This reminds me of how during the Cold War, the Leftist platform against the U.S. was that we supported dictatorships. Of course, they were right, we did. Latin American dictatorships were our proxies against Soviet encroachment.

Today, Leftists apparently no longer have those qualms about dictatorships (beyond lip service that is), and in fact seem satisfied to let the U.S. cede Iraq to fascism. What's changed?

The Cold War changed. But the Left was never really against "dictatorships", not then, and not now. What they were against was CAPITALIST dictatorships. Or more precisely capitalist hegemony. And by extension the U.S.

The oppressed little indians they cried for in Central America were just the foil for their Leftist anti-Americanism. Today, little brown Arabs are also a foil, but in reverse. America should NOT try to "impose" democracy on the little brown Arabs. Imposing democracy is now evidence of U.S. imperialism, they now sing.

But don't be fooled by their "compassion". It's fake, cover for their anti-Americanism.

It's why during the 90s they were against the Iraq sanctions (because of the dying children). But after the successful invasion 6 months ago, they quickly changed their tune and supported continue sanctions (so as not to reward U.S. agression).

For ten whole years they used "Iraqi children" as foil for their anti-Americanism. But six months ago, after the successful invasion, they were exposed as the false humanists they really are.

David: The oppressed little indians they cried for in Central America were just the foil for their Leftist anti-Americanism.

No, David.

Former dictator Efrain Rios Montt lost the election in Guatemala two days ago. He now faces genocide charges. I'm still not even sure he won't use the military to void the election. I am paying quite a bit of attention to this because I am leaving for Guatemala at the end of next week.

I understand that the reason the US supported him was to prevent the country from going Communist, not because he was really our pal. Nevertheless, Rios Montt is guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing of Maya Indians, and I hope the bastard rots in a dungeon. There is no excuse for what he did. Hitler was anti-Communist, too. That earns no point from me whatsoever by itself. It is not enough to be anti-Communist. It also matters what kind of anti-Communist you are.

No one pretends to care about genocide. Some leftists are rather inconsistent about this, but so are a lot of right-wingers.

Michael,

It's not my intention to defend U.S. Cold War policies, and certainly not Latin american dictatorships. I know about Rios Montt, and yes, he has a bad record.

My point rather is that the Left only cried about Rios Montt, and others, because they were capitalist dictators, rather that stalinist ones. And Rios Montt is a double whammy for the Left because besides being a capitalist, he claimed to be an evangelical christian.

You say Leftists are sometimes "inconsistent" about this. I say they are quite consistent. For instance, I've never heard a Leftist criticize Castro, even when he was locking up political dissidents a few months back.

David,

If you are referring here to the hard radical left, fine. But I can assure you that, although I'm really mostly a centrist these days, when I was more of a left-winger I was no Castro apologist, nor did I despise Rios Montt because he approved of a market economy.

"I'm really mostly a centrist these days..."

I've noticed that. Would you consider running for President in 2008? Please? I don't care under which party affiliation...

The hard, radical left -- what I like to think of as the Corrosive Left these days -- has morphed into a millenial cult. Predicting the end of the world, revising that timetable when the world indifferently strides past the deadline, attacking apostates, elevating its prophets (Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Tariq Ali) and heroes (Castro, "Iraqi resistance"), fighting its symbolic battles (Seattle, Genoa, Cancun), searching for omens and maintaining its core of pure delusion in the face of obdurate empirical reality.

Why even respond to people like TBogg? There are orthodox Liberals like Atrios, Matt Yglesias, and lots of others who, even though I disagree with them, offer substantive arguments and ideas, rather than the petty, ad hominem drivel you see on his blog. He brings absolutely nothing to the table.

So let me get this straight. NPR interviews five women, and somehow their opinion becomes NPR's opinion. Larf!

"He thinks if someone isn't 100 percent left-wing today then they have never been liberal. Like Stalin airbrushing Trotsky out of history,"

Leftist ideologies like Marxism, Communism, Egalitarianism cannot truly exist in a society where people can go do their own thing and believe in whatever they want. Individual freedom drives the market, and free markets are the direct opposite of collectivism. Individuality, therefore undermines the collectivism of the left. The Thought Police is an inevitable result of the leftist collectivist mentality.

Sean bleats, "Say it with me folks: "Democracy is the very best form of government, "".

Is this axiom, religion chant, or what?

I have never experienced a democracy. I live in a republic. When I grew up, Mom and Dad were in charge. At school, I voted with the majority for more milk and cookie times, but the principal and teachers didn't listen. At work, I often join the watercooler caucus and decide which managers are the suckiest, and then I watch them get promoted. I vote with the majority that the speed limit on I-5 should be 85, but the bastards at the Highway Patrol listen to a different controlling authority. I vote for president and the winner of the popular vote doesn't win.

I have never experienced a democracy. Have you?

http://og-man.net/mogmogb/mogmsgs/10534.html

anne.elk: our hopelessly imperfect republican institutions are the only obstacles to tyranny, populism and instability, usual results of unchecked popular sovereignty.

No. Please, Anne. Not the "democracy means absolute, direct democracy and therefore the U.S. is thankfully not a democracy" meme. Anything but that. Equivocation as a torture device.

Val, I agree with you 100%. I actually also agree with Sean about the importance of human rights.

Jim, I am not sure what you mean about equivocation. Can you expand your thought? My point was that Sean's post is very imprecise, very vague, suffers many logical fallacies, and then resorts to deus ex machina.

I have never seen a proof that democracy is best. I have never seen a proof that our form of democracy is of necessity the best form. Similarly I have never seen a proof that a free market economy is best, nor that our particular form of free market economy is the best.

I do see lots of people that make these claims with no evidence, and never an understanding that there are reasonable variations of democracies, or free markets. Unless these are axioms, these are not statements that make for a logical argument.

It may be the case that for some time a democracy is not what is best either for the Iraqi population, nor for the US. I can imagine an Iraqi majority infringing on the Kurds, or on Christians. I can imagine an Iraqi majority being anti-US and anti-Israel. In fact, Noah Feldman predicts this and suggests conditions under which we may even wish to support this.

I would like to see a democratic form of institution arise in Iraq sooner rather than later. The question is what's the path, and what's the timeline.

How about tomorrow Jim? Are you really saying we should hold elections tomorrow? If not, why not? And when? And under what conditions? Gosh Jim, you're beginning to sound like a despot.

There is definitely something strange going on in the political discourse in the US recently, but I think Michael's diagnosis doesn't begin to do justice to it.

Andrew Hagen writes a scathing criticism of "paleoliberals".

TBogg writes a scathing reply.

That's just an argument, that isn't suppression of dissent! But for some reason, Michael considers TBogg to be engaging in "purging of dissidents"? Huh?

The Cold War changed. But the Left was never really against "dictatorships", not then, and not now. What they were against was CAPITALIST dictatorships. Or more precisely capitalist hegemony. And by extension the U.S....But don't be fooled by their "compassion". It's fake, cover for their anti-Americanism.

We have people (David here, for example) who are actually accusing people of being anti-American and disloyal for having dissenting views.

anne.elk

I especially love the idea that until the majority of minors in a classroom can express their will to have more milk and cookies, then we can never know true Democracy. That is so brilliant.

From that it follows, as day follows night, that advocates of Democracy are bleating fools chanting empty slogans.

You can't make this stuff up.

We have people (David here, for example) who are actually accusing people of being anti-American and disloyal for having dissenting views.

Yes, because we are are onto you now.

When you want the economy to fail and peoples lives to fall apart, just so you can beat Bush in the next election, I call that anti-American.

When you get a secret thrill to see U.S. casualties in Iraq , and when you secretly long to see our mission in Iraq fail, so that it may confirm your anti-Bush religion, I call that anti-American. I don't apologize for it. In fact I shout it from the mountaintops.

Does that shoe fit you? If it does, then you have a beef with me. If it doesn't, then you don't.

And please spare us the familiar line about "suppression of dissent". Nothing could be further from the truth, and you can't show me one instance of that being true. Nowhere else in the world are fifth colunmists given more leeway than in this country.

Anne: I have never seen a proof that democracy is best.

Do you need a holiday in North Korea?

Daryl: for some reason, Michael considers TBogg to be engaging in "purging of dissidents"? Huh?

Maybe you should read the posts I link to a little more carefully. Andrew says he is a liberal. T-bogg does what he can to "out" him as a right-winger and purge him from the left.

Maybe you should also read the comments section on Andrew's blog. A mob descends on him from T-boggs site calling him a liar and Limbaugh-dittohead.

T-bogg says I have never been a liberal, even though I've only voted Democratic and Green Party candidates for president.

This is what I'm talking about Daryl. If you think this is normal behavior, if you think it isn't an attempt to purge the left of heretics and dissidents, do think again.

We have people (David here, for example) who are actually accusing people of being anti-American and disloyal for having dissenting views.

Daryl:

George Soros just called Bush a "nazi." Do you agree with him? Do you consider it "suppression" of dissent to call people "nazis", "racist", "fascists", etc? How many times have you called Bush that? how many times have you called conservatives that?

David,

No, I don't agree that Bush is a Nazi. Do you agree with the first poster that Leftists are anti-American?

Daryl,

Like I said, Leftists are anti-American if:

they get a secret thrill to see U.S. casualties in Iraq , if they secretly long to see our mission in Iraq fail, so that it may confirm their anti-Bush religion. I call that anti-American.

"leftist" is a very broad term. Che was one, as was Wellstone. Che was anti-American, Wellstone was a patriot.

Michael,

I agree that TBogg's anger is counter-productive, and it is stupid for him to say you or Andrew Hagen or anybody else is not a "real liberal". I just think that it is overblown to call it "purging of dissidents". He's saying he has no use for a certain class of people who call themselves liberals, and Andrew Hagen is saying he has no use for a different class of people who call themselves liberals. I don't see the big difference.

When Roger Simon says that true liberals should support the war in Iraq, isn't that tantamount to saying that those who don't support the war aren't true liberals? I don't see anything wrong with having an argument over what it means to be a liberal.

Michael, Daryl,

I thought you guys were "progressives" now.

David,

Reread your first post. You used the phrase "anti-American" several times, and it sure didn't seem to be limited to those who cheer for US casualties.

Daryl,

oh, my previous post was by no means comprehensive. Being anti-American is certainly not limited to cheering U.S. casualties in Iraq.

It also includes people who you want to see the economy to fail and peoples lives to fall apart, so they can beat Bush in the next election. That also is anti-American.

I also consider people who opposed the Iraq sanctions during the 90's to be anti-American if they changed their tune after the invasion and supported Russian and the Europeans to maintain the sanctions. A complete flip flop based solely on their opposition the U.S. policy.

This list goes on, but what they all have in common is their consistent desire to see the U.S. fail, even at the cost of American lives and jobs, to advance their own narrow agenda.

anne.elk,

Here is the documentary evidence you asked for. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ This is factual, it will stand up in any court in the US and probably the world. Check the data and come to your own conclusions. Of particular significance is the Economy section. Read the descriptions and compare the GDP per capita numbers. Read the Government description and compare the GDP per capita numbers.

I am uncertain of what additional evidence you need.

Anyway, I agree with the overall Rodney King "can't we all just get along" philosophy. Isn't it possible to discuss differences of goals or means without descending into viciousness? I certainly hope so, but I become a little more pessimistic about it all the time.

The "paleoliberals" have been savaged mercilessly for years now by conservatives, and since 9/11 they have also come under attack by liberals who have "seen the light" about the use of the military to reform the world. An unrepentant liberal such as TBogg is caught between Iraq and a hard space: the options seem to be: (1) play nice, and be savaged anyway, (2) switch sides, or (3) fight back. None of the options is very appealing.

It is a dark time for political discourse in America.

David,

There is a difference between disagreeing with the direction that the US is heading and being anti-American. Your charges of anti-Americanism are exactly the sort of well-poisoning that is destroying civil discussion in America.

Those Americans who oppose Bush's policies do so because they think that, in the long run, those policies will be disasterous for America and for the world.

Daryl: I don't see anything wrong with having an argument over what it means to be a liberal.

Nor do I. I do take issue with those who call people like me liars, and who insist I have never been liberal even in the past.

The left-wing of the Democratic Party is villifying moderates. It will cost them the election if they don't stop it. Unlike the right, I don't want to watch the Democrats pitch themselves over the cliff.

Michael,

It seems to me that the villification is going in both directions, but I agree with you that it needs to stop.

I have voted to the right more than the left most of my adult life.

I do not want to see the left die. Back in the days before I was born(1967) there was a liberal Republican section of the Republican party and a conservative side of the Democrat party. Either of which I would have been proud to be a member of.

But in the 80's, when I got to High School, the shift had happened. The Left became to far left with few Moderates, Sam Nunn, was a good one. Me being from Georgia I remember him. The Right was on it's way to far right. Because they thought they had some moral objective to be right. At that point in time, I liked neither party. When I joined the Army, I volunteered for European duty. I loved my time in the Army and got to see a lot of Europe, including East Berlin, back when there was such a place.

I remember walking the curving path through Check point Charlie and seeing the Red Army Soldiers with armed Ak-47's on the wall. Not too mention the huge flower pot on the Russian side of Check point Charlie, that was when I realized why they had a curvey road in the wall, So people could not get a car going fast enough to make it through before they were killed by said soldiers.

It was at that point in my life, I knew I was doing the right thing. Knew these people were prisoners in their country and I swung even more to the Right.

In 1992 I voted for Bush I ( damn Perot), in 1996 Dole. Clinton was a centrist, but his adultry pissed me off. My dad was one and I do not respect him either. So I could never respect Clinton as a man, he was though, one hell of a public speaking and politician. I could respect that, but not him.

Anyway, now I still see myself as a Centrist Right person. I believe in a strong defense, I believe in free expression and rights of a person. Always have, always will. I believe Competition to be the best of all things. I mean really, Capitalism is nothing but Business Darwinism, the strong survive, adapt or die.

God, this has turned into a mini-rant. That far left, the one that sees socialism and communism as a friend of the people, never saw the same people I did in East Berlin, and they are not my friend. So yes, I call those people Anti-American, because we were founded on the Right of the Individual to do with life as he sees fit. I give them the right to speak about the grass on the other side, as long as they don't mind me saying, the Grass is pretty damned Green right here and laughing about their ignorance.

But of course this is all my opinion.

ps. Some idiot on one of these blogs signed my email up for nazionline, that was cute. Where do we find such children. Even though at 36, I still think of myself as a child.

Forgive my misspellings in the above post. It was written in about 5 minutes of time with no proofreading. Dummy.

Daryl,

I don't consider the loyal opposition to be anti-American.

But I gave you examples of what I consider DIS-loyal opposition, whom I consider first cousins to the actual traitors.

Like I said, Rightiess are anti-American if:

If they secretly long to see our mission in Kosovo fail, so that it may confirm their anti-Clinton religion. I call that anti-American.

Sorry, I was going to parody the "get a secret thrill to see U.S. casualties in Iraq," but there was only one U.S. casualty in Kosovo.

David,

Treason is an act that betray's one's own country or aids its enemies. The concept of treasonous thoughts or treasonous words is too close to the "thought crimes" of 1984. I believe that calling people "first cousins to the actual traitors" based on what they have said or what you suspect that they think is, as I said, doing a terrible harm to this country.

Kevin K.

For your information as my post above says, I disliked Clinton as a person. But you can bet your ass I was pulling a victory in Kosovo, and Somalia.

Do not even get me started about that pull-out.

You can bet your ass I never pull for an American loss of troops.

You can bet your ass, I will always support out troops.

And I would be saying the same thing if I were not a veteran.

What were your thoughts of Kosovo? After all we did not even take that to the UN.

Fact is I supported the move. I would have supported us staying Somalia to save those people from starvation. I would have supported moving in the heavy infantry and armor and showing those Somali Warlords true power.

Daryl,

What do you think of Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders when she said at a rock concert that she hopes Saddam Hussein beats us in Iraq? How would you characterize her views? Does "anti-American" fit, or can you come up with a less offensive accurate description?

Michael,

Why do you need to respond to comments that Chrissie Hynde makes in a rock concert?

But no, I don't consider her comments anti-American. I don't think that her comments harmed America or any Americans in any way, which is more than I can say for the charges of anti-Americanism being thrown around.

Michael,

Anti-American is a fair description for Chrissy Hynde, wouldn't you agree?

If an American said that however, I would call them a traitor. And you're free to be a traitor of course. It just shows how free and open this society truly is, as opposed to the rants about "censorship", "fascism," etc. from the anti-American crowd.

Is that too stark? I know, we live in an age of nuance, subtlety, and most of all, relativism. It doesn't escape me, trust me on that.

Just read the tbogg essay. The only thing worth repeating is the neologism "Totten-crat". Love it. Where do I register?

Daryl,

you're right. I stand somewhat corrected. I would not call what I consider traitorous speech to be an act of treason, but it's certainly anti-American. I'll stand by that.

My main point is, there's a difference between our traditional concepts about a "loyal opposition" united in struggle, versus the desire to see harm come to America for the benefit of your narrow political interests.
And I see evidence of the latter as opposed to the former. That's all.

"Unlike the right, I don't want to watch the Democrats pitch themselves over the cliff."

Umm, there are those of us on the Right who don't want to see that, either. The most likely candidate to replace it would be twenty times worse.

David writes: My main point is, there's a difference between our traditional concepts about a "loyal opposition" united in struggle, versus the desire to see harm come to America for the benefit of your narrow political interests.

David, many people oppose Bush and the war in Iraq precisely because they believe that he is bringing harm to America for the benefit of narrow political interests.

I'm willing to give the pro-war faction the benefit of the doubt---that they actually do believe that war in Iraq will make the world a better place. Why can't you give the same courtesy to the anti-war faction?

That Chrissie Hynde said she hopes we get beaten by Saddam isn't anti-American, according to Daryl. But calling her anti-American for saying that is anti-American, according to Daryl. His reason is that her utterance didn't harm America, while the other utterance does harm America.

I disagree. On the contrary, her utterance was anti-American since it expressed a desire for America to lose a war against an evil tyranny. (You don't have to harm America to be anti-American; you only have to wish harm.) And calling her anti-American is not anti-American, because it makes clear this important fact that seems to get lost on the left side of the forum. It harms discourse in the forum when we treat something patently evil as though it were something plausible, something potentially good. The forum is the place where determine the right values and make them clear to everyone in the forum. Dissent is tolerated, but if it is evil, it is to be clearly labeled as such.

James,

I was merely playing Mad Libs with David's irrational comment at 10:00. Not fun being called anti-American is it? You should try being a "liberal" these days.

BTW, I was pro Kosovo, Somalia and Afghanistan wars. I was against Iraq because I thought the negatives were too huge, the arguments were unconvincing, and it would distract us from pursuing al-Qaida, not because I hate Bush or America.

Okay, Jim,

I consider the charges of "anti-Americanism" to be evil.

I'm willing to give the pro-war faction the benefit of the doubt---that they actually do believe that war in Iraq will make the world a better place. Why can't you give the same courtesy to the anti-war faction?

I've never considered opposing the invasion to be anti-American per se. And I don't consider opposing Bush policies to be anti-American per se either.

But I do know that many people who opposed the invasion were secretly wishing for high body counts in order to justify their initial anti-war position. They were dissapointed by the ease of our victory. Some few honest Leftists even admitted as much. Is this news to you?

How can this possibly be for the good of our country? It's not, but it benefits a narrow political interest.

And this is the same impulse that drove anti-Sanctions activists to oppose lifting the sanctions after the war was over. Like pornography, I know it when I see it. You don't?

Secondly, given that the war is now over, and some Leftists still secretly get a thrill at our troops getting suicide bombed, what do you call that if not anti-Americanism? What do you call the desire to see America fail, to see America completely discredited in the eyes of the world, if not anti-Americanism?

What do you call the desire to see the U.S. abandon the Iraqi people to chaos, simply to see Bush fail? Tell me what that is if not anti-Americanism.

If that isn't anti-Americansim, what IS????

David,

Here's an analogy:

Suppose that someone you care about is following what you believe to be a very harmful course, in spite of everything you can do to talk him out of it. Just to make it specific, suppose that he is very overweight and smokes three packs a day. You believe that if he doesn't change his ways, he will die of a massive heart attack a few years down the road. Is it evil or hateful to wish that your friend would suffer a minor health problem now that we convince him to give up smoking and lose weight?

Yes, you would prefer if your friend never suffered any health problems at all. But if a minor problem now could prevent a major problem later, it might be worth it.

I was actually in exactly that situation with my father years ago. He was overweight and he smoked heavily. When he had a minor heart attack (at age 51), I was glad, because he gave up smoking. I believe that having that minor heart attack at 51 prevented a fatal heart attack at 60. There is no way to know if that is true or not, but I believed it.

Did it mean that I hated my father, when I was thankful for his minor heart attack?

Daryl,

that's an excellent analogy. If that's the case, I can no longer call you anti-American, but merely misguided. And it's misguided because the cure is worse than the disease.

But let's address the Hard Left (as per Michael). Explain to me the following. When the U.S. is accused of:

1)being "imperialist",
2)when it is accused of "genocide",
3)of killing "hundred of thousands" of Iraqis,
4)when they say the U.S. had 9/11 coming to it,
5)when they say the U.S. is the greatest source of evil in the world today, etc.

is this also done in the spirit of patriotism? Is this merely "tough love" from the Hard Left? I don't think it is. Will you agree with me that the Hard Left hates America?

Daryl,

How can you possibly say that a wish to see America defeated by a fasicst is not anti-American? It certainly isn't pro-American, nor is it neutral.

Michael,

I think that I explained it already. It's a matter of trading off a minor setback now for a much worse harm later.

That's what a war is all about, isn't it? You accept certain bad things now (the loss of American and Iraqi lives) in the hopes that things will be better later on.

I should add that a wish to see Saddam Hussein beat America in a war is also anti-Iraqi. A victory by Saddam would mean continued enslavement and genocide of Iraqis.

Totten:

You're petty, third-party attack on Tbogg exposes you as a weak-kneed hack. Tbogg infuses his blog with humor, passion, context and intelligence. You try to be funny but you are not, and that's about as close as you get to his level. But at least you won't be upstaged by your audience, especially James "I'm pretending to be a centrist" Stephenson.

Isn't Hannity and Colmes about to start?

T-bogg's "you must tow the party line" is exactly what drove me out of the Leftist camp. I used to think that this, and other kinds of political correctness, was great. But then it turned around and bit me in the ass. And the more I've learned, the further Right I've gone.

You should join us Michael. It's very liberating. There's far more freedom over here.

Yeah, here's an example of that humor, burnplant.

"I guess I can't blame a guy for whoring himself out in order to find a job in the Bush economy. Which is why it's not too suprising to see "writer" Michael Totten doing his dancing monkey routine hoping for a few more Instapundit nods and maybe a treasured regulars spot on TechCentralStation where the Rand-ians go for their objective reality handjobs. "

Brilliant wit. The Farrelly bros. do political commentary.

The Hard Left will never be accused of lacking in passion, that's for sure.

That is funny, Phil, good catch!

Oh wait, this is the Totten post right? Let me adapt the pose:

I used to lean liberal to moderate, too. I voted for Reagan-BushI-Dole-BushII, but because of jerks like Tbogg, I am seriously considering voting for BushII again, no really! The liberal-left has scared away moderates like me for good!!!!

Burnplant,

it's not a pose, it's true. Rant away.

Burnplant,

I did not vote for Reagan, Bush, or any other Republican for president.

How long have you deployed Stalinist methods in arguments? Or do you even have the slightest idea what I'm talking about?

If you don't know what I'm talking about (and no, I'm not calling you a Communist), I suggest you study up on the fate of Leon Trotsky's place in history in Stalinist Russia. Start with this book.

Perversely enough, Messrs Totten and Simon have done more to increase the chance that I'll vote Democrat at some point in future than just about anything else. Seriously.

Before reading them, I was convinced that the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" was pretty much the powerhouse behind the party. Watching the extreme discomfort by some self-identified 'liberals' or 'Democrats' such as yourselves, or Armed Liberal, have caused me to re-evaluate some of what I had thought previously about the party.

Totten,

Please, enlighten me, which part of my posts are "Stalinist"? Where did you learn such a big word, from Colmes?

As for my "I voted for Reagan-BushI..." jab, it was more directed at the spirit of your lying posters than anything you wrote - that's the theme that grabbed my attention, do you read your own reader's comments or just your own?

Burnplant,

Do you really think "Stalinist" is a big word? If you click the links I give you, you'll know why I applied it to you.

The link goes to a book on Amazon. Here is Amazon's synopsis.

In Stalinist Russia, it was commonplace for Soviet history to be rewritten with inconvenient participants removed--often men or women who had aided the Communist Revolution in the early days and then had somehow fallen afoul of Stalin himself. In The Commissar Vanishes, English art historian David King assembles an impressive body of photographs and artwork that shows the process whereby a hero could overnight be made into villain. "The physical eradication of Stalin's political opponents at the hands of the secret police was swiftly followed by their obliteration from all forms of pictorial existence," King rightly notes: in one noteworthy sequence reproduced on the cover, a photograph of Stalin with three revolutionary leaders is airbrushed and cropped and clipped until, one by one, those leaders disappear and only Stalin is left--conveying the message that Stalin carried the Russian Revolution by himself.

You and your dittohead friends accuse me and others of never having been on the left even in the past, just as Stalin did to Trotsky and other supposed counter-revolutionaries. You owe it to yourself to fully understand the tradition you are hailing from.

The left has a fascinating, dramatic, and often tortured history. You should study it sometime so you can fret less over the use of big words and so that other people's references don't go zinging over your head.

It is somewhat funny how liberals have gotten a lot more pragmatic about foreign despots -- but not for the nefarious reasons Michael lists.

Nobody I love has gone to Iraq and had his or her head blown off, or eyes torn from their sockets, or hands burned to stubs. In fact, nobody I know well is even at risk. But many thousands of other Americans are enduring that right now. That powerful liberal trait -- empathy -- kicks in in such circumstances.

I would not risk death or dismemberment in this war, and I certainly wouldn't risk the lives, arms, legs or arms of my daughters in this war (I have no sons), and that is the ONLY test of whether a war is worthwhile, in my book. Afghanistan was a necessary war. Iraq is not -- we cannot even define the aims, much less achieve them. If you are going to wage war for some lofty ideals about the betterment of others, those wars better be the bloodless Kosovo variety. If you are going to wage war to disarm a dangerous dictator, he better have been armed in the first place, and you better have a good explanation why less bloody means wouldn't have done the trick.

Daryl: I consider the charges of "anti-Americanism" to be evil.

I assume you would charge Osama bin Laden and his supporters, including his few American supporters, with anti-Americanism. But that wouldn't be an evil charge to make. In fact, it would be right.

You'd point out that OBL doesn't wish us well, while those on the left who strongly object to the liberation do wish us well and only want us to learn our lesson and change. However, I suggest that the changes they want us to make are so radical a shift in values as to make us a different people. To use Andrew Hagen's words, they "insist that they are as patriotic as anyone else, not in spite of their desire to change American society from top to bottom, but because of that desire." They are against enough core American values as to make them against who we are.

Thanks for cutting and pasting, Totten, but you fail to show where I advocated "erasing" anyone from history in my "Stalinist" posts.

The most you could say about me is that I am a smart-ass, but instead you throw around something like "Stalinist" and fail to back it up. How very, very Coulter-esque of you.

Enjoy punching the touch screen for Bush, you America-hating turds, I'm going back to smarter, and more civil, blogs.

If you are going to wage war for some lofty ideals about the betterment of others, those wars better be the bloodless Kosovo variety.

I also love how so-called liberals are now willing to sneer at the "lofty ideals" of the true liberals. We say "the marsh Arabs" and they say, "The who?" And then when you explain they say, "What does that have to do with me?"

So you are concerned for the safety of American soldiers -- and not for that of Iraqi citizens yearning to be free. Such is your right in our liberal democracy. Your not the first to think that some people's human rights are less worth fighting for than others. But please don't insinuate that I am less of liberal than you, because I have higher ideals for freedom reaching a wider swath of humanity.

Enjoy punching the touch screen for Bush, you America-hating turds, I'm going back to smarter, and more civil, blogs.

I ALSO love how Smokeweed can enter a room with an ad hominem dangling limply from his sneering lips, blather, fail to grasp a simple analogy exposing the perniciousness of his blather, call his opponents "turds," then ride off in search of "smarter and more civil" discourse.

I especially like the juxtapostion of "turds" and "civil" in the same sentence.

Man, I am just full of the love tonight.

"The Hard Left will never be accused of lacking in passion, that's for sure."

I certainly hope not: it's the primary reason they lose elections.

pj, more peaceful means were tried for twelve years with American and British pilots being shot at every day. Shot. at. every. day. for. twelve. years.

I actually think it's good if the "left wing" purges the rest of us. They can sit all by themselves in a corner in their morally pure irrelevance while the rest of us try to improve the world.

"The left has a fascinating, dramatic, and often tortured history." Michael J. Totten

The left has the great history of FDR and winning WWII, dumbass.

The CIA Fact book does not describe a controlled experiment. Anecdotal evidence yes. Impressive data points yes. I frankly believe it. Proof no.

But look, you guys just evade the issue. Whose democracy dick is better? Our 226 foot long democracy dick or Britain's or Israel's? These are different forms of democracies and republics. Surely one of you guys are going to tell me that our dick is bigger, longer than the Brits! Or the Frogs!

So what does it means to chant, "democracy is the best!" when a) we have a republic and b) we live in a world of many differing forms of democracy. And yeah, there are many times I think our democracy sucks compared to proportional representation system. And hell, what was it Churchill said?

So uh, lambast me just for saying that the question of how and when the Iraqi get to a democracy is a valid question.

And then go read buddy Sean again, 'cause he agrees with me. He agrees that we'd best not let the Iraqi create their own form of gov't tonight.

Answer the question: when Noah Feldman says that Iraq will likely come up with an Islamic democracy that is anti-israel and anti-US, you going to swallow their democracy?

If we let the Iraqi create a democracy tonight, what form of democracy do you think it will be? Pro US?

So my little tin horned despot friends, if an anti-US, anti-Israel, Islamic law democracy is not what you have in mind, then instead of berating me for your not learning what form of government you live in, try justifying instead your notion that we should not let Iraq form a democracy tonight and lay out your timeline of when we do, and then name and describe the gov't they have in the meantime, because a) it won't be democratic by definition, and b) it will be what you consider to be the best form of government for the Iraqi. Conclusion C) you will have just proven that unless you give the Iraqi the chance to form a gov't tonight, then YOU agree that democracy is not always the best form of government.

You are a despot!

QED.

Hey Michael, let's go tour NK together. I'll pay all expenses if you'll pay the freight in helping us get rid of the electoral college, a very anti-democratic institution.

Daryl, read this quote again:

The changes they (the Left) want us to make are so radical a shift in values as to make us a different people. To use Andrew Hagen's words, they "insist that they are as patriotic as anyone else, not in spite of their desire to change American society from top to bottom, but because of that desire." They are against enough core American values as to make them against who we are.

Jim, this is absolutely BRILLIANT. It is EXACTLY why the the tag "anti-American" DOES fit them.

I've been trying for quite some time now to put those very feelings into words. Thank you, it's exactly right.

phonyliberal: The left has the great history of FDR and winning WWII, dumbass.

Act like an adult or post somewhere else. And by the way, FDR is my favorite president.

Anne: I'd love to scrap the electoral college. It is, as you say, very anti-democratic.

The left has the great history of FDR and winning WWII, dumbass.

Is that the entirety of Leftist history? Maybe Michael is right, and you're the dumbass.

"There are orthodox Liberals like Atrios, Matt Yglesias, and lots of others who, even though I disagree with them, offer substantive arguments and ideas, rather than the petty, ad hominem drivel you see on his blog."

Yglesias I can see, but which Atrios are you talking about? Must be some other Atrios.

You people slay me! Truly.

Anne, I appreciate your perspective, you are obviously not stupid. But I think you are well informed enough to get it all wrong. Please let me explain.

First off. Lets dispense with this Democracy vs Republic crap. Go read my blog side bar. If you wish to argue with my explanation, go seek out a Latin professor.

Democracy and Republic are not antithetical ideas. They are from different root languages. They are “type” descriptions of the same “kind”.

The word “democracy” comes from the Greek, demos=people and kracy=rule, as in "rule of the people". The Romans borrowed this idea, and called it “res publica”, which comes from Latin, res=thing, group, or organization and publica=people, as in "government of the people".

Both the Greeks and the Romans practiced distributed forms of government. And both limited voting rights to a particular class of people. One called it a democracy, while the other called it a republic - you say tomato, I say…

Was my post simplistic? Did my call for Americans to reaffirm their faith in our government and political principles sound like a mantra? Of course, I spoke in the simplest terms possible because this IS a very basic idea, and one that smart people, like you, are getting wrong.

I do NOT advocate holding off on devolving government to the Iraqis because of what form of democracy they would create, but rather because it would not be created at all. Frankly, I don’t much care if they voluntarily create a society of anti-American twerps - I mean we tolerate the French! And to suggest so is rather… stinky. I actually believe that no functioning liberal democracy would remain “anti-American” for long (as in so many things, the French are an exception)

If you read Victor Davis Hansen you will learn that democracies win wars BECAUSE they are democratic, and they don’t really need to fear non-democracies. If you read Francis Fukiyama you will learn that the number of democracies worldwide has only ever and always INCREASED since 1776 and that few nations reverse course or wobble (except France, go figure). If you read George Soros, Michael Lind, and David Korten you will learn that Liberal Lefties like them have certainly NOT lost faith that Democracy is the very best political system EVER POSSIBLE TO BE DEVISED (which is why Fukiyama calls it “the end of history”).

It hardly matters if you don’t always get what you want, if our two party system is imperfect, or if you believe that big business is better represented in Congress. I did not call for you to rubber stamp Bush’s politics, domestic or otherwise (certainly not domestic!). I did not call for the silencing of debate about what are our nation’s most pressing concerns. Heck, I supported the local buyout of our electric utility, the Oregon's health plan for the poor, and most environmental regulations. And I certainly do not wish corporations to rule the world.

All that I asked you to do was to remind yourself that you are free to kvitch about politics on this website and others BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! You are able to worry about the civil rights of Iraqis because WE are in charge - if China had invaded Iraq would you even expect them to care what you thought? Ask Tibet.

It is fine and good to dissent, as a way of making our own country that much better. But when “you” root for our defeat at war, that is crossing a line (I don’t mean to imply that Anne has done so, “you” is used generically). And even if you haven’t admitted this emotion to yourself or others I will call you on your lack of faith in our values.

When you actively wonder whether Democracy is right for others, if Iraq wants or can have it, then you have “lost faith”. If you can honestly say that Iraqis were “better off” under a dictator who could “disappear” them with out pause instead of living under an American occupation of citizen soldiers and their media observers, then you have “lost faith” that civil rights even matter (isn’t the “security” of Baghdad what you worry about most?)

Oh, and Anne, if you read my site you will see that I base my opinion of the BBC and NPR on more than just these two stories. I have been hounding these two organizations (once my very own beloved) for a long while. It is not the fact that they carry such stories, or that they “sampled” five or fifty people. It is the fact that ALL their coverage leans in this direction and did before, during, and now after the war.

It was not for nothing that the British flagship switched turned off the Beeb during the war. Or that NPR chose the most somber and downcast of music themes for their war coverage. They report on the one-a-day killings with a sense of gloating. I catch it and so do many others.

And so, obviously, it seems, it takes a simplistic punch line to even move the debate with some people. How often has Anne commented about people like Michael and I except when we slap them verbally?

I wish it could be a more civil debate… but in the last few years I have come to worry more about violent physical assault from self-avowed leftist Democrats than any rightwing redneck. And from my upbringing that is just wrong. So I am striking out in an attempt to knock some sense into my fellow citizens noggins.

While I don’t wish to silence debate or dissent, I do wish to remind those that are arguing in either direction that they really shouldn’t be arguing about the overall goals of this nation, spreading and defending democracy and civil rights was our founding cause. They are probably only arguing over which tact to take, how to do it best. When they argue over state's rights, school vouchers, health care, church and state, etc they might get very heated, but they should not forget the value and privilege of that same discussion. When fighting over what to do about Islamofascism they should not be discussing IF we should "win", but how.

We Americans take our nation for granted... especially, these days, the Left, who act like our choices today are between Mother Earth and the Shadow Conspiracy. The media tells us that we are a "divided" nation. But they confuse the issue... election day maps ARE evenly colored, but the electorate in each state is not all that far off from each other - a little more conservative here, a little more liberal there. They differ in type, but not in kind. We all want Freedom, Liberty, and Justice and we should keep in mind exactly how free and easy our pursuit of these ideals really is.

Got that Anne? No matter how much you hate Bush or Halliburton, no matter how upset civilian casualties in Iraq make you, no matter if your party is out of control in the Senate by one vote or two... you live in the very best of the very best attempts by humankind to govern itself in its history. Say it with me Anne... "Democracy is the very, very best system of government that we have EVER invented”. If you beg to differ, ask Stalin's victims, or Hitler’s, or....

Carry on.

Quite eloquent, thanks

Semper Fi

"Or that NPR chose the most somber and downcast of music themes for their war coverage"

NPR chose the music? Which NPR show? Car Talk? Which war? Which music? Not the Iraq war. TOTN has had the same somber piece since 9/11.

Once again you are imprecise, vague, and wrong.

Who has lost faith in democracy? The only question I have raised is one of timelines and paths. And though you folks try to stifle the question with your cries of Anti-Americanism while claiming otherwise, all I have done is defended the one woman in your NPR interview who asked the question of whether democracy is for everyone.

I actually think it is. But I am not going to call her anti-american, or claim she has lost faith by asking that question. I think it's a legit question, and all of the claims and cries made here, are the anti-american cries.

"When fighting over what to do about Islamofascism they should not be discussing IF we should "win", but how."

Agreed, and a question of what form of government, if democracy is always the answer goes straight to the question of "how we win".

Oh Sean says, I am all for dissent, and then he tars me with false claims I have never made. Oh no he says, when I wrote "you" I didn't mean you! I meant all those other liberals that I now fear physical violence from when I walk down the street.

Sean you write well, so write well. And check those meds dude.

say it with me now. mustn't question the administration. don't lose faith. mustn't investigate. if we investigate we have lost faith. mustn't question the administration. don't lose faith. mustn't investigate. if we investigate we have lost faith. investigators hate america.

We Need A Right-Wing Blogger On This, Pronto!

Burnflag have you ever voted for a none-left leaning person in your life?

I have voted for against many hard-right hard-left people. I skew to the right no doubt. But I vote for Democrats when I feel they are more suited for the job.

Had Barr won the primary here, I would have voted against him. Thankfully my vote helped to out him, because I felt him to far from center. If given the chance would you have voted out C Mckinney?

I am guessing no. See that is why I consider myself to be center, I vote Center in all elections period. Whether they be democrat, republican or independent.

But yes I guess I am a liar. But then again, I bet you never saw those Communists suffering like I did. Or the guards on the walls to keep people in, not out did ya?

Sorry, Michael, but what you're doing is schtick, pure and simple. It's kind of like Joe Madison said about JC Watts: "He saw the line was shorter on the other side."

Believing the invasion of Iraq was wrong doesn't mean we, true liberals, don't support the troops. Believing it was unnecessary and done under false premises doesn't mean we support Saddam.

Indeed, a far stronger argument can be made that supporting our troops means not casually placing them in harm's way when National Security is not at stake. Supporting our troops means employing them as a last resort and on an honest basis.

This is not what Bush did. I suspect you understand this.

The fact is none of the front-running Democratic candidates support pulling out of Iraq; they're rightly resigned to the fact we now have created a moral obligation to rebuild/reconstruct Iraq. As with all things political, the way ahead varies by candidate.

But--most of all--what's needed is a clear and honest assessment of what's going on and a plan to address that assessment. We're getting neither from Bush and his handlers. Again, you're not supporting the troops if you're demanding they implement an unworkable plan based upon an unrealistic assessment. Unfortunately, they're being used as pawns in this administration's political machinations. Witness the fact that over the last month we've been treated to a PR campaign aimed at showing things are going far more swimmingly in Iraq than portrayed by the media. That PR campaign hit a wall in recent days with the hasty DC confabs with Bremer and the devastating recent CIA assessment.

Your schtick becomes all too apparent by allowing this administration a pass on any and all inquiries into the misuse and/or fabrication of intelligence agency products. Any effective National Security policy is predicated upon the accurate and honest use of intelligence. National Security policy based on political positioning makes us far less safe. Pointing out intelligence misuses/failures doesn't mean we're for totalitarian regimes.

Anne, I very specifically avoided castigating you personally. If you are not in the camp that I wrote to then say so, pat yourself on the back, and move on.

But Michael and I attended the Democratic election party at the Benson Hotel in Portland, OR in 2000. When I merely noted aloud an election result that Nader got 7% in Wisconsin the room forced us into a discussion of the Green Party and its “vote for Bush”.

The exchange avoided blows by about a second and a half, from both a man and woman, one sober and one not. This was watched and recorded by a member of the AP who confided to us that he had in fact voted for Nader, but had learned to keep his mouth shut while covering Democratic events.

His experiences and mine flew in the face of the open intellectual discourse that I grew up with. And since that day I have been in many rallies, events, and even family homes where this scene has been repeated. Keep in mind that I am myself a raving Liberal tree hugger. But I find that my fellows WILL NOT let me have my say about Iraq.

And as I said, THAT kind of BS I grew up expecting from the Right. Instead, I must say that my Republican, Christian, and Conservative friends and email acquaintances (Hey Mark!) have been MUCH more open to listening to my Liberal rants on health care, education, and the environment than my Leftie friends and family (Hey Dan!) have my views on the War On Terror.

As for NPR’s coverage of the women and her comment that maybe democracy is a shoe that doesn’t fit some nations… I never claimed that the woman was “un-American”, although others here might have. I don’t suggest that her comment is common to either the Left, Liberals, or even Democrats.

What I said was that her question was not isolated; I hear it all the time. And while I don’t call it treasonous, I do note that it expresses a lack of conviction and confidence that is possibly fatal to any of our efforts, both militarily and otherwise, to spread and defend democracy abroad.

With a level of core emotion like this, we probably could not have won WWII (beyond defending only our own shores, which of course, would have turned out to be insufficient if the Axis had won, in the long term).

As for the NPR theme music and my being “imprecise”... Although you seem to have blocked the tune from your memory, NPR has kindly archived here and is even willing to sell it to you.

NPR has received a number of e-mails inquiring about the music we are using to introduce our special coverage of the war in Iraq. In this special edition of All Songs Considered, you'll find full versions of some of the selections you've asked about. We've also gathered some of the striking images taken since March 20 and collected them in a photo essay. The theme music was written and recorded by Jeffrey Freymann-Weyr, a producer in NPR's Arts Information Unit. In an essay for npr.org, Freymann-Weyr writes about the process of composing the piece.

Expanded coverage>Expanded coverage on the war in Iraq from NPR news.

Read an essayRead an essayby the composer of the theme music for NPR's coverage of the war in Iraq.

Listento a discussion on the relationship between music and war from NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday.

Read the LA Times interview with Bob Boilen on the art of picking music for sensitive war coverage.

Is that precise enough for you? (Come folks I try to spare people my verbose nature, and then you complain!) ;p

Special coverage of the theme music is here.

I am sorry that the links got hatcheted at the end there. I didnt see that NPR had some script wrapped around its links. And the LA Times has archived its articles. But the NPR links work.

THAT kind of BS I grew up expecting from the Right. Instead, I must say that my Republican, Christian, and Conservative friends and email acquaintances (Hey Mark!) have been MUCH more open to listening to my Liberal rants on health care, education, and the environment than my Leftie friends and family (Hey Dan!) have my views on the War On Terror.

That because to your Lefty friends their politics is their religion and reason for living--thus their unhealthy passion, and intolerance.

But that's not true of most conservatives, who have placed their faith elsewhere, even if they are politically active.

The money shot:

Freymann-Weyr says: "The challenge was that it needed to be serious but not gloomy, not overly militaristic or flag-waving; but, as NPR coverage would seek to be, trustworthy.

One thing I tried to do in the harmony was to introduce the ambiguity that (I hoped) would keep it from going too far in either direction -- overly traditionally patriotic, or overly morose[I felt that he failed, but I wont hold it against him personaly].

Even though the piece is centered around the key of C, I purposely avoided the one note that would make it either major or minor -- all of the "C" chords, instead of E or E-flat, have a D and F natural instead. (I realized, after the fact, these intervals are a 9th and an 11th above the root.)

The bombing of Afghanistan began on Sunday, Oct. 7, 2001. I was putting the final touches on the music as I heard the news. I wrapped it up as quickly as I could, and drove the music to NPR.
It was on the air starting the following day, primarily as a temporary theme for Talk of the Nation, which was stretched to double its normal size, providing news updates, analysis, and coverage of live press conferences.

As NPR was preparing to cover the war in Iraq, I was asked to make a few subtle changes [I bet, "Hey Jeff, lets add a few of them minor keys to the theme" while I dont count the morose quality against Jeff, I do hold the NPR exec's to blame], and to provide alternate versions of varying lengths for use throughout programming hours.

Now, when events warrant, and the determination is made to go to continuous coverage, the theme I wrote is used. (Although Morning Edition hasn't used mine, they have been using an alternate theme recently.)"

I assume that Anne is eating her hat right now. ;P

Ok, enough banging on Anne now. ;)

Interesting theory David, I will consider it.

But I generally think that Conservatives are so used to there being a vocal counterpoint, and for those in the Religious Right they have also grown up in a secular democracy that FORCES them to accept dissent, and so they are used to it.

On the other hand, the Left has grown up always fighting, the Right specificaly, when they hear dissent from THEIR LEFT is freaks them out and they have no practice accepting this.

How about that explanation?

How about that explanation?

Before I answer that question, first let me state the following:

I am a firm believer that every man chooses a religion. The a-religious Left has chosen politics as their religion, and a religion is not kind to it's heretics.

Now, your explanation seems a perfectly reasonable, but I'm not sure it accounts for the fact that conservatives don't show the same cannibalistic tendencies when faced with internal dissent. I have not experienced it the way I used to when I was a hard Lefty.

Honestly, I used to be pretty Leftwing. I even used to travel to Nicaragua to deliver medical supplies for the Sandinistas in the 80s. My credentials were prettys solid. I never even voted for Democrats because they weren't hard Left enough. But I started gravitating away from the Left precisely because its cannibalism. Call it a bad case of backlash.

Sure, conservatives may think there's something wrong with you if you don't agree with them, but they dont HATE you the way the Hard Left does. To me that's the Leftist religiousity bubbling up.

Jadegold,

What's my schtick? Please explain this to me because I haven't the slightest idea what you're babbling about.

David: Your attacks on the left would resonate a bit more if you didn't recite the words of Ed Gillespie in such a verbatim fashion.

Trying to claim liberalsim as a religion is, on its face, laughable when you consider your conservative bretheren believes most all of society's ills can be solved by plastering the Ten Commandments everywhere and forcing small children to pray and swear allegiances.

When it comes to hate speech, the rightwing has no equal. Clinton Chronicles, anyone? This bit of excrement--produced by Jerry Falwell, promoted by John Ashcroft, and hyped by every rightwinger--breathlessly recounted how Clinton was responsible for the murder of hundreds, drugrunning, treason, illegitimate children,etc.

Liberals attack Bush. But we attack him on his policies. We aren't creating stories about him murdering political opponents or eating babies or whatever.

All schtick. I don't think it's a wise career move.

sblafren, David,

A third explanation is that the left accepts Marxist premises that justification for values is impossible, that the pretense of justified values is just a cover for oppression, and that therefore might may just as well be used as reasoning, has sunk in as a fundamental plank of leftism. The old American left Michael remembers didn't go to post-1960 universities; they believed in rational justification for values. The freaks we have today are beholden to the nihilist, Marxist postmodernism they imbibed in universities.

The right can get nasty with those folks. Sign me up for that; they deserve castigation. The tolerance on the right you two speak of occurs when the right recognizes that its lefty interlocutor is of the old sort Michael misses.

Michael:

See my Joe Madison quote. That's your schtick.

As a liberal, you're lost in the mix.

As a liberal who despises liberalism and promotes neoconservatism--you stand out. You get attention you likely wouldn't have seen.

Your schtick is no different than Dennis Rodman's. Minus the tattoos, changing haircolor, the publicity stunts--Rodman's just another former ballplayer.

Jadegold,

Thanks so much for the career advice. Since you're willing to help me out here, tell me, please, which liberal magazine, aside from The New Republic might be willing to hire a person like me to write hawkish foreign policy analysis.

Gold:

Clinton was right about some things. For instance, "regime change" was needed in Iraq. He was somewhat wrong in saying that it would only take a few weeks of bombing to accomplish that worthy mission.

D-rod wins the award for understatment.

"Clinton was correct that regime change was needed in Iraq. He was somewhat wrong in saying that it would only take a few weeks of bombing to accomplish that worthy mission."

I used to be like Michael. For a long time I hung onto the illusion that I was still a good Leftist soldier. I was still loyal to the Left, after all, they have the best of intentions, and so did I. But I got tired of trying to please my old Lefty friends, of hedging and and hawing about some position I had just taken, and apologizing to them for being a christian (a liberal christian at that).

Michael, there's freedom in conservativism. You don't have to apologize to ANYBODY. Not even fellow conservatives who may disagree with you. You can even get together for beers with a conservative who doesn't see eye to eye with you. It's healthier.

Thank you to MJT and everybody for their support.

For a condemnation of Castro from the Left, please see this. Note that I proudly affixed my own name to the statement.

David,

I recommend Up From Conservatism by ex-conservative Michael Lind. In the 1990s he rebelled against the Republican establishment for embracing Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition (among other things). And the Right hung his ass out to dry.

Most people I know who like John McCain are Democrats. Most of the people who hate him are conservatives.

Oh, and when Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent that didn't go over very well either.

I hate political parties. I don't want to have anything to do with them anymore.

David, I think that both Michael and I would balk at the idea that we were "really conservatives". We are not on more than 80% of the issues and not likily to change.

By example, respectfully, we are not likely to come full circle and turn to Christian religion to answer questions about 90% of life.

Even if we were to be "born again" I dont think that either of us would change our views on the seperation of church and state.

Issues like religion, economic principles, social justice, the environment... we are not crypto conservatives, we really are very Liberal...

The distinction that I think we both make today is on the term Leftist. As I note in my blog side bar the term Leftist is actually a specific political term referring to the party "in opposition". Technicaly either the DNC or the GOP could be "Left" given any election result. I find it telling, however, as to exactly who has held the reigns of power, that in both America and the UK (where the term was invented) it is Labor/Democrats who have become permanently associated with the term.

Ideologicaly then, the term "Leftist", SHOULD mean the party of dissent, but infact has come to mean extreme labor, ie anti-capitalist. What these people share today then is hate and/or distrust for Bush and Co. In practice this has come to mean opposition to the Iraq war.

Where Michael and I step off the reservation then, is here. We support the war. And so the Left hates us, and we no longer call ourselves Leftists.

But we remain Liberal... which, while it often shares much with the Left, is NOT specifically leftist. For instance, in the UK Blair is a Liberal and Blair is in power... dissent, leftism, then is actually AGAINST him, and he is a Liberal... and this doesnt mean that the Torries, or the Right support Blair, they dont on 90% of the domestic issues and a fair amount even oppose the war (for the same reason as American Leftists).

In NY State you can register for two parties and they have four. They are Liberal, Conservative, Republican, and Democrat. Thus you could register as Liberal Republican, like Rocky (Gov. Rockefeller). Teddy Roosevelt and John McCain would fit this mold too.

I consider myself an Independent in the true sense of the word, and have to be since I cannot stommach either the Green, Dem, or Rep parties. But if I could reshape things I would claim to be a Liberal Republican (but I am not sure that adding Republican would work, since I STILL associate this party with walnut panneled board rooms where they managers award themselves bonuses while forcing the unions to take pay cuts and lay offs).

But, David, I will agree with you on this... on SOME social issues I am VERY conservative. I wont let my daughter wear make up and pierce her ears until she is 16. I wont let my boys look at a playboy till then either. And I dont want to hear one word, even in jest, about drug use and the like. I also support fully the right of Churches to discriminate in membership and protect their right to make political statements, maintaining their values and advancing their interests is exactly their business and their right. And when it comes to defending this country against non-democracies (and the French) I wouldnt sheath a single weapon in our arsenal, and I want the state out of gambling.

But then I want churches to pay taxes, the boys scouts out of schools, then ten commandments out of court, evolution taught in schools (churches can teach what they want), business to oay their share of taxes, gays in the military, civil marriage to apply to any couple of any sex, and the legalization of pot and prostitution, and I would move to end ALL logging, mining, etc on public lands (private land owners can do what they want within reason), and I support urban planning and legislation.

There, pigeon hole me if you can!

Michael,

I understand that ideological purity exists on both sides. My only point is that even someone you just "hung out to dry" can still be your drinking buddy if you're both conservative.

That wasn't my experience on the Left. It was hardcore, and very personal.

There, pigeon hole me if you can!

You're a Libertarian. It's as CLEAR AS DAY.

Ah, I see what David means... well... we should call up Michael Lind and Christopher Hitchens and see who they are drinking with these days.

No way David! (Horrorified expression, dropped glass of scotch). As Robert Heinline said: "A Libertarian is someone who wants freedom and protection from their slaves." Libertarians are just too darned selfish. They would never go along with my Urban Planning, public education, publich health care, or any other strand of fabric in the social contract. I actually like my fellow citizens and trust us to form a government that we all abide by. Libertarians want to see government an aenemic geriatric on its death bed (except when the workers revolt!).

Yes, as you quote, "primarily as a theme for totn". And what is the only show playing it today? totn.

totn is npr? not.

eat my hat? not.

(btw, do I like that theme? hate it.)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/11/02/the_hard_liner/

Daniel Pipes on Democracy in Iraq:

"It is all the more remarkable, then, that Pipes has some misgivings about the most recent application, in Iraq, of the approach he helped formulate. "I think the war was correct -- destroying this invasive evil. But beyond this I think they're too ambitious," he says.

He bluntly dismisses the promise of a democratic Iraq -- "impossible, a fantasy" -- citing obstacles similar to Russia's. "Democracy requires, among other things, individualism -- the breakdown of old clannish, tribal organizations, the individual standing face-to-face with the state. You don't have that in the Middle East. Iraq is tribally run."

It is not lost on Pipes that his criticism goes directly to the judgment of the Bush team, conservatives like himself, in some cases former colleagues, most prominently Team B's own Wolfowitz. "Paul didn't have much education in history," Pipes says. "It's not his field. He was educated as a military specialist, a nuclear weapons specialist. Like most scientists, he doesn't have a particular understanding of other cultures." "

Why does Daniel Pipes hate America?

"Why does Daniel Pipes hate America?"

Oh puleeze.

Anne, did you read too fast? That theme was used for NPR's special expanded coverage of the War in Iraq, all of it, including Talk Of The Nation, TOTN, which is produced for and by NPR and was NPR's major organ for war coverage, as it says in the excerpt.

"When Americans want to be a part of the national conversation, they turn to Talk of the Nation, NPR's midday news-talk show. Neal Conan is familiar to listeners from his long involvement with NPR as a division-wide reporter and editor for NPR News, anchoring of NPR live events coverage, and work hosting NPR's Weekly Edition: The Best of NPR News. During the terrorist attacks and aftermath of Sept. 11 2001, and the 2003 war in Iraq, Conan has played a major role in anchoring continuous live coverage of developments."

http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/inside/index.html

I'm still holding yer hat fer ya! ;)

Why does Daniel Pipes hate America?

He doesn't. Disagreeing with our government doesn't mean you hate America.

But wishing failure on that government does. Especially if that failure requires the deaths of our own soldiers (simply to further your narrow agenda.).

Is that to complicated for you?

Anne,

Quoting a doom-and-gloom conservative who probably never had an idealistic bone in his body is not the best way to convince me that my idealistic views are incorrect. I do not hail from the right. You need to appeal to my liberal nature, not to what you perceive as a conservative point of view. Try another angle.

Sean,

First, let's back up a bit. You hear NPR gloating over the body counts? Really? Like you hear "bwahahahahha". Kewl dude, you got good ears. I don't hear that.

Second, I was surprised to read NPR say they chose this theme for the war on Iraq. When I listen to totn, it sounds to me like the theme from 9/11. And then you confirm exactly what I said, (thanks for the links!) The author of the piece wrote this for Afghanistan, not Iraq. He was asked for a few subtle changes for Iraq. So this is the NPR serious and not gloomy theme from 9/11. I don't particularly like it. I wouldn't say their playing it constitutes a fifth column.

And as I said, as you confirm, the only show playing that now is totn.

So I just don't get you, when you write, when you quote,

"The challenge was that it needed to be serious but not gloomy, not overly militaristic or flag-waving; but, as NPR coverage would seek to be, trustworthy.

One thing I tried to do in the harmony was to introduce the ambiguity that (I hoped) would keep it from going too far in either direction -- overly traditionally patriotic, or overly morose[I felt that he failed, but I wont hold it against him personaly].

Even though the piece is centered around the key of C, I purposely avoided the one note that would make it either major or minor -- all of the "C" chords, instead of E or E-flat, have a D and F natural instead. (I realized, after the fact, these intervals are a 9th and an 11th above the root.) "

You don't like this? Uh, what's your point again? The author wanted serious and not gloomy. You hear somber and downcast. You wanted jingoistic fanfares on NPR? Is that your point? You think totn's choice in music sucks? The author's own choices in how he composes music differs from yours. He strove for serious and not gloomy), he missed his mark according to you (I actually agree with you.) But he says he wasn't trying for somber or downcast or even imminent thread. Other people seem to like it. So much so that NPR was asked and has had special coverage of it. So what's your point?

Jeebus Sean, ya know what, I give up, you're right. That music does constitute a fifth column, and NPR does gloat over body counts.

I'm going back to work now. You can have the last point, which I hope includes locations and times to start the anti-npr body count and music changing protests.

Anne, I think you got the wrong battle orders here.

What I said in my original post was that the interview with the five women carried on NPR showed a depressing lack of confidence in the bedrock principles, values, and institutions of this country.

Namely that democracy and a respect for individual rights are not only "one form of government and social organization" but were rather "self-evident" that they were the ONLY and BEST system, such that we were justified in armed revolt against our king in England.

We were not confused in the 19th century, nor during WWI or WWII. But the Vietnam War (and to some extent Korea) combined with a new academic focus on "deconstructing" our own values and institutions in the 1960's broke our nation's back.

Today five average women, as interviewed by NPR, represent a view through the mirror darkly of our grandmothers. With a "home fire" like we have today WWII could never have been won.

I then noted that this "disease" is not limited to our own shores, but that the national news service of England is also carrying stories, like the one that I described, that actually question whether it is a good thing that their closest kin and century long ally is extending its influence into former Soviet territory (a former enemy of the UK), because maybe we aren’t such good guys after all?! This is nuts, and this is new. With allies like this we would never have won WWII either.

I further ascribed some of this loss of heart to both the Beeb and NPR (in the headings of my posts) because they do have discretion in every way in how they cover these events. And the CHOOSE to take a negative tack on what might be the most significant military and diplomatic effort of the last two centuries.

One thing that I noted, one thing, about NPR's war coverage, was that it even had a defeatist music theme. But you denied this and claimed that: "Once again you are imprecise, vague, and wrong.” You continued by asking: “NPR chose the music? Which NPR show? Car Talk? Which war? Which music? Not the Iraq war. TOTN has had the same somber piece since 9/11.”

So, I then detailed the fact that NPR did in fact choose the music, that it was for TOTN specifically, and their entire war coverage in general, and that it was not used “since 9-11” but in fact “sat on the shelf” until the Iraq war. Furthermore, I noted that although the author of that theme music said he was trying to create a musical composition that implied "trustworthiness and impartiality”, NPR asked him for some edits before using it “throughout their programming”.

I personally hate it when people choose to attack a perfectly valid general thesis by denying the accuracy of tiny parts of it. It is, in fact, a rhetorical tactic and proves nothing by itself. Even if I were to give you that the Beeb and NPR are fully impartial and trustworthy and that they were just reporting the words of the interview subjects, in a vacuum, you still haven’t undermined my argument that the attitudes of the subjects in the reports, the five American women and the British reporter, represent a serious loss of faith by the American public, and its European allies, in America’s, indeed the West’s, institutions and values.

Something to keep in mind, all, is that the meme that today’s war coverage is biased, government friendly propaganda and that the government, the military, is secretive about information on our own, and specifically, Iraqi deaths, is a bogus line. Access to information by the media and the public is greater than ever before. The amount of “spinning” that the government gets to add to the news is less than ever before.

And I am not sure this is a “good thing”. Consider if the public had access to daily casualty figures in 1846, in 1898, in WWI or II? I honestly don’t think that we could have won those conflicts. What if the Beeb and NPR held their Iraq news till the end of the month, and then gave us both positive and negative accountings? Something like “200 schools reopened, 14 water treatment plants repaired, 4 power plants back on line 2 pipe lines back at work, and 16 city councils elected in monitored votes… and 45 us casualties from ambushes and random “pot shots”.” If THAT was the report, which is the SAME as daily casualty figures of one or two a day and the limited periodic reports of “schools reopened” I think the US public backing of this war would be MUCH higher.

Now, since NPR has full discretion in how it reports the news, and they choose daily casualty reports and limited reports of the “good news”, since they get to choose their theme songs and the chose one in “key of C”, tweaked for greater ‘somberness’, then why not accept the judgment that our national news media is NOT behind the national foreign and defense policy?

I think we all need to consider this, seriously. And so I wrote my post. If you want to attack my veracity lets discuss this larger issue, not which show used which theme and for how long. Ok?

Since you're willing to help me out here, tell me, please, which liberal magazine, aside from The New Republic might be willing to hire a person like me to write hawkish foreign policy analysis.

Likely none of them.

You know that. You're targeting conservative outlets, not liberal ones.

That's the schtick.

Hawks writing hawkish pieces are a dime a dozen. Someone claiming to be a liberal writing hawkish screeds--- hey, that's novel. Thhe content really doesn't matter; it's the packaging that counts.

Dennis Rodman was a decent ballplayer, he had a good career. But he has a schtick and as his agent says, "Dennis can make more than a half million dollars each year by being Dennis."

Think Thomas Sowell, Michael. He writes some of the most tedious and utterly illogical tripe you could possibly hope to find. Even those who agree with his politics find Sowell painfully boring. Yet, he gets slurped up like cold beer on a hot day by conservatives because Sowell has a schtick.

Even those who agree with his politics find Sowell painfully boring. Yet, he gets slurped up like cold beer on a hot day by conservatives because Sowell has a schtick.

Hey Michael,

Any chance you'll be sitting down for a cold beer on a hot day with Jadegold in the near future?

buahaha!

Jadegold - I think the difference here is that Michael writes good stuff no matter what. If he WERE a Conservative, his hawkish articles would STILL be worth someone picking up. So, saying that he has a schtick is simply insulting, implying that if it werent for his exotic taste no one would like his flavor. I dont thin that is true.

Jadegold,

I want to write hawkish foreign policy articles because that's my point of view, and that's what interests me. So of course I tailor myself to people who are willing to pay me to do it. If you want to call that a schtick, fine, whatever, Jesus, but I'm not doing anything different than what any other aspiring professional writer does.

If that offends you then just change the damn channel. No one forces you to read my work.

Omigod! Clearly these guys want the US to lose too! What can we do about these guys?

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/casualties.asp

Sean reread your own postings. The theme that offends you, has been heard since Afghanistan, and is currently heard ONLY on totn. It may be a small nit to you, that a 1-2 hour show should not be equated with the rest of NPR, but to me your equating programming of less than 10% with the whole seems a bit over the top.

So your chief complaints are that NPR airs casualties (I see you've stepped back from the gloat and moved to "choose"), and NPR airs music that you dislike and therefore I should accept your "judgment that our national news media is NOT behind the national foreign and defense policy"

Thin gruel Sean. I don't think I'll accept your judgment. Thank you, no.

Anne, if all you can pick up from my posts is a that I am disgruntled with NPR for playing lousy music during their war coverage then I serioulsy dont know how to respond.

In probably every single post I have restated my actual point, which has little to do with the NPR theme, really.

That point being (for iteration no.134) that the general public in the US, the UK, and the West appears to be irresolute about the benefits, indeed the moral necessity of our own system of government, democracy and a focus on individual freedoms over the securities of a closed society.

This puts the ultimate outcome of this conflict on pretty weak legs.

And your cynical, nit picking, and negative response to my post merely proves my point.

Be wiser than other people if you can; but do not tell them so.

Both dreams and people crash down.

The best solution against abortions is education, not snipers.

Can we stop putting people into either a left or right box!
Im against capitalism
But Im not left or right
Im a indiviual making my own decisions,
not agreeing or disagree with everything one side says

we were born to used both our hands,
not just one

Imitation is the sincerest form of television.

We provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Online Levitra Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.one-levitra.com http://www.one-cialis.com http://www.one-levitra.com

Online Tramadol is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.top-tramadol.com!

Cheap Propecia http://www.one-propecia.com/ is a new and effective treatment for male pattern baldness. View Online Propecia News. It is a capsule taken by mouth vs. a cream. A net increase in scalp hair count and hair regrowth was seen in over 80% of men for whom it was prescribed. Buy Propecia Now!

Ultram Generic Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.top-fioricet.com !

Online Cialis Levitra Viagra has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003.Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy Cialis through various registered pharmacies. Also try levitra , buy levitra cheap levitra http://www.one-levitra.com/ http://www.one-cialis.com/levitra.htm/ or visit these sites for news and side effects : cheap cialis http://www.one-cialis.com/

Do you know the difference between a failed interview and an amazing interview? Do you want to be able to answer even the toughest, meanest, and most low-down interview questions that you could ever be possibly asked? Do you want to go though your interview with confidence? Do you want to feel prepared, impress the interviewer, and win the job interview of your dreams? We provide you with job interview tips, visit http://www.job-interview-questions-tips.com

Cheap Soma Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.top-soma.com.

Phentermine Online and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/

Online Xenical, Xenical is one of the most prescribed treatments for weight loss in the world. cheap Xenical is used with a reduced-calorie diet to help significantly overweight persons lose weight. It also helps to prevent regaining weight previously lost. Orlistat works by blocking some of the fat normally digested by the intestine. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com!

Online Skelaxin, skelaxin, 800 mg skelaxin, 800mg skelaxin,400mg skelaxin is used to treat the pain and stiffness of muscle injuries, including strains, sprains and muscle spasms. Cheap Xenical should not be used if you have ever had an allergic reaction to carisoprodol, meprobramate or tybamate. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com!

Online Ambien, ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is invaluable for your mental and physical well being. If you suffer from insomnia, you may want to look into cheap Ambien (zolpidem tartrate), the most prescribed sleep medication in the U.S. Buy Ambien Now or visit this site: http://www.i-ambien.com!

Phentermine Online, Phentermine and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.x-phentermine.com/, phentermine diet pill, phentermine sale, phentermine free shipping, cheapest phentermine!

Online Tramadol, Tramadol, Tramadol HCL is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Ultram Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.x-tramadol.com!

Cheap Soma Carisoprodol, Soma - Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma, Cheap Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.one-soma.com.

Ultram Generic Fioricet, Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.x-fioricet.com !

Online Flexeril, flexerilis used to treat the pain and stiffness of muscle injuries, including strains, sprains and muscle spasms.Buy Flexeril, Cheap Flexeril Now or visit this site: http://www.online-flexeril.com!

Online Wellbutrin, wellbutrin, wellbutrin XL, wellbutrin SR is prescribed for the treatment of depression, but it is not for everyone. If you take cheap WELLBUTRIN XL, there is a risk of seizure, which is increased in patients with certain medical problems or in patients taking