There are books worth of stuff about how and why Britain changed after World War II. Theodore Dalrymple has written extensively about Britain's lower classes, and Dominic Sandbrook has just published Never Had It So Good about the relative decline of Britain since 1950 or so (the retreat from Suez was the beginning of the end).

I'm waiting for a book about what the huge influx of Muslim immigrants has done to the English character over the last three decades; the net result from my perspective isn't a good one.

It is not heartening that Donald Rumsfeld's worldview represents the crushing of internal dissent in order to propagate an act of international violence that exceeds even those of the "liberal" Bill Clinton. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the unstated purpose of this war brings about the theocrat Ashcroft's suspension of our civil rights. Let us never forget that the apparent demise of "anti-Americanism" as a respectable means of stifling recognition of American imperialism represents the repudiation of international law in order to bring about the end of any possibility of social justice in a reactionary state. Clearly, Bush’s argument for war can be regarded as this calamity brought to us by a horrific onslaught, known as Shock and Awe.

It appears that the unstated purpose of this war represents the crushing of internal dissent in order to propagate an oil war masquerading as an endless crusade against "terrorism." Presumably, the Pax Americana of the future belies justifications given by the world's leading apologists for the resurgence of White Supremacist ideologies. It is quite remarkable that Bush’s argument for war can be seen in the light of the apparent fabrications which lead to a McCarthyism which threatens everything we hold dear. For one thing, Americanism as an ideology provides a pretext for the predatory imperialist aims outlined by the crypto-fascist Project for a New American Century.

So far, a minority of warmongers and apologists is solid evidence of the end of any possibility of social justice in a reactionary state. It is not heartening that Bush’s argument for war brings about the result of a pre-fascist atmosphere in America. For one thing, the apparent demise of "anti-Americanism" as a respectable means of stifling recognition of American imperialism leads our attention to an oil war masquerading as an endless crusade against "terrorism." Let us never forget that the pro-Sharon neoconservative cabal is determined by capitalist interests which lead to the police state which has come to pass.

EXPLANATION FOR ABOVE:

I want to win next year!!! Yippie, me so smarty and compassionate!!!!

Is there much national pride left in Britain?

Very, very little. Flag waving is considered to be in extremely poor taste. Self loathing is all the rage.

Listen, I've been having this argument in Britain for a decade. Americans make the assumption that everyone is jingoistic at heart. Loving the country you come from is along the lines of liking your mom's cooking: why wouldn't you? It's comfortable and familiar and if there's anything to like about it, surely you're in a position to know what it is. Brits (and Europeans) think nationalism is what turned Hitler to the dark side and that any expression of national pride is at best tacky and at worst evil.

I don't believe how much of my life I've spent arguing with Britons about how great Britain is. No fooling. The default opinion is that there's no such thing as Britishness. The meaning of "British culture" is "whatever Britain happens to be like at the moment," even if that means "stuffed full of Pakistani muslims who hate everything about the West."

It's a wonderful place going to hell on the fast track. It's depressing.

I've recently done a little reading and come to believe that Suez thing was a huge moment.. the very spot when it became clear the U.S. was a superpower and Europe was forced to confront the fact they were no longer the center of gravity - a turning point when Europe elite stopped thinking of us fondly as can do, somewhat crass Yanks, to hated bogeymen destroying civilization. Interesting moment in time.

The euroweenie union is just becoming one big mess and now they want to force the same rules and regulations on us becuase they have made the mistake or implimenting the kyoto treaty why should we having anything to do with the UN anymore?

Republicans bad!

Christians bad!

Joooooooos bad!

*yawn*

Democracy = Imperialism!

Capitalism = Fascism!

Police State, Police State!

Bush = Hitler!

I'm sure omitting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was just an oversight.

come to believe that Suez thing was a huge moment

It was a huge moment when they realized without US support those endeavors were going no place anymore. Shame too, they kicked ass in Malaysia.

Thatcher is said to have had a few bad moments with Reagan over the Falklands, but eventually won him over.

To whatever monkey-turd dropped those little liberal screeches earlier in this thread: I'd be more inclined to pay attention to you if you'd post your name. Even an alias. Anonymous trolls are the ultimate in cowardly bullship. Step up or step the fuck back, you tool.

(Although I must say that if the above were meant as satire, then it was done too well: I couldn't tell.)

Dont blame me Ace, I'm English and I voted for Ann Coulter.

Suez - The French / UK mistake was not to coordinate with the US ahead of time. The US mistake was to stop them - Egypt ended up in the Soviet camp anyway, so what was really gained by the American action?

Ahem. Quoting the story you link to
"Voters mainly came from Britain and the United States."

Holdfast,

I think that's exactly right.

Churchill's assessment said, "I would never have dared, but having dared, I would never have stopped." I think the Brits and French should have slogged through without us, but I think it was stupid of Eisenhower not to back the Brits.

Brits got their payback in Vietnam.

stupid of Eisenhower not to back the Brits

agreed.

I almost miss the days when a topic like this guaranteed screechy rants from cedarford.

almost

Er, hate to interrupt your little party, but Chomsky is still the guy whose theories of linguistics must be confronted in that field.

His field is linguistics. That's why he got the award.

Having said that, my first awareness of the horrible regime of Saddam Hussein came way back in ... was it the early 80's??? IIRC, Chomsky was setting up a conference (maybe just participating in it) for pro-democracy Iraqis to have a platform in the US. The US State Dept refused the visas for people who would speak out against Saddam Hussein.

Chomsky was anti-Saddam Hussein and pro-Iraq democracy before the US said it was okay to be so.

Chomsky's assessment of the role of the media in the US was also ahead of its time. More are coming around to it recently.

Whatever you think of his politics, you might like this bit at the end of the article:

Chomsky was unimpressed with the honour, telling The Guardian newspaper that polls were something "I don't pay a lot of attention to," adding that "it was probably padded by some friends of mine."

Aahh relax, chances are that 99% of Brits have never even heard of him. I know I hadn't till I came to the US. Also, from the article "Voters mainly came from Britain and the United States."

No doubt also that the knuckle heads who read the magazine are the same types that creep the halls of left wing academia both in the US and the UK.

The other thing that impressed me about Chomsky early on was that his oppressively-footnoted books really give you the citations for the US govt documents. He relies (or used to, don't know about now) heavily on US documents to make his case.

Back in the 80s I read an offhand Chomsky piece about the reaction by the UK and others to the US placing of mines in Nicaraguan waters. I couldn't believe Chomsky's claim, but there was the footnote to back it up.

I went to the university library, govt docs section, and looked up the stuff with the help of a librarian. (pre-web, you understand) I was pretty sure he must be exaggerating, misrepresenting, etc.

He was 100% accurate.

So I started looking at his stuff more seriously. It all held up, at least what could be verified. Obviously there is Chomsky's interpretation to be contested, but the verifiable stuff held up.

When one point was fuzzy, I posted a question about it on a leftist bulletin board. (ah the old days...) a few days later I got a response from Chomsky forwarded to me, and the explanation totally held up.

Scream all you want about the guy --- and I think the stuff he's done in the last few years is sometimes WAY over the top -- but at least through the mid-90s his stuff withstood a lot of scrutiny.

IIRC, Chomsky was setting up a conference (maybe just participating in it) for pro-democracy Iraqis to have a platform in the US. The US State Dept refused the visas for people who would speak out against Saddam Hussein.

Is a reminder that we're on the side of democracy now while you and Chomsky suck fascist cock now supposed to be, like, threatening or something?

Shouldn't it embarass you?

Also, Monty, those anon screeds were surely the product of the Chomsky-bot babble generator.

Let's see: Who has made the greatest contributions to human knowledge?

Steve Hawking?
Any one of the hundreds of topflight researchers in genetics, pushing back the boundaries of human knowledge about how life works?
Shuji Nakamura?

Or some halfassed linguistics geek whose works haven't improved or advanced life one whit, but can be relied upon to spew his hatered of America on cue?

Hmmm...

Footnotes = Absolute Truth*

(* Only a dolt would believe this)

Not to disagree that Europeans are batshit crazy, but you are a bit off in your analysis based on one little detail. From the article:

"Voters mainly came from Britain and the United States."

Um. So. Yeah.

Sortelli keeps the world safe for idiocy: "Is a reminder that we're on the side of democracy now while you and Chomsky suck fascist cock now supposed to be, like, threatening or something?"

Hi Sortelli! So you're saying that Rumsfeld and the rest are serious now about exporting democracy, and that whole Bremer phase was just a little aberration, right?

I'm not threatened by democracy. I would welcome it.

The ones who feel threatened are this bunch of blogging no-nothings who imagine Chomsky as someone scary.

The scariest idea Chomsky promotes is that he thinks US citizens bear some responsibility for the US govt actions.

Do you find that terrifying?

Same shit, different topic.

STOP FEEDING THE FUCKING TROLL!!

wOOt!

Another great book on the English disillusionment in the 20th Century is Robert Graves' Goodbye to All That. Graves' bitterness and alienation -- unusual in 1929 when the book was published -- seems to have become commonplace (perhaps even pervasive) in the decades since.

The two World Wars "broke" England in ways that are not immediately obvious, but are nonetheless deep-rooted and fundamental. (Just look at how religious observation in England has declined over the years; what is the membership of the C of E these days compared to, say, 1890?)

Footnotes = Absolute Truth*
---------------------

Uh... is there anyone that dumb?

Footnotes provide a means of verifying the claims. I didn't believe them, so I checked against original sources, which were PRIMARY govt document sources. They checked out.

Clear enough?

"The scariest idea Chomsky promotes is that he thinks US citizens bear some responsibility for the US govt actions."

Bullshit. He wants you to feel guilty for actions you never did. It's called Slave Morality, and he either pushes it becuase he wants you to be a slave or he wants to be your master.

Too bad you fell for it.

Is there anyone that dumbas to think that another document is absolute truth?

Jews are evil.*

(* Protocals of the Elders of Zion, page 26)

Yay! I made a footnote! I so smarty!

The jingoist impulse in Britain are right now for the different components of the UK like England, Scotland, Wales. Plenty of flag-waving and t-shirts for that, but it's mostly a phenomenon of soccer fans for their "national" teams. I think it bugs some UK conservatives, they see it as dissembling their union.

Hey how about that Plame investigation? Sure heating up, eh? Time for a post on that, maybe?

Iraqi vote totals of 95+%?

Bush down in more polls.

LOOK, over there, a LEFTIST got an AWARD! Stone him!

I hear Bremer used a footnote to a primary source which said Rummy really favors democracy. Must be true because it is a primary source and it was footnoted. Sure the footnote was referening a cocktail napkin writen in lipstick, but still. If you disagree you must be fascist.

Commenting on a news event = stoning?

I thought stoning was what they did to gays in Islamic Republics. But Chomsky looks the other way.

Blog entry = Stoning

Bush = Hitler

SSDD

(Same shit, different day)

"He wants you to feel guilty for actions you never did."

Wow, so that's what the kids are calling DEMOCRACY and CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY now. Who knew? And I bear no responsbility for what our democratically-elected politicians do? How about that.

Reconstruction failing in Iraq, billions unaccounted for. But it's not our fault! :)

Sigh. Why bother to argue with a happy slave?

Have you studied the concept "RESPONSIBILITY" and understood it as an individual human being? Or as a herd animal?

Oh the evil world! Someone else does a bad thing and poor turbino is guilty for it! What a slave!

Tubino, is that a link to this very thread? You'll go blind...

"Oh the evil world! Someone else does a bad thing and poor turbino is guilty for it! What a slave!"

I'd say we have a greater responsibility for what our government does than the citizens of more oppressive regimes. Its part of the responsibility that comes with the freedom to pick your own government.

cream all you want about the guy --- and I think the stuff he's done in the last few years is sometimes WAY over the top -- but at least through the mid-90s his stuff withstood a lot of scrutiny.

Ummm....
Cambodia
Yeah, that held up.

Chomsky was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia.

So what is this, that time of the month for trolls?

Well linguists were up at the top of the hit list for the Khmer Rouge, right below anyone wearing glasses, so I can see why Noam (what the hell kinda name is that anyway) liked them.

Tubino is a fucking Canadian* being a know-it-all. He's not even American.

_______________
* It must be true because here is a footnote claiming it is true.

Fascinating the way Ace's posse wants to just dismiss people who aren't singing in the choir; if we post thoughtful differences of opinion, the fact that we disagree or even have a different take on the issue means that we must be moonbat trolls who should be ignored after being dismissively ridiculed.

More fun than thinking about the issue I'm sure.

If the shoe fits, Von Cretin...

Fascinating the way Ace's posse wants to just dismiss people who aren't singing in the choir

That's pretty hilarious coming from someone who sings from the Chomsky/Moore hymnbook, vonK. The modern liberal/Left axis is almost completely bereft of ideas or solutions; they are all bile and bitterness with no countervailing plan of action.

The Left is all Sarx and no Pneuma, if you will: an empty spirituality with no ethical or moral backing. A shallow intellectualism unbacked by actual thought or introspection. What little intellectual basis the Left once had -- Marxism -- has been shown to be a botch and a failure, and the Left has yet to find anything to replace it with. All that is left is a hollow anger and bitterness at a world that doesn't work as you wish it to.

Have you read the collected works of tubino, von? They aren't defensible.

He's worn out his welcome by virtue of his intellectual dishonesty. Engage him on any point and he changes the subject, and he cites sources that never mean what he says they mean.

There's nothing left to do but mock him.

Isn't it curious how quickly Tubino's collegial, condescending, lecturing tone changed after he was called on his bs.

Sure thing, Tubino, it all checked out. I'll take your word on it. I think what you meant was that his interpretation was in accord with your collectivist philosophy.

Look at VK atking up for his fellow lefty's reasoning. Come in firing and accuse others of avoiding thinking, eh? Nice try. Bring an argument or two to the dance and you might be treated as a worthy adversary. Try the I looked up the footnotes bullshit and you get what you deserve - especially with respect to a pathetic little man who has been a mouthpiece for totalitarian regimes the world over.

Monty: "they are all bile and bitterness with no countervailing plan of action...no ethical or moral backing."

Sortelli: "intellectual dishonesty."

Monty and Sortelli have just clearly and concisely defined a leftist-liberal.

Indeed, there's nothing left to do but mock them. And poke them. Mock them and poke them.

"Flag waving is considered to be in extremely poor taste. Self loathing is all the rage."

Flag waving IS in extremely poor taste. Plus, it's meaningless as an indicator of love of country. Love of country is expressed by standing up for what you see as your country's finest, highest values.

I don't understand what the connection is between finding it distasteful to wave flags and being self-loathing.

"Americans make the assumption that everyone is jingoistic at heart."

Americans do not all make that assumption. In fact, many Americans I meet who incline to your point of view think that Americans are the only ones who love their country. I conclude this because of my observation that fighting in self-defense against foreign invasion is considered a key indicator of patriotism if you are American; and a key indicator of being a terrorist if you're Iraqi (or Middle Eastern in general). Hence, I have to conclude that Americans of your ilk do not believe that love of country would impel Iraqis to the same actions in defense of their country as that love would impel Americans.

Even more interesting, though, is your unstated assumption that "jingoistic" is a word that means something positive. Americans assume everyone is jingoistic because Americans are jingoistic, and that's a good thing. The definition of "jingoistic" or "jingoism" is "extreme nationalism characterized by a belligerent foreign policy." That does sound a whole lot more descriptive of Nazi Germany's foreign policy than it does of any kind of foreign policy I would want the U.S. to be associated with.

"Loving the country you come from is along the lines of liking your mom's cooking: why wouldn't you?"

That's actually a fascinatingly revealing statement. Loving the country you come from does not mean, and in fact SHOULD not mean, loving, approving, or supporting every single one of your country's foreign and domestic policies. Also, I wonder why it is that you equate "your country" with "your government." They are not at all the same thing. If they were, that would mean that Iraqis under Saddam Hussein's regime would have had to hate their country, because the government of Iraq was the same thing as the country of Iraq.

What's revealing is your comparison to loving your mom's cooking. The implication is that loving your mom's cooking is equivalent to loving your mom. Well, that's incorrect. It isn't. I loved my mom, and she was an incredibly good cook, but I know any number of people who loved or love (if she's still living) their mom but hated her cooking. You can have functioning taste buds and still love your mom. Your mom's cooking. Your mom. Two separate and completely different things.

"Brits (and Europeans) think nationalism is what turned Hitler to the dark side and that any expression of national pride is at best tacky and at worst evil."

And there's a lot to be said for that point of view. I don't think nationalism "turned" Hitler to the dark side; but I *do* think that Hitler *appealed* to extreme nationalistic feeling (i.e., jingoism!) to get the support of the German people. Germany uber alles, remember?

And although I don't think, and I don't think most other people think, that any expression of national pride is "evil" or even "tacky," it really is pretty obvious that nationalism causes wars. It's not the only cause. It interacts with other factors. But the extreme form of love of country which leads governments to support the idea that their country is the best in the world and superior to all others and uniquely qualified to dominate over all others definitely is a huge part of the dynamic that leads to war.

"The meaning of "British culture" is "whatever Britain happens to be like at the moment," even if that means 'stuffed full of Pakistani muslims who hate everything about the West.' "

Whatever British culture is or isn't, is a separate issue from whether Pakistani muslims are human beings with as much value as white anglo-saxon Brits. You don't seem to think they are. "...stuffed full of Pakistani muslims" implies that Pakistani muslims are a highly distasteful and undesirable form of life. It's derogatory. Do you dislike, or hate, Pakistani muslims because they are Pakistani, or because they are muslim? And if you feel that "Pakistani muslims hate everything about the West," would you find it objectionable if Pakistani muslims told you that American Christians hate everything about the Arab and Muslim world and want to convert all Muslims to Christianity? Is one statement more acceptable than the other?

Warning: MoonbatLengthComment ™ alert!

Kathy wrote:
"What's revealing is your comparison to loving your mom's cooking. The implication is that loving your mom's cooking is equivalent to loving your mom. "

Are you shitting me, Kathy?
Is that a joke post, or are you serious?

If you are serious, that is worst analysis of a blog comment I have ever seen. I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect you use the word "implication" frequently in your daily battle with the rest of the world.

Kathy, all you did was make whacky assumptions in an attempt to make a pre-conceived point. If you have a point, make it. Don't come here and use your pseudo-psycho-babble to ooze your lefty pabulum.

Stick to what you know best:
ChimpyMcHitlerBurton

Flag waving IS in extremely poor taste.

Do you mean figuratively, or literally?

That does sound a whole lot more descriptive of Nazi Germany's foreign policy than it does of any kind of foreign policy I would want the U.S. to be associated with.

Nazi comparisons?

Weak.

Flag waving IS in extremely poor taste.

Kathy, is it in poorer taste than giant papier-mache puppet heads?

Is it in poor taste when the Palestinian flag is waved at a 'Queers for Palestine' rally (when the queers in Palestine are regularly executed as painfully as possible?)?

Love of country is expressed by standing up for what you see as your country's finest, highest values.

In our case, that would be the magnificent Experiment in Democracy, and its appeal to all people.

...my observation that fighting in self-defense against foreign invasion is considered a key indicator of patriotism if you are American; and a key indicator of being a terrorist if you're Iraqi (or Middle Eastern in general).

Nice that you didn't mention all the foreigners who are mounting the so-called 'insurgency' against our foreign invaders. I suppose Syrians, Iranians, and various immigrants from Africa meet your standard of being native Iraqis?

Even more interesting, though, is your unstated assumption that "jingoistic" is a word that means something positive.

No, it is just such an overused cliche that it has become a joke.

Also, I wonder why it is that you equate "your country" with "your government."

Because the US, unlike a Middle Eastern dictatorship, is a democratic republic. DUHHHH. It IS us, it belongs to us, we OWN the fucker. We may not always approve of its every move, but it is to a great measure, an extension of We the People. Unlike Iraq under Saddam, where 70 % of the People were oppressed at best, and gassed or fed into shredders at worst.

"Brits (and Europeans) think nationalism is what turned Hitler to the dark side and that any expression of national pride is at best tacky and at worst evil."
And there's a lot to be said for that point of view.

Uh, the most that can be said is that nationalism stops at your UNMOLESTED borders. If memory serves me right, these assholes are the ones that stirred up our hornets' nest.
And your view is sadly fucking simplistic. Germany was ripe for a Hitler because it was suffering so under the post WWI sanctions. We have learned much since then. Like, to befriend conquered nations and support Democratic activities there.

"The meaning of "British culture" is "whatever Britain happens to be like at the moment," even if that means 'stuffed full of Pakistani muslims who hate everything about the West.' "

That is stupefyingly idiotic. Do you really believe that? That the meaning of British Culture is to harbor those who hate them and wish their destruction? You must be an academic.
In that case, the meaning of 'Beef Stew' is the rancid remains of it after it has been left three days in a dish on the kitchen counter. I might also add, wittily, you are an IDIOT.

As far as hatred of Muslims goes, regardless of their particular ethnicity, it is WE who are the tolerant ones, and THEY who have abused that tolerance. Particularly in Europe, where tolerance is quite literally the hand that feeds them.

Blow your multi-culti bullshit out of your blowhole. This is self-defense for our culture, and it is worth saving. I would add that we have no obligation to save the cultures of others who berth in our free nations; that is their job, as long as it doesn't impact anybody else's freedoms.

That was me at 9:46

Kathy, comment dumps are off-putting. Take it one point at a time, and I'll debate you on the merits. Concision is the essence of blog commentary.

Concision is the essence of blog commentary.

Ooops.

Since we are all in a betting mood -- Who wants to bet that Kathy has a "Dissent is Patriotic" bumper sticker on her car?

Laura:

I don't think I've ever actually seen you fisk someone before. Kinda fun, even though Kathy was a pretty soft target.

Nice critical angle on that, Ace.

Since we are all in a betting mood -- Who wants to bet that Kathy has a "Dissent is Patriotic" bumper sticker on her car?

I'd be willing to bet that Kathy the Genius has a "Treason Is Patriotic" bumper sticker on her car. Doublespeak is always in style for lefties!

I've done it before Michael but this was not my best effort. Too bad, because I can see in a more passionless state how I could have done better.

Frankly, work has been a bear since the new Yellow Pages came out with our expanded ads. I'm beat. The drumbeat of commerce has expended me better than any intellectual could ever hope.

Let us wait for the rejoinder.

Do you dislike, or hate, Pakistani muslims because they are Pakistani, or because they are muslim? And if you feel that "Pakistani muslims hate everything about the West," would you find it objectionable if Pakistani muslims told you that American Christians hate everything about the Arab and Muslim world and want to convert all Muslims to Christianity?

How about this Kathy? Since you are into how I feel, however much I may or may not dislike Pakistani muslims, I will make this clear. I very much dislike you. Because, in all likelihood, you should know better. You are offering up a remarkably transparent version of the moral equivalency argument again. Pushing old ladies out of the way of an oncoming bus is just as bad as pushing them into an oncoming bus because it all amounts to pushing old ladies. Lets give this a go anyhow.

Is one statement more acceptable than the other?

Yes.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/12/11/pakistan.women/

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- 'Honor killings' have risen in Pakistan, with 461 women murdered by family members in 2002 for immoral behavior ranging from adultery, being raped or even cooking poorly, the country's main human rights body says.

Ah, yes. That fever swamp of right wing thought CNN points out that in Pakistan for a woman a culturally current punishment for being raped or cooking poorly can be death. Look at CNN's sentence again: "murdered ... for immoral behavior ... cooking poorly..." Is it sinking in? Probably not. Who's to say whether blaming the woman for the rape is any better or worse than blaming the rapist? Who am I to judge a man for killing his wife for burning the falafel. After all, I didn't taste it, and if I had I might feel differently. Right, Kathy?

How about this? US Department of Health and Human Services report on where female genital mutilation (clitorectomy) is practiced:

http://www.4woman.gov/faq/fgc.htm

That f.g.c. acronym in the URL stands for Female Genital Cutting. No Joke. Check it out for yourself, Kathy. And, yes Pakistan is on the list. But who's to say that Female Genital Cutting is any better or worse than some Western practices like Spin the Bottle?

Kathy, Kathy, dopey self loathing Westerner. If you were a Pakistani muslim woman, and I were a Pakistani muslim man, I should very much like to beat you for irritating me so -- but not so hard as to disfigure you. Because that would be my culture. And who are you to say whether that's right or wrong?

Now, now Caspera.
Belittling ACTUAL barbarians is wrong.

Let's focus on the imaginary ones.

Who wants to bet that Kathy has a "Dissent is Patriotic" bumper sticker on her car?

A car? I see her as a mass transit or alternative energy type. Like wind, maybe?

To review the bidding:

Flag waving = not all that patriotic.
Love of America/Britain = Love of Nazi Germany/Ba'athist Iraq.
Mom's cooking might suck, you insensitive right wing bastard.
Patriotism causes wars and Hitler.
Love of British culture = hatred of Pakistani muslims.
You're a racist for saying Pakistani.
Or Muslim.

That about it? I can think of better ways to kill brain cells than wading through this kind of smug, trite, turgid, morally confused multi-culti claptrap.

I'm breathing deeply of your fresh, clear air, VRWC.
Thanks.

But I bet Kathy hasn't set foot on mass transit since she got a good paying job.

Hitler was a racialist, not a nationalist. He (and more so his creepy goons like Himmler) wanted to "harvest" the "Germanisable" portions of other populations. "Germany" didn't stop at the border in his eyes.

The real nationalists ("conservative," nobility, Prussian officer class, etc.) either saw through his bullshit right away, or thought they could use him to get back into power and, oops, joke was on them!

"Deutschland Uber Alles" is

(a) still their national anthem
(b) not a desire that Germany should be superior to other nations, but that the German federal union should take precedence over one's individual state (e.g. Saxony, Bavaria, Thuringia). It goes back to the first federal unification in the 1870s, if not before.

[That's what Germans will tell you if you give them static about keeping the anthem. I'm not completely convinced]

caspera, do they eat falafel as far east as Pakistan?

mmmm ... falafel

I know where I'm gettin lunch tomorrow.

But I bet Kathy hasn't set foot on mass transit since she got a good paying job.

I doubt the job, but I do wonder how she would get all of those damned cats to the vet.

...and I will simply chime in here to note that Kathy, in true moonbat style, dumped a long comment and then got into the wind without responding to any of the points raised after she posted Volume I of "Kathy's Sociological Peregrinations".

C'mon, Kathy! We're beating up on you! We're harshing your mellow, man! We're ridiculing your thought processes and ruthlessly mocking your neo-leftist worldview! Stand up for yourself!

Bah. I'd have more respect for these fools if they'd just stand up for themselves and respond, rather than run back to Kos and complain about what a bunch of right-wing meanies we are here at the AoS HQ. Which is false anyway: here at Ace's, we love our moonbat bretheren. It's always about the love. And Val-U-Rite Vodka. And hookers. Occasionally zombies. But mainly love.

Ah, the love.

What the 'you guys are a bunch of big meanies' crowd doesn't understand is that we're mean to everyone, even one another. I mean, we should direct all new commenters to an expired flame war thread to show them - "See? This is how mean we are and we like each other. So quit yer whining."

Re-reading Kathy's post in the sober (not to say hungover) light of morning, I don't believe I have ever seen anyone so thoroughly miss the point in a rush to answer other, jucier points that are not there. Since her rant was in response to mine, I feel responsible. I'm so proud. It's as fine a specimen of moonbattery as I have ever clapped eyes upon.

And I used to hang out on the BBC Radio 4 bulletin board!

I'm not surprised that the party that wants to teach creationism as science hates intellectuals in general.

When did being smart become such a vice to you people? Is it because you elected Bush 2 and Reagan---the two laziest and dumbest presidents of the last 100 years?

Seriously---why do y'all value arrogance over intellect?

Chomsky was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia.

Nope, you're thinking of Ronald Reagan, who supported the Khmer Rouge with 1.3 billion of OUR dollars and tried to get them recognized by the UN as the legitimate gov't of Cambodia after Pol Pot was deposed.

*sniff sniff*

What's that smell?

Troll cleanup on aisle 10!

"I'm not surprised that the party that wants to teach creationism as science hates intellectuals in general."

Whoa. NEVER heard that one before, Don. You are one badass original mofo.

Kool-aid.

It fucking ROCKS.

wOOt!

Chomsky was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia

Like Walter Duranty, Chomsky is an apologist for genocide. He deliberately downplayed the Genocide in Cambodia. He may have been an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, but there is no doubt that he was a great fan of the Viet Cong. He said:

“I believe that in the United States there will be some day a social revolution that will be of great significance to us and to all of mankind, and if this hope is to be proven correct, it will be in large part because the people of Vietnam have shown us the way.” *

* from his speech originally delivered on April 13, 1970 in Hanoi while he was visiting North Vietnam with a group of anti-war activists. Broadcast by Radio Hanoi on April 14, and published in the _Asia-Pacific Daily Report_ of the U.S. government's Foreign Broadcast Information Service, April 16, 1970, pages K2-K3.

That's some convincing evidence you got there, Don.

Real professional-like site, too.

Seriously though, what Republican could hold a candle to, say, the Hildebeast when it comes to arrogance?

Slu and Zet:

Still exhibiting your fear and loathing of intelligence, I see.

Yes, Don. That's exactly what we're doing.

Either that, or we're just making fun of you because none of us takes you seriously anymore.

Pick whichever option makes you feel better.

Chomsky is a supreme capitalist, a real money maker. He will end up strung from the same rope he sold for a profit:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1019055.html

A new book reveals how the world's best-known socialist became the poster child for modern-day capitalism...

I paddled around on the Left2Right blog for a while. It started as an attempt for lefty philosophy professors to reach out and communicate with the right. To give them their due, the hosts made a genuine effort to debate honestly and keep the tone civil. They attracted some very interesting righty commentors and it was quite the experiment for a while (it trickled down to almost nothing when the academics buggered off for Summer vacation).

Anyhow, I was amazed when one of the profs stated early on that the right hated academics because we were intimidated by their credentials and brilliant intellect. Seriously. He wasn't being arrogant about it, either. He said it as though he was sure we would agree and he would try to be helpful and, like, reach down to us. It was a variation of "our campuses are stuffed with lefties because only lefties are smart enough," but it was clear he had never heard nor entertained any other possibility.

Less forgivable, he seemed to persist in that opinion even as, time and again, the bulk of his righty commenters proved far more articulate and informed than the main contributors. It's one thing to think you're so gosh-darned smart. It's another to keep believing it after you have had a smackdown of Hiroshiman proportion.

Yep, Douchebag Donny, you got me. I'm just one-a them there Jesusland types what don't much cotton to all that fancy book learnin'.

As soon as we find some intelligence to fear, Don, we'll let you know. You might want to pack a lunch, it will probably be a while.

Didn't Reagan say something like "The problem with intellectuals is not that they know so much, it's that they know so much that isn't so"?

Keep that in mind when reading posts from Tubino and Myers.

I used to think that the Leftist "presumption of idiocy" was simply a rhetorical tactic, akin to calling your little brother a retard. You don't really think he's a retard, but it's a way to put the obnoxious little shit in his place, isn't it? And a dandy way to make yourself seem like a smarty in comparison.

But over the years I think there is some substance to this flouncy bit of rhetoric. I've noticed it in academics especially: the honestly and truly think that conservatives are too dumb to understand their sophisticated political thought. If we disagree, it must mean that we simply do not understand and thus require a dumbed-down explanation to get it into our low-capacity Homo Habilis skulls. They cannot conceive that a smart and able conservative may mount an opposing viewpoint, every bit as intellectually-grounded as their own (often much more so).

The basis for this (I think) is a presumption of correctness on the part of most Leftists. They start by assuming the moral superiority of their position, and form an argument around it. When the argument is shown to be flawed or simply wrong, they retort by saying the interlocutor is simply too dim to understand their reasoning, or that the argument was simply dumbed-down for public consumption and that the real argument is much more airtight. Which in turn leads to the "fake but accurate" paradigm we see all over the place in liberal circles these days.

Re: Don Meyers

Amazing how the biggest dumbfucks are always the most arrogant, ain't it?

I call it the arrogance of ignorance. Folks like Donnie are so fuckin' stupid that they can't even see the intelligence gap that exists between them and the rest of the population. On some rudimentary level, Don senses that he is somehow different, but he lacks the cognitive functioning necessary to identify and understand the discrepency. Therefore, he simply assumes superiority. It's the easiest route for him, given his inferior intelligence, and really the only choice he has. He isn't capable of anything else.

Kinda reminds me of the baboons you see on the Jerry Springer show telling the whole world how smart they are as the viewers point and laugh.

Poor, poor Donnie. He's the only one not in on the joke.

It's like leftists have turned the academy on its head. Knowledge has become a static thing, received unexamined from a priestly class. You aren't convinced into liberalism, you are indoctrinated. There's no reasoning or deducing or argument involved. If you disagree, the reason is obvious: you have failed to memorize the lesson. Now <sigh> the priest will have to explain it to you all over again.

A couple of mirror shots:

If we disagree, it must mean that we simply do not understand and thus require a dumbed-down explanation to get it into our low-capacity Homo Habilis skulls.

Amazing how the biggest dumbfucks are always the most arrogant, ain't it?

There's no reasoning or deducing or argument involved. If you disagree, the reason is obvious: you have failed to memorize the lesson.

Uh-oh. Did von Kreedon just unleash the dreaded "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument in this forum?

I believe he did, Weasel. Either that, or it's that old semiotics trick that liberals just love to use: "Look! I can re-contextualize what they just said to make it seem like they some something completely different! Isn't that clever of me?"

like they some something

should be

like they said something

I ain't smart like vonK, but I knows an error when I sees one, by gum!

Shouldn't shoot mirrors. That's seven years bad luck.

"If we disagree, it must mean that we simply do not understand and thus require a dumbed-down explanation..."

Shhh. This is working for us.
After every midterm election, when they lose more and more seats, they say they lost because they 'failed to get their message across."

Let us leave them with that impression.

Dear Democrats, you failed because you just didn't quite reach everybody in the right place with your Message, which when understood and internalized, is clearly the Truth.

You should probably broadcast it louder and clearer, from ev'ry rooftop and mountainside. I'm sure that the more people hear it, the more people will understand it and know you better.

All my Love,

lauraw.

C'mon, Kathy! We're beating up on you! We're harshing your mellow, man! We're ridiculing your thought processes and ruthlessly mocking your neo-leftist worldview! Stand up for yourself!

I just now got back here to see all these responses to my comment.

I actually don't feel beaten up on. Really. I expected a lot of personal insults, speculations on my job and whether I had one, my car or lack thereof, my commuting habits, and so forth. I also expected the "It's outrageous to say anything negative about us because they are worse than we are" argument, and the "moral equivalency" argument. That last one is shorthand for "We are inherently better than they are because we are Americans and Brits. By definition Americans and Brits are superior, noble people, so even if it looks like we're acting the same way they are, if WE do it, it's not wrong. By definition." And I fully expected that argument. It's reflexive.

I do want to follow up on this comment by "caspera":

Since you are into how I feel, however much I may or may not dislike Pakistani muslims, I will make this clear. I very much dislike you. Because, in all likelihood, you should know better. You are offering up a remarkably transparent version of the moral equivalency argument again. Pushing old ladies out of the way of an oncoming bus is just as bad as pushing them into an oncoming bus because it all amounts to pushing old ladies. Lets give this a go anyhow.

Okay, so I take this to mean you are defending the comment about how depressing it is that Britain is "stuffed full of Pakistani muslims who hate the West" by making some connection between Pakistani muslims in Britain and pushing old ladies into the path of an uncoming bus. Are you saying then that all, or most, Pakistani muslims have pushed old ladies in front of buses, or would like to do so? If that is what you are saying, what is your evidence for this?

It doesn't bother me that you dislike me, although I don't understand why you have such a strong personal reaction to a total stranger. I don't dislike you at all. Your way of viewing the world scares me, but I don't dislike you.

That last one is shorthand for "We are inherently better than they are because we are Americans and Brits.

Sure. I mean, it couldn't be that British and American cultures are better for a reason. That's just crazy talk.

I take this to mean you are defending the comment about how depressing it is that Britain is "stuffed full of Pakistani muslims who hate the West" by making some connection between Pakistani muslims in Britain and pushing old ladies into the path of an uncoming bus.

You couldn't possibly have that much trouble with reading comprehension. Nice troll.

I don't understand why you have such a strong personal reaction to a total stranger.

So you're OK when white supremacists start posting their fith on your site? Some of us are less accepting than others when it comes to stupidity, evil and destructive BS in general. But I'm sure you wouldn't want to judge us for that.

Response to VRWC Agent:

VRWC: American and British culture is better for a reason.

Me: What's the reason?

VRWC: You couldn't possibly have that much trouble with reading comprehension.

Me: Apparently I do. If you answer the question (about the connection between pushing old ladies in front of buses and Pakistani muslims) then I can respond.

VRWC: (In response to my comment about disliking a stranger):

So you're OK when white supremacists start posting their fith on your site? Some of us are less accepting than others when it comes to stupidity, evil and destructive BS in general. But I'm sure you wouldn't want to judge us for that.

I'm not a white supremacist, nor did I (or do I) post stupid, evil, and destructive BS. I would not use such words to describe what you posted, either, because I think it's kind of counterproductive to civil discussion (not to mention learning from each other) to tell another person they are stupid, evil, and destructive.

As far as judging you, as a person, I don't. I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. It would be crazy and wrong for me to judge your worth or value as a person. I *have* formed judgments about your opinions, of course. I don't think you can be human and not do that. But I would not sit here and tell you that your beliefs are stupid, evil, and destructive, because how is talking to you that way going to accomplish anything? I'd rather debate you on the substance of your points than sit here and tell you that your opinions are stupid, evil, and destructive.

So I'll give it a good go and if I see that you guys don't want to do that (debate substantively), then I'll stop, and leave you alone.

lurking in dead threads, Knemon rants again:

" That last one is shorthand for "We are inherently better than they are because we are Americans and Brits. By definition Americans and Brits are superior, noble people, so even if it looks like we're acting the same way they are, if WE do it, it's not wrong. By definition." "

For me it's shorthand for: We are better than they are because when it looks like we're acting the same way they are, it makes more than half of us outright sick to their stomachs, and drives those who can't admit it bothers them into increasingly nervous defensive joking.

AND because our system itself attempts, however fitfully, to correct itself. Unlike lots of other frequent visitors to this site, I'm very glad the Senate stepped up on this issue. Wish something like it had happened a while ago.

I'll grant that we've moved 1 or 2, or 10, degrees on the spectrum closer to Badness by prosecuting this war in this manner. But the spectrum is long, and yes, I don't have a problem with saying that the "insurgency" is a looooong ways further down that spectrum than us.

I won't grant that this makes us in a substantive way "like them" (Ba'athist Iraq and Syria, the Taliban, North Korea, Sudan).

A very apropros Orwell quote (slightly paraphrased cuz I can't be bothered to look it up)

"In the final analysis, our only claim to righteousness in this war is that, if we win, we shall tell lies lies about it than would our enemy."

Not NO lies. Less lies.

*

I almost agree with Christopher Hitchens: the Abu Ghraib sadists should have been shot, for PR and to make an example. Higher-ups should at least be disgraced, and probably do time. I'm unsatisfied with the administration's reponse to/explanations of these troubling revelations.

Okay, that's the part where I sound like Andrew Sullivan. Here's the switch-up:

These concerns of mine do not exhaust the list of things we have to consider. It's possible to support the war, to see withdrawal as a non-option and the cause of Iraq crucial, while deploring some of the tactics used.

It's even more possible to look at those across the aisle, who say they just want to drive the neocon Rethuglikkkans from the temple and Clean Up Washington and Bring America Home and Let America Be America Again (oh, and give us all Free Health Care) ...

... and still, no matter how troubled one was by FRONTLINE this week, be glad that the devil we know won last fall's election.

*

Yes, I see that you have a nuanced position, that you're not a simple, old-school moral equivalencist (which is indeed not really a word).

Do you see that we aren't necessarily simple, kick-their-ass-take-their-gas know-nothings?

Hee hee. I'll be surprised if Kathy or anyone else even gets the cut of your jib, Knemon. Not to say that I think you're wrong, just to say I really doubt it will be understood.

Follow the link to Kathy's site and you can see what you're up against. I'd say the prospect for any sort of cogent discussion is mighty slim.

What's the reason?

I'm sure there's plenty of room for debating what the key elements are. Personally, I'd go with respect for property rights and our high regard for individual worth and dignity. The fruits of our cultural advantages are easier to spot.

If you answer the question (about the connection between pushing old ladies in front of buses and Pakistani muslims) then I can respond.

The answer is that he did not say what you said. There is no connection made between Pakistanis and pushing ladies in front of busses. It is lazy to ask for other people to do your reading for you.

I'm not a white supremacist

Miss the point much?

nor did I (or do I) post stupid, evil, and destructive BS.

You are entitled to your opinion.

It would be crazy and wrong for me to judge your worth or value as a person.

Irrelevant. You said you were mystified about how someone could have strong personal reactions to stranger. For the sake of clear illustration, I offered white supremacist postings. I think most reasonable people would have strong personal reactions to that sort of thing. If you can comprehend that dynamic, then you should also be able to grasp that the rest is a matter of degree. Apparently I was not blatant enough.

I'd rather debate you on the substance of your points

Uhh, you realize that you were already flattened on the merits days ago, right?

I'm sure there's plenty of room for debating what the key elements are. Personally, I'd go with respect for property rights and our high regard for individual worth and dignity. The fruits of our cultural advantages are easier to spot.

Respect for PROPERTY RIGHTS is "proof" of Western superiority? Picture me falling on the floor laughing!

Re "our high regard for individual worth and dignity": I assume you mean "our high regard for individual worth and dignity if the individuals are Americans, and preferably white, middle-class to wealthy, heterosexual Americans." Because otherwise I'd have to ask you where the high regard for individual worth and dignity was for the poor and black citizens of New Orleans, or where it is for poor people in general in this country, or where it is for gay and lesbians who cannot marry or (without great difficulty) adopt children and who (if Kansas had had its way) would go to jail for 17 years for exactly the same act that would send a heterosexual American to jail for 15 months. And I'd certainly have to ask you where the folks at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Force Base hid the respect for individual worth and dignity. Oh, wait, one more thing. Where's the respect for individual worth and dignity among the readers of this blog? (Or at least those who post comments.)

The answer is that he did not say what you said. There is no connection made between Pakistanis and pushing ladies in front of busses. It is lazy to ask for other people to do your reading for you.

Oh, but he did. And since you don't like laziness, I'll let you go back and see for yourself.

You said you were mystified about how someone could have strong personal reactions to stranger. For the sake of clear illustration, I offered white supremacist postings. I think most reasonable people would have strong personal reactions to that sort of thing. If you can comprehend that dynamic, then you should also be able to grasp that the rest is a matter of degree.

Well, yeah, I definitely think there is a degree or two of difference between disagreeing on whether love of country, nationalism, and patriotism all have the same meaning, and being a white supremacist. I also think there's a degree or two of difference between saying that England is stuffed full of Pakistani muslims who hate the west and are destroying British culture; and attempting to march through a black neighborhood with signs glorifying Nazi ideology. The first is insulting and degrading to the individual worth and dignity of Pakistanis and muslims. The second is directly and physically threatening a group of people with a genocidal philosophy.

And the degree of difference matters.

If someone posted that comment about Pakistani muslims on my blog, I would respond exactly as I did here (which is to say, I would argue with the substance of what they said, and not call them names).

If you truly believe that differences of opinion on the definition, meaning, and importance of patriotism, nationalism, loving your mom, and racially degrading statements are as heinous as advocating the extermination of an entire people, then we're even farther apart ideologically than I thought.

That said, if you truly believe that it's "stupid, evil, and destructive" to dislike flag-waving, to dispute the idea that one culture is superior to another, and to say that extreme nationalism is a leading cause of war, then of course you must say so. It's not healthy to keep such feelings bottled up.

Uhh, you realize that you were already flattened on the merits days ago, right?

No, I must have missed that part. I was too busy marveling at the "stupid, evil, and destructive" analysis, and wondering how you all could be so sure I have a "Dissent is Patriotic" sticker on my car, or that actually I don't use a car at all, or that I don't work, or that I work but not full-time. My mind was so full of trying to make sense of all that that when you "flattened me on the merits days ago" it passed me right by. :)

I'd say the prospect for any sort of cogent discussion is mighty slim.

Now this conclusion, posted by geoff, is one with which I can agree without reservation.

Kathy, how we can take anyone seriously that can understand humor. Are you that obstinate that you see everything that is written on a righty blog as serious?

Nobody here hates or dislikes you. We play with lefties like you for amusement. We don't care one way or another what you type on your keyboard. We don't care what bumper sticker you have on your car. All we care about is that you provide us with the fodder we need to pass some time while at work or while watching the game.

"Your way of viewing the world scares me, but I don't dislike you."

Kathy, above is a half-thruth and a fine example of why the left is not respected.
First of all, you do dislike us. In fact, you hate us with a sick passion. And, secondly, the fact you are scared by our "world view" should alarm even a amateur psychologist such as yourself. Everyone knows that fear breeds resentment and hate. And hate leads to violence and war.
Like the hate the Germans had for the Jews.

See that, Kath? I can make you out to be a nazi, too.

Now, try to make yourself useful and give us your review of "Goodnight and Goodluck." We KNOW you saw it.

Damnit! That's supposed to read: ...anyone who CAN'T understand humor.

Oh, well...

Respect for PROPERTY RIGHTS is "proof" of Western superiority? Picture me falling on the floor laughing!

Nice "debate" on the merits. But you were asking for sources, not proofs. Try to keep up with yourself.

I'd have to ask you where the high regard for individual worth and dignity was for the poor and black citizens of New Orleans or where it is for poor people in general in this country, or where it is for gay and lesbians who cannot marry

Re: New Orleans. The high regard was everywhere around me as people donated lavishly, left businesses and jobs to assist people and opened their homes to strangers.

Re: the poor. I can't even pretend to know what you are talking about. I strongly suspect that you don't either.

Re: Gay marriage. It's true that people can't marry their own sex. They also can't marry their lawnmowers or parents. Somehow, I think western civilization will endure the gobsmacking vileness of it all. So, how is that gay marriage proposition working in the Muslim world?

Putting aside your poor choice of examples, your more general point seems to be that all imperfect things must be equally imperfect. As with your other points, this does not really merit rebuttal. Just state it candidly and the proposition becomes self-discrediting.

I'd certainly have to ask you where the folks at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Force Base hid the respect for individual worth and dignity.

Are you OK with beheadings, torture (the real kind, not the harsh-language-only kind), beatings and jailings for religious nonconformity, and so forth as long as these things are OK within the practicing cultures? How are you with cannibalism? Burning widows alive? Vaginal mutilations? The death penalty for rape victims?

The issue is not whether our culture, or any other, perfectly embodies your personal view of appropriate niceness to others. You are being shallow and missing the point again.

Oh, but he did. And since you don't like laziness, I'll let you go back and see for yourself.

I don't have to. He was talking about YOU, Kathy, and your lack of discernment when he made the point about pushing old ladies.

I definitely think there is a degree or two of difference between disagreeing on whether love of country, nationalism, and patriotism all have the same meaning, and being a white supremacist.

That's comforting to know.

If someone posted that comment about Pakistani muslims on my blog, I would respond exactly as I did here

The difference is that when you wrote it here, somebody actually read it.

if you truly believe that it's "stupid, evil, and destructive" to dislike flag-waving, to dispute the idea that one culture is superior to another, and to say that extreme nationalism is a leading cause of war, then of course you must say so.

Must? I choose to, mostly because I'm killing time.

On moral and cultural equivalence: Anything that impairs the ability to tell good from bad, or good guys from bad guys, works to the benefit of evil - a fairly destructive force. So far, one only has to state your principles clearly for their silliness to be apparent. So, "stupid, evil, and destructive" looks like a pretty good fit.

My mind was so full of trying to make sense of all that that when you "flattened me on the merits days ago" it passed me right by.

I didn't really bother because I don't think anyone here was in danger of buying what you were selling and I strongly doubt that you can be taught to straighten out your muddled thinking. Sumarizing your points was enough for me; they are self-discrediting. Lauraw cut you off at the knees at 9:46 on 10/18. Others have taken the time since.

You don't have to recognize that you've been refuted to be refuted in fact.

"Hee hee. I'll be surprised if Kathy or anyone else even gets the cut of your jib, Knemon. Not to say that I think you're wrong, just to say I really doubt it will be understood."

Yeah. So it goes.

A father of a friend of mine actually went to a GOP rally in Florida with a "BUSH: THE DEVIL WE KNOW" sign.

They let him in but kept an eye on him. He meant it, though - and in the end, it's funny cuz it's true.

"Respect for PROPERTY RIGHTS is "proof" of Western superiority? Picture me falling on the floor laughing!"

And yes, it is one bit of proof.

We surely don't always live up to it (Kelo), but freedom from arbitrary seizure of property is an individualistic concept which first shows up in archaic Greece. It's part of a cluster of factors without which we surely wouldn't be communicating in this medium. Or in possession of most of our teeth.

I'm not a Milton Friedman type, who would insist that property rights are the fundamental bedrock of all other rights ... but I like the concept, and think it's a neat aspect of Western civilization.

When you're done laughing, you might want to explain why you think it's so risible.

Love of country is expressed by standing up for what you see as your country's finest, highest values.>

This is Kathy's first statement, and already she's in trouble. Her definition of love of country is really love of herself and her personal favorites among the country's values. This is like saying: "I love these things about you" rather than "I love you."

And yes, it is one bit of proof.

I would think the proof would be in the fruits, some of which you allude to. She just asked for reasons British and American cultures were superior to some others.

Good point, geoff.

Does anybody else find it strange that a person can claim to see a country's "finest, highest values" but cannot accept that a country or culture that fosters those values would be superior to one that does not?

Cognative dissonance is an embarrassing master.

Kathy's second point is worse than her first:

Hence, I have to conclude that Americans of your ilk do not believe that love of country would impel Iraqis to the same actions in defense of their country as that love would impel Americans.

As more sophisticated analysts have shown, there are many facets to the insurgency. Some fight for Al Qaeda's vision of a restored caliphate, some fight to regain the power they lost when Saddam was toppled, and some fight because they can't stand the presence of foreign troops in a Muslim country. This latter group would be the only that could possibly qualify as "patriotic."

I think a minimum standard for patriotism is that you shouldn't wantonly slaughter civilian members of your populace. Not a very demanding criterion, I know, but the "insurgents" have failed to meet it. If you can identify a set of Iraqis who are fighting against the occupation and who only strike US military targets, then I'd be willing to call them "patriots." Stupid, misguided patriots (since they're simply prolonging the occupation), but patriots nonetheless.

Kathy's second point is worse than her first

Can't we just say that each of her points are equally bad, each in its own special way?

Honestly, you guys are so judgmental!

Does anybody else find it strange that a person can claim to see a country's "finest, highest values" but cannot accept that a country or culture that fosters those values would be superior to one that does not?

Yup. There's a logical connection there that shouldn't be hard to follow.

We play with lefties like you for amusement. We don't care one way or another what you type on your keyboard. We don't care what bumper sticker you have on your car. All we care about is that you provide us with the fodder we need to pass some time while at work or while watching the game.

Yes, I know that, silly. Do you think this is the first time I've talked to a right-winger? And the most amazing part to me is that you don't even realize you're dissing yourself by admitting that.

Are you that obstinate that you see everything that is written on a righty blog as serious?

Not at all. I understand what you're saying perfectly well. You were not serious about anything you said, and nobody else was, either. In other words, you make it up as you go along, and if you get caught, you backtrack.

First of all, you do dislike us. In fact, you hate us with a sick passion.

LOL, no I *don't*! If anything, I *like* you. You amuse me. Why would I keep posting responses here if I didn't find this entertaining? Everything is cops and robbers with you guys, isn't it? Everyone is either good or bad. It's either black or it's white. If we don't agree, we hate each other. Good grief.

See that, Kath? I can make you out to be a nazi, too.

And besides, I cannot dislike or hate anyone who leaves the final "y" off my name. Unless that was a typo, lol. I prefer to think it was deliberate.

It's true that people can't marry their own sex. They also can't marry their lawnmowers or parents. Somehow, I think western civilization will endure the gobsmacking vileness of it all. So, how is that gay marriage proposition working in the Muslim world?

Were you trying to demonstrate that you DO value every individual's inherent worth and dignity by comparing human beings to lawnmowers? If so, you failed. And we were not discussing whether Western civilization would survive the "gobsmacking vileness of it all." We were discussing your claim that Western culture respects the inherent worth and dignity of every individual human.

And re the Muslim world: Are you saying then that, with regard to gay marriage we are just as backward as the Muslim world?

Are you OK with beheadings, torture (the real kind, not the harsh-language-only kind), beatings and jailings for religious nonconformity, and so forth as long as these things are OK within the practicing cultures? How are you with cannibalism? Burning widows alive? Vaginal mutilations? The death penalty for rape victims?

I'm not okay with beheadings. That does not mean I'm okay with sodomizing a teenage boy with a stick, or a bottle. (That happened at Abu Ghraib.)

I'm not okay with torture either; and it wasn't "harsh words" that killed a 22-year-old Afghani taxi driver and farmer named Dilawar who had the extremely bad luck to drive his taxi onto Bagram Air Force Base. It wasn't "harsh words" that left a 3-year-old girl fatherless and her mother a widow.

How are you with cannibalism? Burning widows alive? Vaginal mutilations? The death penalty for rape victims?

War is a form of cannibalism. I don't see much moral difference between blowing a human body to pieces for vultures to eat and eating a human directly. And when you add to that the vast scale of human destruction that war creates, the comparison is even more apt. War extravagantly, lavishly, wastes human life and throws it away like it has no more value than the tiniest ant on the face of the earth. If that's not human beings eating each other in a literal sense, it certainly is just as bad.

Re burning widows alive, vaginal mutilation, and the death penalty for rape victims, what's your real point here? That as long as we don't commit certain specific atrocities, it's okay to commit others? Or are you trying to say that as long as we are not as evil as whatever other culture you're thinking of, we are okay? We don't have to live up to our own objective standards of moral behavior; we only have to be "not as bad as our enemies are"? That's an appallingly low standard.

And btw, I oppose the death penalty for anyone. There are many countries, in the West, that consider themselves morally superior to us because they have abolished the death penalty. Are they right?

He was talking about YOU, Kathy, and your lack of discernment when he made the point about pushing old ladies.

All I know is that I still have not gotten an answer to my question. I doubt I will, because no one here is going to admit, straight out, that they think Britain is going down the drain because the country is stuffed full of Pakistani muslims who hate the West and degrade British culture. That would sound racist.

On moral and cultural equivalence: Anything that impairs the ability to tell good from bad, or good guys from bad guys, works to the benefit of evil - a fairly destructive force.

Hey, I can tell good from bad. Good is respecting the legal rights of every individual. Bad is sending unmarked planes to kidnap people in foreign countries and flying them for interrogation and detainment to countries where the government boils people alive. The good guys are the guys who respect the legal rights of every individual. The bad guys are the guys who send the unmarked planes to kidnap people and send them to countries that torture even worse than we do.

In other words, the "war on terror" as the Bush admin has conducted it has impaired OUR ability to tell right from wrong. I think that once you divide the world into good guys and bad guys, and you assign yourself to the first category, then you've locked yourself into a position where by definition nothing you do is wrong. We are becoming more and more like "them" every day. We are doing things and justifying behavior and actions that would have been considered unthinkable for Americans to do just a few years ago.

I hold my country, and myself as a citizen of my country, to a standard that is determined by AMERICAN values, not by TERRORISTS' values. Torture is WRONG. Arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention without charges, trial, or access to attorneys is WRONG. It's un-American. It doesn't matter that worse things happen in other countries. They should not happen here. And the real evil of moral equivalence is in saying that there should not BE moral equivalence or that there isn't moral equivalence. There is, and there should be. If Americans hang prisoners from the ceiling for weeks and beat them to death, that is the moral equivalent of an American being tortured to death by our "enemies."

You don't have to recognize that you've been refuted to be refuted in fact.

I agree.

I'm not a Milton Friedman type, who would insist that property rights are the fundamental bedrock of all other rights ... but I like the concept, and think it's a neat aspect of Western civilization.

When you're done laughing, you might want to explain why you think it's so risible.

I don't, actually, especially now that you actually explain what you mean in some thoughtful detail. But I also don't think the concept of property rights makes our society "superior" to societies that do not have our conception of property rights. There are societies in which communal values are prized more highly than individual property rights -- and there may be reasons why a communal philosophy works better for some societies than for others.

This is Kathy's first statement, and already she's in trouble. Her definition of love of country is really love of herself and her personal favorites among the country's values. This is like saying: "I love these things about you" rather than "I love you."

Yes, but my "personal favorites" are freedom to think, speak, assemble, dissent, observe my religious tradition or not observe any religious tradition, be secure and safe in my home from the government breaking down my door without probable cause and a search warrant, read and buy books and magazines without the government spying on my reading habits, and so on in that vein. Aren't those all Americans' personal favorites, not just mine?

Does anybody else find it strange that a person can claim to see a country's "finest, highest values" but cannot accept that a country or culture that fosters those values would be superior to one that does not?

I don't know why you would find that strange, unless you assume that there can be only one set of "finest, highest values" for all countries on earth.

Also, there is the little problem that we do not always live up to our highest, finest values -- and in fact, we are moving quite rapidly *away* from what have always been our highest, finest values. So to the extent that I dissent from my government's policies and actions, it's because I hold them to the standard of my country's highest, finest values, and find them (the policies and actions) lacking in that regard.

I would rather spend my time and energy working to get my country to live up to its own highest, finest values than to consider another country inferior to mine and use that as an excuse to justify my country's failure to live up to its own standards.

I think a minimum standard for patriotism is that you shouldn't wantonly slaughter civilian members of your populace

I agree, but what often happens when one country invades another, and then occupies the invaded country, is that those members of the civilian populace who are viewed as cooperating with the foreign occupiers are themselves considered unpatriotic traitors. The root cause of civilians being killed by their own people goes back to the initial invasion.

There are examples in our own history of Americans who considered themselves patriots killing civilians in their own populace. The two that come to mind are the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Obviously, the Civil War by definition was Americans killing Americans; but even in the Revolutionary War, those colonists who supported the British considered the rebels to be unpatriotic, and the rebels considered the British sympathizers to be unpatriotic.

If you can identify a set of Iraqis who are fighting against the occupation and who only strike US military targets, then I'd be willing to call them "patriots." Stupid, misguided patriots (since they're simply prolonging the occupation), but patriots nonetheless.

I suppose roadside bombs that blow up U.S. convoys would fit the bill. Aside from that, the insurgents' attacks on civilians are obviously part of a strategy to attack the occupation by attacking those who are seen as supporting the occupation. It's horrifying and repulsive and totally abhorrent -- and also completely predictable given the asymmetric nature of the conflict. What are the insurgents going to do, conduct airstrikes on the Green Zone? The U.S. invaded a country vastly less powerful militarily than we are. In fact, the U.S. invaded a country completely unable to defend itself from a military like ours on anything like the same terms. So they're fighting the way insurgents fight when they're faced with a much more powerful enemy.

THE END. Sorry for the length, but there were a lot of responses to respond to.

Are you saying then that, with regard to gay marriage we are just as backward as the Muslim world?

Isn't that a little judgmental? Who is to say that you aren't the backward one? Denying people the right to marry their parents, eating missionaries, using power tools on people who might not be loyal enough .. I mean, once the judgments start, where do they end?

I'm not okay with beheadings.

Way to take a controversial stand! I admire your courage.

War is a form of cannibalism.

Exactly! Except for the whole eating human flesh part. Other than that, they are identical. In fact, considering that you decry war as wasteful, cannibalism is probably superior, right? At least the meat didn't rot.

So, to recap: Cannibalism, bad. Waging war against Nazis, worse (on account of the meat spoiling).

We don't have to live up to our own objective standards of moral behavior; we only have to be "not as bad as our enemies are"? That's an appallingly low standard.

A standard that means life and death to some people, even if you would rather ignore it. If you had to be perfect before you could do good, no good would ever be done.

are you trying to say that as long as we are not as evil as whatever other culture you're thinking of, we are okay?

Are you saying other cultures are evil, Kathy?

And no, I don't say we are okay as long as we are bettter than the second best. I just believe that we are better than the second best.

There are many countries, in the West, that consider themselves morally superior to us because they have abolished the death penalty. Are they right?

Probably not.

He was talking about YOU, Kathy, and your lack of discernment when he made the point about pushing old ladies.

All I know is that I still have not gotten an answer to my question.

I answered the question you kept asking even though the answer was in black and white under your nose. Lazy, lazy, lazy. It speaks to habits of mind.

they think Britain is going down the drain because the country is stuffed full of Pakistani muslims who hate the West and degrade British culture. That would sound racist.

Would you feel better of Pakistanis were lilly white? I don't think that racial adjustment would change the analysis.

I can tell good from bad.

You have not demonstrated it. Silliness like this - The good guys are the guys who respect the legal rights of every individual. The bad guys are the guys who send the unmarked planes to kidnap people and send them to countries that torture even worse than we do exposes a terrible shallowness. I'm sure torturing bad guys is a part of that other culture. Who are you to make such Anglo/Americancentric judgments when we are being multicultural about respecting different moral codes as applied to our enemies? And what makes you think their legal rights are in any way violated? What are their rights, or yours for that matter, in those countries?

Are some cultures better than others yet?

We are doing things and justifying behavior and actions that would have been considered unthinkable for Americans to do just a few years ago.

You obviously have no clue about how we faught the Nazis.

Torture is WRONG.

Fine, although your idea of torture and mine are probabaly much different. There is the matter of lesser evils, though. Unemployed "future teachers" of small children (please, God, not mine) may have the luxury of ignoring it, but there is a real calculus of harm being played out every day. If you could have prevented 9/11 by humiliating a detainee or pretending to smear blood on someone, would those 3,000 lives be worth it?

I'd do it in a second and preening posers be damned.

the real evil of moral equivalence is in saying that there should not BE moral equivalence

Paging Dr. Orwell.

Does anybody else find it strange that a person can claim to see a country's "finest, highest values" but cannot accept that a country or culture that fosters those values would be superior to one that does not?

I don't know why you would find that strange, unless you assume that there can be only one set of "finest, highest values" for all countries on earth.

So cannibalism is OK as long as long locals like it?

Also, there is the little problem that we do not always live up to our highest, finest values

That isn't a problem. It's the definition of an animating ideal. An ideal you can reach consistently and easily isn't worth much attention. "Don't sexually molest your children" isn't much of an ideal. The negative is and should be a crime. Even if you find a culture that thinks otherwise.

This really isn't about cultures or countries so much as one person's strange need for moral preening. Try to live with the fact that you are not admired for that.

Finally, the money quote:

In the Revolutionary War, those colonists who supported the British considered the rebels to be unpatriotic, and the rebels considered the British sympathizers to be unpatriotic.

Both were right. They just had different countries they were patriotic about. You seem incapable of accepting that others don't have to love and revere your country for you to love and revere it. Since you have already shown an unhealthy self-absorption, I'll put it in more digestible terms: is it defensible for your husband/life partner/lawnmower to love you even if other people do not feel the same?

Yes? That's how patriots feel about their countries. And, just as applies to someone who loves a person I don't, I have far more respect for a patriot of another country than I have for someone who is incapable of loving any country in particular.

Sorry for the length, but there were a lot of responses to respond to.

Don't feel obliged to respond to all of them in one post. You are tedious enough when you are responding to one person at a time.

Denying people the right to marry their parents, eating missionaries, using power tools on people who might not be loyal enough .. I mean, once the judgments start, where do they end?

The point is not whether we should make judgments about moral issues. The point is that when we make judgments about our own morality, those judgments should be based on how well they match up with what we consider our own high standards. We should not be judging how moral, or how good, we are as a society based on the standards of another society, ESPECIALLY if by our own admission those other society's standards are abysmally low. Maybe "we're better than cannibals" is good enough as a moral position for you, but it isn't for me.

You seem to be implying that giving gays and lesbians the same right to marry that straight people have is equivalent to giving people the right to marry their lawnmowers or their parents. Aside from the fact that the comparison to lawnmowers is just infantile, I disagree. (That should come as a big surprise.) There is no logical connection between allowing two unrelated consenting adults to marry regardless of their respective genders, and allowing parents and children to marry.

By the same token, if I say that 12-year-olds should not be allowed to marry, even with parental consent, that does not imply that no one should be allowed to marry. If I say that a 22-year-old man should not be allowed to marry a 14-year-old girl whom he started raping when she was 12 -- and, indeed, that he should be charged with rape (either forcible or statutory) and thrown into prison if convicted -- that does not imply that no man can marry a much younger woman; or, for that matter, that a woman can't marry a much younger man.

Conclusion: If I say that two unrelated consenting adults who are both male or who are both female should be allowed to marry, that does not imply that a man or woman should be allowed to marry a lawnmower, or that a man or woman should be allowed to marry their parents.

Here's yet another way of thinking about this: If we say that it's okay for 40-year-old Demi Moore to marry 25-year-old Ashton Kutcher, where will it stop? Will we have to allow a 25-year-old man to marry a 10-year-old next?

There simply is no logical connection.

Except for the whole eating human flesh part. Other than that, they are identical. In fact, considering that you decry war as wasteful, cannibalism is probably superior, right? At least the meat didn't rot.

I don't see any meaningful difference between eating human flesh and bombing villages filled with women and children, no. Both are acts of evil that in some very rare instances can be justified. (There have been historical cases of people resorting to cannibalism in situations where they were starving and trapped somehow -- like shipwrecks.) But even in those rare instances when killing women and children or eating human flesh can be justified, it simply makes the act defensible on a very pragmatic level; it doesn't make it ethically or morally right.

I don't think that a parent crawling on hands and knees hunting for the body parts of a child blown apart by a bomb would be a less horrifying sight than finding the remains of a child eaten by cannibals.

If you had to be perfect before you could do good, no good would ever be done.

That, I agree with, completely. The tricky part is deciding what constitutes "doing good." You think that invading and occupying Iraq did good. I think invading and occupying Iraq did not do any good at all, and arguably made things much worse. It's the cost/benefit thing. I think the cost of invading and occupying Iraq far outweighs any benefit.

Silliness like this - The good guys are the guys who respect the legal rights of every individual. The bad guys are the guys who send the unmarked planes to kidnap people and send them to countries that torture even worse than we do exposes a terrible shallowness. I'm sure torturing bad guys is a part of that other culture.

Obviously it is. That's why those unmarked CIA planes are taking people to those other cultures. So they can be tortured without the U.S. being implicated.

I disagree with you that objecting to that is "shallow."

And what makes you think their legal rights are in any way violated? What are their rights, or yours for that matter, in those countries?

That's the point. In the countries the Bush admin takes those detainees to, they have no legal rights. They are the countries you consider the U.S. morally superior to, remember? You want to have it both ways. You want to feel that the U.S. is superior to certain other countries; and you also want to justify sending detainees to those countries so they can have done to them the very things that you say make those countries evil.

If you could have prevented 9/11 by humiliating a detainee or pretending to smear blood on someone, would those 3,000 lives be worth it?

The question is a red herring. Because none of the humiliation or outright torture (which you don't mention) the Bush admin has sanctioned against detainees has reduced terrorism or prevented a single act of terrorism from occurring. No useful information is gained through torture. And 9/11 could not have been prevented through such actions. It MIGHT have been prevented if the Bush admin had taken its own intelligence more seriously.

And btw, I'm not unemployed, and I will be teaching English to either middle school or high school students.

is it defensible for your husband/life partner/lawnmower to love you even if other people do not feel the same?

Of course it is; and it's also defensible to love your country even if you feel that at a particular time in its history, the government of your country is betraying pretty much all of the ideals and values that make your country so wonderful.

But I will continue to love my country, because loving my country has nothing to do with loving Bush or the war in Iraq.

And since dissent is the highest form of patriotism, according to the men who founded the U.S., I am definitely a patriot.

And now I have to go to that job I don't have.

We should not be judging how moral, or how good, we are as a society based on the standards of another society

Agreed. Where we seem to differ is on what standards apply to other societies.

Maybe "we're better than cannibals" is good enough as a moral position for you, but it isn't for me.

I think it's a wonderfully defensible observation. You disagree?

There is no logical connection between allowing two unrelated consenting adults to marry regardless of their respective genders, and allowing parents and children to marry.

Why sould they have to be unrelated? Why should they have to be consenting? Why stop at 2 people? There have been societies could care less about any of these things. The point is that if you want to radically redefine a cornerstone societal institution by force of law, you have no principled argument for limiting the redefinition to the cause du jour. If love and sexual fulfillment are to be the only applicable standards, plenty of other arrangements qualify. This topic was recently thrashed on the Excitable Andy thread with much better opposition.

I don't see any meaningful difference between eating human flesh and bombing villages filled with women and children, no.

Then we are done with that comparison and your position can stand or fall on its own. As for bombings, you may want to reread the earlier bit about pushing old ladies. You are doing it again.

That's why those unmarked CIA planes are taking people to those other cultures. So they can be tortured without the U.S. being implicated.

And by what standards are you judging those other cultures? Hmmmm?

In the countries the Bush admin takes those detainees to, they have no legal rights.

Exactly. So your observation that, Good is respecting the legal rights of every individual. Bad is sending unmarked planes to kidnap people in foreign countries and flying them for interrogation and detainment to countries where the government boils people alive turns out to be poorly conceived. Those countries doing the boiling are apparently respecting legal rights quite scrupulously. Would they be better than those that legally rejected such abuse but, hypothetically, violated that law on rare occasion?

none of the humiliation or outright torture (which you don't mention) the Bush admin has sanctioned against detainees has reduced terrorism or prevented a single act of terrorism from occurring. No useful information is gained through torture.

First, you have no way of knoowing your first claim. Second, your repeated assumption that the administration has sanctioned actual torture requires a redefinition of at least one of those words. And the last bit is simply false.

9/11 could not have been prevented through such actions.

You are wrong, but that doesn't really matter. It is in the nature of a hypothetical that you do some pretending. Stop ducking.

I'm not unemployed, and I will be teaching English to either middle school or high school students.

Ignoring your obvious tense problem, who cares?

I will continue to love my country

As someone else has already pointed out, your description of "love of country" is closer to a love of self. When you love somebody, you tell and show that person your love. Even if you think that person is flawed. As applied to country, this is what flag waving is about. Applying your version, which only has you "standing up" for what you like best about the object of your "love," to a personal relationship sounds more like self-obsessed nagging than actual love. Sounds about right for country, too.

dissent is the highest form of patriotism

I see. Then nagging is the highest form of love. And people who oppose and protest everything about a country must love it much more than those who oppose fewer things or who actually who support her. More Orwellian BS. And once again it seems to be rooted in your lack of discernment.

Conclusion: If I say that two unrelated consenting adults who are both male or who are both female should be allowed to marry, that does not imply that a man or woman should be allowed to marry a lawnmower, or that a man or woman should be allowed to marry their parents.

Leaving out the inanimate object (lawnmower,) why can't a child (let's say an adult child, for the sake of argument) marry a parent? What's wrong with it?

What two consenting adults want to do is none of our business, right? We can't dictate who can love whom, can we?

And since dissent is the highest form of patriotism, according to the men who founded the U.S., I am definitely a patriot.

Bullshit. Our founders said nothing of the sort. I know that quote is attributed to Thomas Jefferson by moonbats, but there is nothing of the sort in any of his writings. Bumper stickers are not good historical sources.

The highest form of patriotism is the willingness to lay down your life to give others the right to dissent. VRWC Agent is dead on with his comparison of dissent and nagging.

Leaving out the inanimate object (lawnmower,)

Machinist.

>Maybe "we're better than cannibals" is good enough as a moral position for you, but it isn't for me.

I think it's a wonderfully defensible observation. You disagree?

If we measure morality on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the very lowest level imaginable, and 10 being the highest, being better than a cannibal would put you at number 2. If you want to use a different scale, say from -1,000 to +1,000, with -1,000 being the very lowest level of morality imaginable, then being better than a cannibal would put you at -999.

Again, maybe that's the highest level of morality your country needs to be at. I disagree.

Why sould they have to be unrelated? Why should they have to be consenting? Why stop at 2 people? There have been societies could care less about any of these things. ... If love and sexual fulfillment are to be the only applicable standards, plenty of other arrangements qualify.

Fine by me. If you're so terrified that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will lead to lawnmowers wanting to marry their owners, then let's open marriage to any 2 or more people or inanimate objects who want to marry, and see how many lawnmower-person marriages result. Are you opposed to civil unions for gays and lesbians? Those exist in several states now, and there have been no requests by lawnmower owners to marry their lawnmowers. There haven't even been any attempts by children to marry their parents.

There were anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S. in many states for almost 100 years. In fact, it was legal for states to forbid men and women who were not both white or both black to marry until a Supreme Court ruling overturned anti-miscegenation laws in 1967. Opponents of allowing black people and white people to marry said it was evil and unnatural, and used the Bible as "proof."

After it became legal nationwide for men and women from different races to marry, that legal change did not lead to the legalization of polygamy, or parents being allowed to marry their children, or lawnmowers being allowed to marry their owners.

That's why those unmarked CIA planes are taking people to those other cultures. So they can be tortured without the U.S. being implicated.

And by what standards are you judging those other cultures? Hmmmm?

"Judging those other cultures" is irrelevant. That countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and Uzbekistan torture people is common knowledge. It's more than common knowledge; it's a fact. Torture is evil, immoral, and ineffective as well, and I make that judgment based on my country's values (as set forth in its founding documents, its legal system, and both the domestic and international legal agreements to which it is a party). I also make that judgment based on my own personal values: fortunately, I live in a country where my personal values and my country's values are the same (even though specific administrations in my country's government may not share those values).

Those countries doing the boiling are apparently respecting legal rights quite scrupulously. Would they be better than those that legally rejected such abuse but, hypothetically, violated that law on rare occasion?

There ARE no countries where torture is legal. Torture is always an extralegal activity. In some countries, however -- ours being one of them -- there is a strong legal infrastructure that individuals can turn to for redress of the grievous wrong of having been tortured. That's why the police officers who tortured Abner Louima were convicted in a legal trial and sentenced to prison. (Or two of them were, I think.) In Egypt or Syria, that would not happen. Torture victims would not be able to get that kind of justice, even though torture, on an official level, is just as illegal there as it is here.

Also, here, there is a strong moral presumption within society (or there used to be) that torture is wrong. Cases like Abner Louima's shock the consciences of most Americans. That is less likely to be the case in many other countries.

I'm not sure this addresses your comment, since to be truthful I didn't really understand what point you were trying to make. The bottom line is, throwing people in boiling water is wrong, whether the laws forbid it or not, whether there are legal rights on paper or not.

none of the humiliation or outright torture (which you don't mention) the Bush admin has sanctioned against detainees has reduced terrorism or prevented a single act of terrorism from occurring. No useful information is gained through torture.

First, you have no way of knoowing your first claim. Second, your repeated assumption that the administration has sanctioned actual torture requires a redefinition of at least one of those words. And the last bit is simply false.

To your "First," given the horrible p.r. Bush has gotten for sanctioning torture, if that policy had resulted in a specific terrorist plot being prevented, the White House would have shouted it from the rooftops. Absent solid proof from my government that torture of detainees in U.S.-run prisons and interrogation centers has garnered information that specifically prevented an identifiable terrorist plot, I have every right and reason to assume that it hasn't.

To your "Second," "actual torture" means things like "waterboarding" (and I am going to assume you know what that is), sodomizing prisoners, attaching devices to their genitals that deliver electric shocks, hanging them from the ceiling for days or weeks, savage beatings to the point of heart failure or unconsciousness or death, severe sleep deprivation, being subjected to extremes of heat and cold in rapid succession, and often after being stripped naked and soaked with cold water, having water forcibly poured down your throat so that you choke uncontrollably. .... etc.

All of those things and much more have been done to detainees in U.S.-run detention/interrogation centers.

As to your "The last bit is simply false," if you are referring to my statement that no useful information is gained through torture, that statement is true. Torture never results in useful information, if you define "useful" as "reliable," "accurate," or "true." Common sense alone would tell you that, as one former intelligence officer said in a Washington Post article, "if you take a Bunsen burner to a guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything." But if common sense doesn't work for you, the informed, professional assessments of people like this officer and like every expert on torture in the world will tell you that anything you are told by someone while being tortured is tainted, and completely unreliable.

I'm not unemployed, and I will be teaching English to either middle school or high school students.

Ignoring your obvious tense problem, who cares?

There is no tense problem in what I wrote. I am not unemployed. And I will be teaching English to middle or high school students. I know you're smart enough to figure it out.

And who cares indeed, but it was you who used the phrase "unemployed future English teacher" so I decided to correct you.

When you love somebody, you tell and show that person your love. Even if you think that person is flawed. As applied to country, this is what flag waving is about.

That's bull. If you want to wave a flag to show you love your country, go ahead. I have nothing against it, if that's what you want to do. It just isn't my style, and I take exception to people who tell me if I don't have an American flag above my door, or a flag sticker on my car, I don't love my country. That's bullshit.

I have other ways of loving my country, one of which is supporting the rights, freedoms, and obligations written down in the Constitution and other essential legal documents. One of those obligations, by the way, is the obligation to speak up when you see your country (i.e., government) doing something that is wrong, and out of keeping with what my country stands for. I might also add that when I support or oppose certain policies, I do so not just because they may be moral or immoral in and of themselves, but also because they are either harmful or helpful to my country's national interests. Just about everything that George W. Bush has done since 9/11 -- the Patriot Act, the decision to ignore the geneva conventions, the preemptive, aggressive, unjustified invasion of Iraq as examples -- has seriously harmed this country's security and national interests. Perhaps irreparably. The Iraq war has made the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorism than it was before. I'll say that as many times as I have to. If you believe it's patriotic to support the war, then go ahead and support it. I happen to believe patriotism lies in opposing the war, both in Iraq and at home (the war on civil liberties), and that's what I intend to keep on doing.

dissent is the highest form of patriotism

I see. Then nagging is the highest form of love.

Tell it to Thomas Jefferson. I didn't say "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." I only quoted it.

And people who oppose and protest everything about a country must love it much more than those who oppose fewer things or who actually who support her. More Orwellian BS. And once again it seems to be rooted in your lack of discernment.

I don't oppose and protest everything about my country. There are endless things about this country that are wonderful, that absolutely rock. Most of them, though, are probably things that would horrify you. For example, gay pride marches across the country. The fact that in this country, gay men and women can do that. The fact that my teenage daughter attends a fully integrated high school in a town where blacks and whites, gays and lesbian, rich and not-so-rich CHOOSE to live in that town precisely because it is so diverse. And for another example, neighborhoods like the one I live in, where on one short block I can walk my dog and see Italian families, Indian women in saris carrying small children, other women in Muslim dress walking with their children, middle-aged black women and black teenagers, Hispanic people, and on and on. That is America, or at least one aspect of America, and I'm thrilled to live in a country like that.

To Sue,

If the highest form of patriotism is the willingness to lay down your life so others can dissent, then you should be celebrating dissent as the fruit of what you think war is all about.

But you don't. And that's how I know that soldiers who die in war, although they may believe they are doing what is right for their country, are NOT in truth fighting for the right of others to dissent.

On the other hand, there are those who really HAVE laid down their lives for the right of others to dissent -- or to have freedom. The Freedom Riders, black and white, in the South in the 1960s come to mind. Those patriots risked and often gave their lives, AND dissented at the same time, because the ability and right and obligation to dissent, and freedom, are one and the same.

As for the quote "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism," I found it on a page of Thomas Jefferson quotes, but looking into it a little further, it seems that you are correct on this point. It does seem to be a misattribution. According to a page at About.com, which I trust, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" was first said by the historian Howard Zinn, not Jefferson. The url is http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/146858.htm.

So mea culpa on that. But not on the sentiment itself. Dissent IS the highest form of patriotism, even if it was first said two years ago, and not 200.

Again, maybe that's the highest level of morality your country needs to be at. I disagree.

This should, of course, be: "Again, maybe that's the highest level of morality YOU THINK your country needs to be at. I disagree."

"I think invading and occupying Iraq did not do any good at all, and arguably made things much worse"

No good at all? Really? None. Nada. Zilch.

Okay.

Why, then, do the majority of Iraqis disagree with you?

"There are endless things about this country that are wonderful, that absolutely rock. Most of them, though, are probably things that would horrify you. "

No, I like them too. The melting pot, or the tossed salad, or whatever you want to call it, is one of the great things about America.

But there are others.

If the highest form of patriotism is the willingness to lay down your life so others can dissent, then you should be celebrating dissent as the fruit of what you think war is all about.

War is not all about celebrating dissent. Dissent is merely one of our many, many rights. Like many other rights, it can be (and has been) abused.

War protects our rights against interference from any foreign nation or organization.

The highest form of patriotism is being able to say something like this and actually mean it:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

But you don't. And that's how I know that soldiers who die in war, although they may believe they are doing what is right for their country, are NOT in truth fighting for the right of others to dissent.

Really? How is it that you are able to dissent right now?

How is it that the Iraqis are now able to dissent and protest their government? They weren't able to do that before the U.S. assisted them in overthrowing Saddam.

If we ever should lie down and prostrate ourselves before the Islamic fascists (as France may do within a decade) do you believe you would be able to dissent then?

After it became legal nationwide for men and women from different races to marry, that legal change did not lead to the legalization of polygamy, or parents being allowed to marry their children, or lawnmowers being allowed to marry their owners.

That's because the basic formula for marriage, and the underlying foundation of the family, didn't change: one man and one woman monogamously united. Only the skin color changed.

Homosexuality is not the same as skin color. Homosexuality is manifested in a behavior, not in an immutable, observable body trait.

But let's now return to my previous question, which you never answered.

Why can't an adult child marry a parent? What's wrong with it?

That fits all of the criteria that you say should allow homosexual marriage. Two people in love with each other, both of them consenting adults. What's wrong with it?

Why do you draw an arbitrary line at the two people being related to each other?

Why, then, do the majority of Iraqis disagree with you?

About which? Saddam being gone, or about life being better in Iraq now, or about the American invasion being a godsent liberation?

The only one of those three that's true is the first, and even that is rapidly becoming debatable. Even many Iraqis who loathed Saddam (and most did, obviously) are starting to say he was preferable to the U.S. occupation, because at least Saddam was Iraqi.

Americans who support the invasion of Iraq think that because Iraqis hated Saddam and were glad to see him gone, that meant they supported the Americans and were happy to be invaded and occupied. They weren't. They hated Saddam and they also hate Americans being in Iraq.

Iraqis are a proud people and a patriotic people. They love their country. And they do not appreciate being invaded and occupied by a foreign power. They resent Americans at best and detest them at worst for acting like they own Iraq, for telling Iraqis what they can and cannot do, where they can and cannot go, and for killing hundreds of thousands of them. Many if not most Iraqis at this point blame the U.S. for the insurgency. To Iraqis, Americans are Cossacks. They break into Iraqis' homes, search everything, pull out drawers, throw their possessions all over the place, terrify them by coming in bristling with weapons, pointing their guns at them, screaming at them not to move, sometimes seriously injuring or even killing them.

Have you read Colby Buzzell's book, "My War"? He served in Iraq and was present at house searches. In one description of a house search, he writes about how one of the women in the house could not stop screaming (not screaming words; screaming in terror). That's liberation? Would YOU like to be treated that way?

Dissent is merely one of our many, many rights. Like many other rights, it can be (and has been) abused.

Yes, and one example of that would be the twins who sing about white supremacy at concerts stuffed full of white nationalists. But they still have the right, and should.

Another example would be Fred Phelps, that asshole evil monster who demonstrated with his brainwashed Nazi minyons at Matthew Shepard's funeral, parading around with signs calling Matthew Shepard a "fag" whom "God hated" and who was "burning in hell." In front of Matthew's parents. At his funeral. After he was savagely beaten, pistol whipped, tied to a fence and left to freeze to death in the middle of a Wyoming winter.

But you know what? Even though Fred Phelps abuses the concept of being human, much less the concept of dissent, he still has the right to dissent, and he should.

War protects our rights against interference from any foreign nation or organization.

How did Iraq interfere with our rights?

There's been a lot of tossing around here of George Orwell's name, so here's mine: Your statement is positively Orwellian. It's the country of Iraq that has had its rights interfered with by a foreign nation -- ours.

And who protects our rights from interference by our own nation? By our government?

Answer: WE DO.

The highest form of patriotism is being able to say something like this [the presidential oath of office] and actually mean it:

Yes, and I wish the current occupant of the Oval Office actually meant those words. Or, maybe more to the point, I wish the current occupant of the Oval Office actually took those words seriously and actually did act to defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. But then, he's one of those domestic enemies of the Constitution. He's done nothing but spit on it, figuratively speaking, since before he took office.

After it became legal nationwide for men and women from different races to marry, that legal change did not lead to the legalization of polygamy, or parents being allowed to marry their children, or lawnmowers being allowed to marry their owners.

That's because the basic formula for marriage, and the underlying foundation of the family, didn't change: one man and one woman monogamously united. Only the skin color changed.

Easy to say now, when interracial marriage is widely accepted. For much of the past century and the one before that, the basic formula for marriage was one man and one woman who had the same skin color. And interracial relationships, much less marriage, were considered an outrage against God and decent society. People were KILLED for having interracial relationships.

Maybe in another 100 years, someone will say that the basic formula for marriage didn't change when gays and lesbians gained the right to marry. The formula always two adult, consenting individuals who loved each other. Only the monopoly on one sexual orientation changed.

Homosexuality is not the same as skin color. Homosexuality is manifested in a behavior, not in an immutable, observable body trait.

Certainly homosexuality is not the same as skin color. One is an observable, directly inheritable physical trait. The other is an orientation, not outwardly or physically observable in the absence of outward behavior. But homosexuality itself is NOT just behavior. Homosexuality is not defined by behavior. If you are homosexual, you are homosexual regardless of whether you ever have sex with another of the same gender. If you are homosexual, you are homosexual even if you have sex with the opposite gender, and even if you MARRY the opposite gender. If same-sex marriage were legal, I could marry another woman, but that would not make me homosexual. I would still be heterosexual. It's what I *am,* not who I'm married to or having sex with.

Why can't an adult child marry a parent? What's wrong with it?

Love between a parent and child is not usually romantic, and there are possible problems with birth defects if two such closely related people have children, but having said that, if it's that important to you to have me agree that parents and children have a right to marry if gays and lesbians have a right to marry, then fine. Gays and lesbians have been falling in love and forming relationships not sanctioned by society for as long as human history has existed. It's a recognizable demographic in any society, although often not openly acknowledged. I don't think the same can be said of parents and children. I'm not aware of there having been a certain percentage of parents and children in every society since the beginning of history who have fallen in love and formed romantic relationships. But I could be wrong. If this is a demographic that I simply have not been aware of, then certainly parents and their adult children should be allowed to marry.

The formula always two adult, consenting individuals who loved each other.

The formula always WAS two adult, etc.

Dammit.

, being better than a cannibal would put you at number 2.

Indisputably better than a rating of 1 and by no means a ceiling. So the remaining issues are: (1) by whose standards did we make that determination and (2) would the same approach apply if we were comparing ourselves (or Britian or Sri Lanka or whatever) to Pakistan?

Typically, you were so lost in the need to claim some nonexistent moral superiority in the rest of your bleat that you had completely lost the point.

let's open marriage to any 2 or more people or inanimate objects who want to marry, and see how many lawnmower-person marriages result

Your concession is noted. You have no principled argument against any of these things.

Are you opposed to civil unions for gays and lesbians?

Yes. Civil unions and same sex marriage have been introduced elsewhere. I have not seen evidence that the institution of marriage has been strengthened or that the breakdown of the family unit was slowed by it. To the contrary, they seem to be disintigrating quite nicely.

Can you love a country that does not reengineer the very definition of its basic societal unit to suit your whims?

it was legal for states to forbid men and women who were not both white or both black to marry until a Supreme Court ruling overturned anti-miscegenation laws in 1967.

And you are aware that the states had been repealing those laws aggressively before SCOTUS stepped in, right? The Supremes just rushed to the front of the parade and acted like they were leading it.

So is this why you don't love your country?

"Judging those other cultures" is irrelevant.

Actually, it's the central point under discussion. Try to keep up.

Torture is evil, immoral, and ineffective

Agreed on the first two, although there is still the hypothetical about lesser evils that you have been running from. You are flatly wrong about the last.

Torture is always an extralegal activity.

Not if a country's laws do not prohibit it. Can you point to the relevant law of the claimed country to which we allegedly sent people to be tortured?

I'm not sure this addresses your comment, since to be truthful I didn't really understand what point you were trying to make.

It didn't and I'm not surprised.

throwing people in boiling water is wrong, whether the laws forbid it or not, whether there are legal rights on paper or not.

And if you are judging societies by that standard, you would have to agree with me that your previous statement, Good is respecting the legal rights of every individual is misconceived for failing to account for the differences different countries have where legal rights are concerned. (You remember this point of disagreement, don't you?)

given the horrible p.r. Bush has gotten for sanctioning torture

Again, you cannot say Bush has "sanctioned" "torture" without dramatically redefining at least one of those words.

if that policy had resulted in a specific terrorist plot being prevented, the White House would have shouted it from the rooftops

Only if it had, in fact, (a) sanctioned torture and (b) decided that it was somehow wise to air the methods and fruits of our intelligence gathering. In other words, you're babbling.

As we advise our own soldiers, torture works and if it is employed on you the odds are extremely high that you will break. Period. We eschew it on other grounds.

And not all abuse is torture, Kathy. Torture is the infliction of severe pain as a means of punishment or coercion.

Your subsequent litany ranges from head games to abuse to actual torture, at least if it's done right. I know of nothing even arguably on the torture end of the spectrum that Bush has sanctioned. And neither do you. Even if he had secretly done this, however, it doesn't really contribute to the point of the discussion. (You remember the point, don't you? Look above if you have trouble.)

All of those things and much more have been done to detainees in U.S.-run detention/interrogation centers.

So let's bring this back to something at least circling the point. Your apparent Gitmo objections being arrant nonsense, let's just take the abuses of Abu Ghraib that were clearly over the line. Where did the outrage originate? With us. It wasn't until after these things had already been dutifully reported and investigated as a criminal matter, all by Americans, that anybody else even knew about it. And we went on to prosecute and punish the guilty. Does that kind of morally driven corrective happen among our enemies? Of course not. They behead and torture innocents just for perceived propaganda points.

Is one side better than the other?

the informed, professional assessments of people like this officer and like every expert on torture in the world will tell you that anything you are told by someone while being tortured is tainted, and completely unreliable.

To the contrary, people have been spilling accurate, useful and reliable information under torture for many centuries. And our own servicemen are warned that it will work no differently for them. Someone skilled in the practice is inlikely to simply start applying the hot irons; there is a lot of head gaming to torture as well. We just choose to work the head game aspects to the exclusion of actual torture. But the object of these interrogations, regardless of the methods, is to break the person you are interrogating. Not just to make him say something. Once he's broken, how he got there isn't all that important to what he gives up.

Our objection to torture is moral, not utilitarian.

If you want to wave a flag to show you love your country, go ahead. I have nothing against it

Actually, you find it "extremely poor taste" and "meaningless as an indicator of love of country." Try to keep your story straight.

I take exception to people who tell me if I don't have an American flag above my door, or a flag sticker on my car, I don't love my country.

Did anybody here say anything about that? Personally, think you don't love your country for other reasons, most notably your narcissistic version of what you believe "love of country" means. (And you are aware that flag waving doesn't require a literal flag, right? Just like "wrapping yourself in the flag," something that more closely applies to a "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" nag?)

Tell it to Thomas Jefferson. I didn't say "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." I only quoted it.

Actually, he didn't so neither did you. The quote is from historian Howard Zinn in an interview with TomPaine.com to justify his opposition to the War on Terror. And the same logic would apply regardless of who said it. Your thinking is no better than your appeal to authority.

I'll say it again: If dissent is the highest for of patriotism then nagging hsi the highest form of love. Your kind of love we can do without.

I don't oppose and protest everything about my country.

Irrelevant, although it is significant that you keep missing points with these "all about me" moments. Reread what I wrote.

How about Ben Franklin: "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."

(stuff about white supremacists and Fred Phelps dissenting)

So according to your definition of patriotism, white supremacists and Fred Phelps are the highest patriots because they dissent.

How did Iraq interfere with our rights?

Short version: By continuing to be a terrorist threat after the September 11 attacks.

Longer version: Link.

There's been a lot of tossing around here of George Orwell's name, so here's mine: Your statement is positively Orwellian. It's the country of Iraq that has had its rights interfered with by a foreign nation -- ours.

No, Orwell understood that megalomaniacal dictators should be crushed, preferably before they can crush others. You don't understand this because of the socialist, postmodern pablum you've been fed.

Like a criminal, Iraq gave up its right to be left alone when it invaded an ally of ours. Hussein refused to honor the terms of Iraq's surrender. The U.N. refused to enforce its own rules. We did the enforcing because we had a vested interest in doing so - to insure that Hussein could not provide any WMD he may have had to terrorists who could strike us again.

And who protects our rights from interference by our own nation? By our government?

Answer: WE DO.

By having little temper tantr... oh, I'm sorry, I mean, "speaking truth to power?" Not likely.

Dissent is marvelous if it can be translated into votes. Votes are only effective when the leaders heed them. Otherwise, there is only one other type of instrument that can protect rights when the ballot box is taken away. Here's a hint on what that instrument is.

[the presidential oath of office]

Wrong. You're not too bright; I'm glad my children will probably graduate by the time you're teaching.

That was the Marine Corps enlisted man's oath, by the way.

I'm not aware of there having been a certain percentage of parents and children in every society since the beginning of history who have fallen in love and formed romantic relationships. But I could be wrong. If this is a demographic that I simply have not been aware of, then certainly parents and their adult children should be allowed to marry.

See how easy your morality can be shifted? A while ago, you seem to have qualms about legalizing incest, now you don't.

The slippery slope is real, especially when you have no solid base for your morals to rest upon.

And once again, you've shown that you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer. If you had a real education, instead of a Gramscian indoctrination, you could list at least one glaring example of government sanctioned institutional incestual marriage in antiquity.

Thanks for playing.

I typed a long response to the latest comments, and it failed to post because it had a forbidden word in it, which I used in response to Sue's use of the same word. Obviously I can't type the word, because if I do this comment will be rejected again, but apparently you CAN publish a post with that word in it if it's from a right-winger, lol.

In any case, I am not going to retype the entire comment. I'll just redo the last part, where I told Sue she's not too bright for taking my comment about the parent-child marriage demographic seriously. I was being totally sarcastic there, and I can't believe she took that comment literally.

Basically, I thought her earnest question about why I didn't think [insert forbidden word here] is a good idea was so moronic it didn't deserve to be answered seriously. There is no analogy between same-sex marriage between consenting unrelated adults and marriage between parents and children. If you have to ask why same-sex marriage is fine, while being in two close relationships with the same person that compete with each other in the kind of emotional connection they call for, like parent and child/married couple, is not fine, then you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I'll have to let it go at that. This thread will soon scroll off the page anyway, and everything from now on is repetition.

but apparently you CAN publish a post with that word in it if it's from a right-winger, lol.

Yes, Kathy, we use a Java applet that can sense your political leanings based on data collected from your typing habits and brain waves that your monitor has been secretly designed to detect.

That's why your friends wear tin foil hats, doncha know.

Wow, just read some of Kathy's responses on the patriotism of the insurgents. Complete claptrap. Her argument: they are forced to kill those they feel are sympathizers, since they are unjustly occupied. The fact that they kill pretty much anybody, randomly, without regard for women and children, without regard for combat status, without regard for their actual political sentiments, seems to have completely escaped her.

you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Which should make it all the easir to present something sharper. Just use small words. You don't want it to go over our heads.