshopblog.com/2009/01/08/book-burning-on-feb-10th-2009-due-to-cpsia/

Mar 4, 2009 - 11:43 am 101. don:

G alston#91 . . . OB aid (during the campaign) that conventional law enforcement was “perfectly adequate” to deal with terrorism, noting the results of the trials against the 93′ WTC bombers . . . of course leaving out the “success =/-” of the 93′ attempt led directly to the 01 success . . . But we’ll leave that, your point is that most of the Muslim community can’t organize worth a damn (somewhat biased comment?), and that without technologies (they don’t currently have) they can’t do much more than kill thousands . . . OK, who chooses those thousands? And who determines what law enforcement entities will do what . . . after the fact. Law enforcement agencies answer questions after-the-fact, they capture (and through a judiciary) punish. They do not practice “pre-emption” . . . so NY or Tel Aviv get nuked (more likely it would be Delhi or Mumbai) . . . and then? Millions hurt (or dead) and decidedly after the fact actions (though with law enforcement fairly passive ones) . . .

Mar 4, 2009 - 11:58 am 102. G Alston:

#101 — OK, who chooses those thousands?

Don, go back through the comments and try to keep up to speed on the context. We were discussing the quantities killed by religious vs political extremism. All commentary (by me anyway) has been made in that context alone. I have said that the muslims aren’t capable of waging war (as in warre, or fight to the death) with the west and win. Terrorism was never the subject matter.

I’ll answer your general question though: no, I don’t agree with the “law enforcement” argument. It was specious then and is just as specious now. The question re pre-emption seems to remain open however, because non-state entities beg the question of whom is to pre-empted and how. I don’t pretend to have the answer for that, and I tend to doubt you have a comprehensive one that works that well either.

By definition you can’t pre-empt what you can’t see coming, so reactive action after an attack seems to be the basis of the law enforcement argument. As I said though this is specious because apparently we’re supposed to just sit there and wait for Atlanta or Miami to go up in smoke. That’s just stupid.

Seems to me we need to beef up intel and get better birds in the sky. Of course do enough domestic intel and you border on stomping on the rights of US citizens. Not that people intend to do that, of course, but power corrupts, and this has to be done carefully and with safeguards.

I’m afraid there isn’t a simple answer as I see it. Perhaps others who know more (actually KNOW more, not just have louder opinions) have a better lock on this issue. I’m guessing that you and I would agree more than not.

Mar 4, 2009 - 2:37 pm 103. don:

touche’, the real purpose of this thread was the discussion of the curious affinity (some in) the left have for those who would destroy the greater society. Apparently assuming they would be immune to generalized destruction (what was Churchill’s comment about those who would negotiate with the crocodile, hoping it would eat them last?).

Birds in the sky are good for specific technical identification, location and targeting, what you need in a conflict like this is a robust Humint capability most of all.

Mar 4, 2009 - 4:18 pm 104. TalkinKamel:

And another example of seem real “useful” government regulation: http://dailymail.com/News/statehouse/200903030085

Mar 4, 2009 - 4:36 pm 105. TalkinKamel:

And here’s a prediction about the joys of regulated healthcare! http://www.redcounty.com/national/2009/03/rationed-healthcare/

Mar 5, 2009 - 8:03 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: