“Scheuer's views on Israel are not surprising given his politics. He is an old-fashioned Republican who scorns promoting democracy overseas.”

In other words, Michael Scheuer is the type of Republican who is hostile towards President Bush. He probably wanted John Kerry to move into the White House. Scheuer most likely is not the exception to the rule at the CIA concerning his attitude towards American Jews and Israel. Also, Michael Totten needs to ask the important question: why do reviewers rarely cite Scheuer's not so subtle anti-Semitism? What is the reason behind their callous indifference?

By the way, the Daily Kos is accusing Israel of murdering Rachel Corrie. Isn’t that a blog which is highly praised by leading Democrats like Howard Dean? Take a look for yourself:

“In March of 2003 Rachel Corrie was killed as she was trying to stop an Israeli soldier from demolishing a home. The bulldozer driver saw her, and deliberately ran over her. She was twenty-three years old. Just a few weeks later, an Israeli soldier firing from a sniper tower shot Tom Hurndall as he was trying to save some children who were under fire. After nine long months in what the doctors call a `vegetative state,' Tom died in mid January, 2004 just a day after his mother whispered in his ear that his murderer had finally been arrested. He was just twenty-two.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/17/34155/6383

Er, those facts aren't in dispute.

I suspect this assertion is: "The bulldozer driver saw her, and deliberately ran over her."

The lack of a free press in Palestine, suppressed by the Palestinian Authority and other Islamofascist death squaders, is the core Israeli-Palestinian problem.

Israel is a democracy, it has votes, it changes leaders through the ballot box. It has a press that criticizes its leaders, and its gov't policies -- a free press.

Arab gov'ts creating Fear societies must change. Maybe not all at once, nor all this year -- but all should get constant pressure. Bush is doing this; I hope it will "succeed".

It won't be bloodless, already isn't.
Kimmitt, like most Leftists and seemingly like bozo Scheuer, has problems acknowledging that a free press, and free elections, would be good.

Because, if they ARE good, they are worth something. How many innocents being killed is freedom worth? If any number greater than 0 is "indefensibly foul", then that's surrender. Unreal Perfection is not an option when fighting evil.
If it's greater than 0, I have yet to hear how many.

Michael, thanks for posting this information. 'Scheuer advocates a savage war against the civilian population of the Middle East because, in his crackpot mental universe, those pesky Zionists leave us no other option.' This is perhaps the most disturbing part, the idea of "creating blame". It's the same mentality as the leftists who want the Middle East to fall into chaos because they don't want Bush to look good.

"He’s a man who somehow, incredibly, managed to cobble together an ideology that incorporates talking points from the far-left goon squad at International ANSWER and the darkest fantasies of the right-wing lunatic fringe."

It is not that incredible, actually. If one thinks back to 2000, one can see that others with more "vision" saw the possibilities in this fusion-- hence the temporary alliance between Patrick Buchanan and Lenora Fulani.

But for many it is still hard to understand from a political philosophy perspective. Indeed, if one thinks of the cliched left-right continuum, with fascism on the far right, it would indeed be nonsensical for this sort of morphing and partnering to occur.

But if one takes the premise offered in the chapter on fascism of "Leftism Revisited" by Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin, namely that fascism is not on the right opposite communism but is on the left as a competitor for the same hearts and minds, then it not quite so hard to understand.

David Ramsey Steele also makes the same case in a wonderful essay, focusing more on Italy than Germany.

The real question is not how these groups are coming together now. Rather, it is how were the "paleos", who fit more comfortably on the far left, ever felt at home in the Republican party, and why they no longer do. The fact that as the Republican party has become more conservative these folks feel less at home is just more evidence that Steele and Kuehnelt-Leddihin were right.

For what it is worth,
Gerry

I thought the neocons were far right wing and this guy was a moderate? But I read Daily Kos on a daily basis and support Howard Dean (like a real liberal Democrat), so I don't know how twisted your mind has become.

Libs can't hold this whackjob out as an example of radical rightwing extremism because they agree with him. They think he makes a lot of sense.

The Republicans have their sane Democrat, Zell Miller. And the Dems have their Michael Scheuer.

I no longer will talk politics with someone until I find that they are reasonable people. The "nut" population has expanded tremendously. Just look at KOS, Atrios, LGF, The Washington Monthly and even Hit & Run. A reasonable person is immediately vilified and called dirty names if they post anything intelligent on those sites. Michael's site is kept reasonable by his educated, interesting tone and choice of subject matter.
Thanks Michael

Slightly OT, this was in a Washington Post piece today:

Adding fuel to the controversy is concern within the bank staff over Wolfowitz's reported romantic relationship with Shaha Riza, an Arab feminist who works as a communications adviser in the bank's Middle East and North Africa department.

Yes, Wolfowitz's girlfriend is an Arab feminist. Sort of blows all those "right-wing neocon Jewish cabal" theories out of the water, doesn't it?

Yes, Wolfowitz's girlfriend is an Arab feminist. Sort of blows all those "right-wing neocon Jewish cabal" theories out of the water, doesn't it?

Stephen,

not to mention he's a "racist".

I feel some sympathy for Scheuer. For a long time I too "didn't much care" about the lives of non-Americans. I figured it was their own issue. I don't get his anti-Israeli stance at all though. Having watched the Middle East stay a swamp for most of my life and having watched the Palestinians committ acts of terrorism and support terrorism in other places, it seemed to me their wasn't any moral equivalence between the democratic Israeili's and Yassir led Palestinians. It was also clear that the Arab/Persian leadership across the ME had an interest in promoting the conflict so as to keep their populations looking outward rather than inward.

Of course for me 9/11 changed all that and it became immediately clear that only two options existed. Bring democracy to the ME or kill too many to contemplate. W's rhetoric on this matter also shamed me. How could I not have believed "freedom is a gift of God to all mankind."

Too bad Scheuer hasn't leaned.

Oh, yeah,Natan Sharansky shamed me into learning too.

gene,

Your so right. The nuts are taking over. I used to read Kevin Drum regularly, but watched as its sinking into the DKOS look and feel. Note how Keven hasn't even mentioned the ME since things started going our way. Its all SS all the time.

Do people really want the US to fail?

Lastly I get tired of the constant discussions on the road to war. The decision was made by Congress and the President. We have now had 2 elections to hold people accountable if they didn't like the decision. Enough!!!

Thanks Michael!

I totally have to agree with you guys.

Let's see..Gene! How can you seriously compare LGF with Washington Monthly? All LGF tries to do is expose what the MSM tries to cover up: the real horrors of extremist Islam and the liberals who love them. What does Washington Monthly do? Spread lies about social security reform and try to convince people that it's not in a crisis. LGF's comments, which consist largely of calls to commit genocide, have nothing on Washington Monthly where people get vilified and called dirty names for disagreeing.

Buffpilot, to answer your question: yes!!! The liberals really want the US to fail!!! They hate freedom!!! Just like Liberty Dad, my dream is a world without dictators. Liberals are incapable of having that dream.

Think about it: almost one out of every two people in this country voted for Kerry. They could be anywhere - teaching your children, reading your electric meter, delivering your mail. They could look as ordinary as delicious, conservative apple pie - but their hearts are not filled with the simple joys of life, nor are they filled with the grand dreams of freedom. No, as they go about their lives, each of them secretly hates freedom and wants the US to fail.

Carlos: I love that we have a sane Democrat in the form of Zell Miller. Of course, there have been others, like Kennedy, who would have to be Republicans if they were running for office now. Basically, if anyone was good, they would be a Republican, and if they were bad, then a Democrat. But Miller! Don't you just love the way that he challenges people to duels? He's so tough! I'm glad that we have people like him on our side.

Freedom!

Proud Conservative,

Please post your real opinions or post elsewhere. I prefer to have a grown-up discussion here. If you were funny, well, that would be one thing. But you're not. Thanks.

Proud,

Zell lost his temper, as most humans do. But we're talking about moonbats and radical extremists. Got anything else?

MT,

I have drifted to your blog mostly because you have intelligent discussions - without the hyperbole. I can't take it on either side if the spectrum. Thanks.

I also loved the Libya trip and your pictures. (I sent the url of the pictures under dueling photo galleries to everyone I know - and they loved it!).

As for Scheur I hope he gets removed or leaves government and never returns. Sounds a little (ok a lot) unhinged...

Curious by all the praise for Imperial Hubris from left or liberal-left publications like The Nation (strong accolades from Robert Scheer), Salon, and bloggers like Joshua Micah Marshall (who was interviewing Scheuer extensively when he was still "Anonymous"), I did a quick browse of the book's index. One name seems to be missing from it:

Sayyid Qtub.

There is not a single mention anywhere in it of Sayyid Qtub.

The man whose book Milestones is generally recognized as the most influential work of theory for Islamic extremism. The man that Zawahiri was a disciple of, during his time in the Muslim Brotherhood. The man the bi-partisan 9/11 commission identifies as the primary intellectual lodestone behind Al Qaeda and groups affiliated with it. Scheuer purports to be an expert of militant Islamic extremism, and he has not one word to say about its essential founder. This is like a CIA analyst reporting on the Soviet Union, without once mentioning Karl Marx, or even Trotsky.

So there's that. Then there's this batty anti-Israel conspiracy theory of his. (I love his assertion about the Holocaust Memorial being built in Washington D.C. to make Americans feel guilty. What sort of man looks at a shrine of 6 million slaughtered in Europe-- and takes it as a personal affront?) This is the guy some folks on the liberal-left want on their side?

Michael,

The obligitory "excellent post", but well deserved. The convergence of the far left and far right has been occuring for some time now, and it is only a matter of time before they unite.

gene,

I disagree with your statement about Charles Johnson of LGF. I recently posted a disagreement about his take on a Spanish Islamic Group's Fatwa against al Qaeda and Osama. I emailed Charles to let him know. We had a frank discussion, and he said he understood my perspective and even partially agreed with it, but was just more pessimistic than me. He did not vilify me on his site for disagreeing. Charles serves a purpose to expose the stories that are passed over, as well as media bias. I do not like the tone of the comments section one bit and wish someone policed them (I have told Charles this). If anything this is his true failing.

What is really "covert" is the fact that more than a few people share Michael Scheuer's views in and around our foreign policy establishment. They just keep their mouths shut. In ostracizing him and advocating that he be banned from "working anywhere near government ever again", Andrew Apostolou and MJT do their little part to ensure that those who share some of Mr. Scheuer's views continue to hold them covertly.

RE: wolfowitz.

Notwithstanding his vile comment about the Turkish military prior to the Iraqi war, I always thought Wolfowitz was the most decent and idealistic of the neoconservatives. And I appreciate that chauvanism appears to play no role in how he expresses his faith and/or heritage. Case in point being his willingness to acknowledge Palestinian suffering at the rally for Israel on the nation's Capitol in 2002, for which he was loudly booed by thousands in attendence.

Maybe someday, he and his non-Jewish girlfriend --and other Israeli Jews in the same position as he -- will actually be allowed to get married in the state of Israel.

Mr. Totten,

I'm not sure what the problem is. I'm just saying some things that plenty of other brave conservative freedom warriors have also written in your comments section.

To wit:

A poster named Caroline responded to a liberal commenter: “You should be treated as what you are – potentially dangerous. Hitler thought the same thing.”

Freeguy wrote “The Left CANNOT ultimately be optimistic because they hate everything that makes humans so wonderful” and established the following dichotomies:
Right vs. Left.
Hope vs. Anger.
Peace vs. Violence.
Freedom vs. Slavery
Love vs Hate

Raymond wrote the following: “Leftist and their terror states that mass murdered 100+ Million people in the name of utopia have no love of democracy. Their fake talk about it is all a fraud. Its freedom that they hate.”

Kay Hoog wrote: “Add Benjamin to the long list of ven[o]mous naysayers on the left. He doesn't care about Democracy and Freedom in Lebanon or anywhere else. He doesn't want to see people liberated. He just wants to see the Bush administration fail. How childish and petty.”

Secret Asian Man wrote about liberals: “It's not just that they "don't care" about democracy - it's that they are actively opposed to it.”

Buffpilot asked two piercing questions: “Why do you hate freedom and stand with the tyrants?????????” and “Do you have any morals?”

I’m sure I could find a bunch more examples, but this should do for now. All I’m doing is agreeing with all my fellow conservative freedom lovers, doing our best to call out 50% of Americans for what they are - freedom haters and borderline traitors. Are you going after them, too? Because that’s sure what it seems like. And coming from someone that hasn’t made an ideological commitment to the party, well….let’s just say it’s a little suspicious and leave it at that.

Freedom!

I always thought Wolfowitz was the most decent and idealistic of the neoconservatives.

That's good to hear. I never would have guessed Wolfowitz had a decent bone in his body based on the poison the Left spews about him.

Maybe someday, he and his non-Jewish girlfriend --and other Israeli Jews in the same position as he -- will actually be allowed to get married in the state of Israel.

Come come now Markus. The people of Israel choose what kind of a country they want to live in. That's democracy. If you don't like it, don't live there. But you're being rather deceptive don't you think? Wolfie can indeed marry his Arab bride if they so choose. So don't lie. But they have to do it according to the laws prescribed by Israel.

Proud,

I don't consider it an incredible stretch of the imagination that many if not most Libs want democracy in Iraq to fail just so they can regain the White House. That's what people mean when they say you aren't for freedom.

If it isn't true, if they're wrong, then maybe you should ask yourselves why the Libs/Dems are viewed this way. You remind me of the muslims who refuse to condemn Osama, or are strangely silent about terrorism, yet are surprised that the majority views them with suspicion.

If it's not true, then do something about it, or say something that would let people know you aren't hoping for failure. But I think you are.

Speaking of fringe whack-jobs and troll-feeding, anyone catch today's AP puff piece on Ward Churchill?

I have issues with it.

Proud Conservative,

Parody is a time-honored corrective to the overzealous, and your critique does carry some force. I would, however, expect that your appreciation of the need for such correctives, if sincere, would also lead to you to appreciate the corrective MJT offers to the overzealous left.

But I appear to be amiss in that expectation.

Carlos -- "Wolfie can indeed marry his Arab bride if they so choose. So don't lie. But they have to do it according to the laws prescribed by Israel."

Thanks to the power of religious parties in Israel, there is no civil marriage in Israel. They would have to marry abroad, in America, Europe, or in some Arab country that allows intermarriage (like Iraq, hopefully).

http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/1232_civil_marriages.htm

Thanks to the power of religious parties in Israel, there is no civil marriage in Israel.

Markus,

they don't have to marry civilly. And Israel does allow intermarriage, but according to the laws of the Israeli Rabbinate. Muslim countries also have their own marriage laws. I know it's hard for you Libs, but stop picking on Israel.

Carlos -- I'll have to check on what sorts of intermarriage the Rabbinate allegedly allows. Any clarification would be appreciated.

And what the hell's wrong with "picking on Israel", specifically Israeli POLICY? Lots of Israelis, and lots of non-Israeli Jews, do it all the time. If Sharon pulls out of Gaza this summer, the criticism from some quarters of American Jewry will be loud indeed.

Markus,

I consider it "picking on Israel" when they're singled out for criticism. Nobody's picking on Arab countries because they're muslim states, yet Israel is somehow beneath contempt because they are a jewish state? Give me a break.

It's anti-semitic, AND racist against Arabs--you Libs wouldn't dream of holding the little brown folks to the standards you hold enlightened white Israelis to.

Jewry - there's a word I haven't heard in a while.

Keep talking, markus. Keep talking.

Who liked this book? Who is his audience? Here's a review of Michael Sheuer's book by someone who thought it was fabulous - Justin Raimondo, a Libertarian (supposedly) contributor to the antiwar.com website. For example: "Imperial Hubris is studded with analytical gems, phrased in colorful prose: it sparkles with wit, as well as wisdom, but all in the service of a serious and even solemn task: to provide a radical corrective to the hypocritical cant and political 'spin' that has distorted and undermined any meaningful effort to defeat al-Qaeda and the very real threat posed by the emerging global insurgency it represents." - and Israel is to blame for everything. But then Justin also thinks that Christopher Hitchens is a fascist: "The neoconservative movement represents the quintessence of fascism, as expressed by some of its intellectual spokesmen, such as Christopher Hitchens, who infamously hailed the Afghan war as having succeeded in 'bombing a country back out of the Stone Age.'"

How in the world did Sheuer end up in charge of searching for Bin Laden? It seems to me that Sheuer really didn't want to find him. Sad.

Nobody's picking on Arab countries because they're muslim states, yet Israel is somehow beneath contempt because they are a jewish state?

Er, we don't send most Arab countries about $4 billion a year in subsidies. Perhaps the idea is to point out the absurdity of the "Israel = peace and light" policy.

In addition, no one is picking on Israel for being a Jewish state. What they're pointing out is that Israel is institutionally intolerant to a really ridiculous degree. The religion behind the intolerance is pretty much irrelevant.

Finally, most Arab countries, being as they are run by despots and theocrats, are awful places to try to make a life. If you'd like, I could include this paragraph of disclaimer on every post I make in which I engage in my democratic right to criticize Israeli policy.

"Jewry - there's a word I haven't heard in a while.

Keep talking, markus. Keep talking."

Markus doesn't deserve such dark insinuations, especially when they are based on your own evident ignorance of the subject at hand. The term "Jewry" is widely used among those concerned with Jewish history from across the political spectrum.

Is Scheuer a CFR member? Are you, Michael? Is Andrew Apostolou? It is a rule at the Council on Foreign Relations that one may not write about what any member says at one of its meetings!

I wonder how Scheuer chose his protegés at the CIA, and what they are doing at The Agency today.

Kimmitt,

But doesn't Carlos have a point about the inherent racism in the double-standard in which we are to judge Israel by our own while multi-culturally "appreciating difference" in Muslim cultures?

I retract my insinuation.

FWIW, Sheuer has a response to Apostolou up at TCS today, here.

Er, we don't send most Arab countries about $4 billion a year in subsidies.

How come you didn't bring up Egypt's aid? Here's why: PICKING ON ISRAEL, that's why.

And I couldn't care less if we sent Israel 500 billion instead of 3 billion. We don't send them aid to turn them into a little America. We send them aid to further our geo-political goals, just like when we send Egypt money. Go pick on them.

Perhaps the idea is to point out the absurdity of the "Israel = peace and light" policy.

I don't believe in furthering "peace". I believe in furthering democracy and self-determination.

Israel=democracy.

In addition, no one is picking on Israel for being a Jewish state.

I didn't say you, Kimmitt, were. But the Left often does. I've had this argument with them on numerous times. Markus's objections to Israeli marriage laws stems from his disgust for the Jewish state.

What they're pointing out is that Israel is institutionally intolerant to a really ridiculous degree.

PICKING ON ISRAEL. Go bother the Egyptians for the next 20 years and maybe you'll regain some credibility. If Israel were so bad, Arabs would be leaving, not trying to get in. It reminds me of knee-jerk Leftist criticism against the U.S. We're racist and evil, but half the world is trying to come here.

The religion behind the intolerance is pretty much irrelevant.

Says you. But the Jewish state is far more tolerant than any muslim state. In Pakistan they'll hang you for "blashpheming" Mohammed. How "tolerant". Go pick on them.

Finally, most Arab countries, being as they are run by despots and theocrats, are awful places to try to make a life.

True. Then why is it that you seem so content with it. Go pick on them.

If you'd like, I could include this paragraph of disclaimer on every post I make in which I engage in my democratic right to criticize Israeli policy.

You wouldn't need disclaimers at all if you weren't so obsessive about Israel. Given that Arab countries provide so much material, go pick on them for a change.

Carlos is right! So long as there are Muslim states that do bad things, criticism of anyone else (except the French) is off limits. No matter what they do, no criticism. In fact, criticism of anyone else is, as far as I can tell, treason. Wait, no, racism.

Freedom!

Well, barring the food fight currently going on in the comments section, I think this is a good article.

It appears to me, that all sects in the political spectrum have their nutjobs. In fact, I would hazard that the visibility of Leftists right now, may be more a product of current politics (and the disconnect the left precieves) than an overwhelming ratio of nutjobs.

My question is, if attending the DNC makes the Democrats "guilty by assoication" with Michael Moore-on... does having a key role in the War On Terror, in fact leading the hunt for our main enemy in the fight... make the administraton guilty by association?

As someone who actually flew over Afghanistan I promise you my crew and I did not "bomb it back to the stone age." It was definitely already there.

I think a lot of the angst on Israel is that there seems to be a lot of morale equivalency by the left between the Palestinians/Islamic countries and Israel. IMHO there is no morale equivalency between a free democracy and the terrorists/dictatorships that surround Israel and wish her destruction. To compare the IDF with the terrorists is a stretch that in my opinion is unconscionable. That's the gist of the problem.

"Do people really want the US to fail?"

People like Kevin Drum do not consciously want the United States to fail. But (and I’m pretending to be an amateur psychoanalyst on this matter) in their heart of hearts they can't stand it when George W. Bush gets any credit whatsoever. They realize that it may be a long time before they reacquire power and influence. The “blue staters” are on the outside looking in---and this may not change for decades. I am convinced that the national Democratics are already marginalized. The real debates, such as regarding the cultural issues, will take place within the Republican Party.

I have long argued that a not so subtle anti-Semitism is rampant in the Democratic Party. Michael Totten has rightfully questioned my evidence. And once again, I am going to ask loud and clearly: why do the polling organizations seemingly ignore this issue? Is it because they are mostly Democrats, and afraid what they might find out? Let the research begin!

Proud,

sarcasm just doesn't work, especially lame sarcasm. Retool and start again.

MT,

Any pictures from the latest Freedom demonstrations in Lebanon?

Proud - what Carlos said...

Carlos, what sarcasm? I was agreeing with you. I don't think that it is possible to be critical of anything that Israel does when they can hang you for blasphemy in Pakistan? I mean, being critical of X even though Y is worse...how does that work again?

Why, that would be like criticizing Bush, when Saddam Hussein used to gas his own people. That's like criticizing American troops for torturing prisoners, when Zarqawi is cutting off people's heads. And hey, so long as we're better than the terrorists, we're above reproach, am I right, Carlos?

Freedom!

I haven't read Michael Scheuer's book, but I did read a review and I thought the book had more arguments and more thrust than that the US is Israel's puppet.

Guess I should read the book first? Perhaps we all should?

Michael,

The liberals really want the US to fail!!! They hate freedom!!!

I'm guessing this is what set you off on Proud...

And I may be a closet liberal waiting for the right message/platform to come out. Until then, I will vote for people like GWB who have the basics of foreign policy right. I cite that draining the swamp and cultivating it vs. paving it over were the two main options we faced after 9/11. Bush chose wisely, while Kerry imitated an ostrich.

Anyway, it got me thinking, Proud is obviously bipolar - everyone who didn't vote for GWB is not some demonic socialist/communist that sacrifices goats weekly in the hope that the capitalist, imperialist Amerikkka will be brought down.

But at the same time you can't deny that a large contingent embodied or programmed by the media have taken some very weak positions in opposition to any bold strokes in the war on terror(Islamofacism). In fact, they have taken them reflexively, having no apparent hesitation or doubt that they were right.

Why?

I was listening to NPR today at lunch and heard an interesting interview with a ex-nun (Karen Armsrong author of A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and others).

What most intrigued me was her recalling of the progamming of guilt and shame she underwent as part of the dogma. Essentially being made to feel that her small sins were a reason for Christ's crucifixion.

This may be a jump, but my hypothesis for some time has been that some segment of American/any society is more susceptible to shaming and will be prone to swallowing self-hate messages such as MM sends in F911. I don't think this segment coincides neatly or even roughly with any political group we see discussed here.

Out of time, got to work, but I would like to see this discussed more.

Instead of villifying those who seem to take the 'other' side, maybe we need to treat the neurosis.

Finally, this may tie in with the obviously stupid arguments of the 'far right' in that instead of wanting to roll over and not defend themselves want to destroy indiscriminately, but I'm not sure how just yet. Just trying to integrate Clint Eastwood's statement about the far right meeting the far left at the fringe.

Carlos, Ged, Kimmett, others:

I agree that Israel should not be singled out for criticism, and I'll be glad to argue with any leftist or rightist or whomever who begs to differ. And I think Ged has a point about the "inherent racism" of different standards.

I'm one of those strange liberals who believes we should judege all countries by our higher western standards.

Religious groups should be allowed to live according to their own strictures, while laws or other coercive acts that allow them to impose those strictures on others should be opposed. That means veils or headdresses ought to be optional in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and France; while a Jewish guy should be able to marry a Christian or a Muslim woman in Jerusalem.

I'm one of those strange liberals who believes we should judege all countries by our higher western standards.

Me too, and we should have particularly high standards for those we choose to call our allies.

Michael, good post and a good, if heated, discussion. Friends, seems to me that we need some perspective. Israel is surely not without sins...the reasonable amongst us know this. It has had its own battles with its own religious extremists and lost enough times to really set back the cause of peace in the ME. That said, for those of you who tend to always cast Israel in the role of the devil in your morality play, I offer this:

Every morning, you hug and kiss your child(ren) goodbye, knowing that at any moment during their day away from you that it could be their last. A suicide bomber could take them out at any time. To say the least, such a state of affairs might...just might...cause you to become a bit, shall we say, harsh, in how you deal with the society from which these terrorists/suicide bombers spring. NONE OF US has the right to judge Israel building a wall when this state of affairs confronts Jewish parents every morning. There clearly is NO moral equivalence between suicide bombings/terrorist attacks on civilian populations and building a wall to keep those perpetrators out. This moral obtuseness on the Left is something I have never been able to understand. Perhaps our left-leaning contributors could help me understand.

markus -
I want to go beyond "retracting my insinuation" and personally apologize.

I agree with your sentiments re: religious liberty. I would like it if all countries were pluralistic.

My knee jerks a little too quickly these days. Again, apologies. You are not just another joo-hata and I should think twice before lashing out.

knemon -- no problem at all. Your apology is exemplary.

Hugs, anyone?

(((())))
big e-hugs.
Yuck. That's the first and hopefully last time I'll ever use the e-sign for hugs.

Now let's get back to FIGHTING LIKE SCORPIONS IN A BOTTLE!!!!!

(star trek fight music)

"I'm one of those strange liberals who believes we should judge all countries by our higher western standards."

Who gets to define "higher western standard"? There are a number of western countries which don't have habeas corpus protection, there are others which don't think proscribing certain types of speech is a bad thing and yet others which proscribe certain types of press activity.

Who is to say that the acts of a freely and duly elected assembly charged with establishing the rules of allowable conduct within its society can be effectively judged as "higher" or "lower" by someone not in possession of all pertinent information regarding that society?

I'm rather surprised that you (and Kimmit) set yourselves as judges of comparative standards. Which country in the west possesses the attributes that hew most closely to your ideal of governance?

Who gets to define "higher western standard"?

I do. And you or anyone else gets to disagree, and explain why.

"Who is to say that the acts of a freely and duly elected assembly charged with establishing the rules of allowable conduct within its society can be effectively judged as "higher" or "lower" by someone not in possession of all pertinent information regarding that society?"

I say certain very basic, minimal standards are universally applicable. For instance, death by stoning is OUT, no matter what the freely elected assembly says.

"Which country in the west possesses the attributes that hew most closely to your ideal of governance?"

The United States of America. Although it could be improved in some ways, as well.

Carlos,

"PICKING ON ISRAEL. Go bother the Egyptians for the next 20 years and maybe you'll regain some credibility."

It seems as if you are saying that because certain other people ('the left,' a group of people you appear to lump markus in with) have criticed Israel but where not equal (at least not vocally) in their criticism of nearby Arab states that thier complaints lack 'credibility'.

This is the idolitarian trap. You'll know you've fallen into it when you cannot acknowledge a legitimate criticism of those who's 'side' you concider yourself to be on; for fear that any acknowledgement of fault will support the position of the guys on the 'other side.'

while a Jewish guy should be able to marry a Christian or a Muslim woman in Jerusalem.

Markus,

a christian CAN marry a muslim woman in Jerusalem. Stop propagating lies.

If you object to certain aspects of Israeli family law, please be more specific.

Carlos -- back up what you say instead of calling me a liar: how does a Muslim marry a Jew in Jerusalem?

"I'm one of those strange liberals who believes we should judge all countries by our higher western standards."

Or was this supposed to read, "I'm one of those strange westerners who believes we should judge all countries by our higher liberal standards."

This is the idolitarian trap. You'll know you've fallen into it when you cannot acknowledge a legitimate criticism of those who's 'side' you concider yourself to be on; for fear that any acknowledgement of fault will support the position of the guys on the 'other side.

I don't know what "idolitarian" means. But I know what an idiotarian is. I'm well acquainted with them.

Not really re your "trap". There's plenty wrong with Israel, to be sure, and their plenty more wrong with its Arab neighbors. And? The point? I'm less concerned with the flaws of a democracy than I am with those of a dictatorship. Why? Because in a democracy the citizens have the power to change it, and if they don't, that's their choice. In a dictatorship (see all Arab countries except Iraq), the citizenry is powerless to change it. They are helpless hostages in their own country. Do Libs care? No. Their criteria is that we give aid to Israel, and THAT's why they're "concerned." Do you see how warped that is? To be more concerned about a democracy, where the citizenry has chosen, but not concerned with surrounding dictatorships where the citizens are essentially hostages. Welcome to the backward upside down world of the Liberal.

And if their criticism was not exclusive to Israel, but was also directed at other equal or worse transgressors, then the criticism might make an impact. As it is, who really cares what a moonbat thinks of Israeli family law when said moonbat doesn't even believe in the legitimacy of the Jewish state? Such criticism is taken for what it is, disingenous rubbish.

Let the Israelis decide what kind of state they live in. If they have the will to remove the settlers, then they have the will to change Israeli family law if they so choose.

and ps., Markus, I don't consider you a moonbat.

Semm: "It seems as if you are saying that because certain other people ('the left,' a group of people you appear to lump markus in with) have criticed Israel but where not equal (at least not vocally) in their criticism of nearby Arab states that thier complaints lack 'credibility'"

At what point does the overwhelming one-sidedness of the criticism begin to trump credibility and suggest a deeper malevolence towards the target?

"U.N.’S VOTING HISTORY AGAINST ISRAEL" (article dated 7/11/02) at christianactionforisrael.org.

Security Council: 175 total resolutions –– 74 neutral; 4 against perceived interests of Arab state or entity, 97 against Israel.

General Assembly: Cumulative number of votes cast with or for Israel: 7,938 - Against Israel: 55,642. Since it first convened in 1946, at least one Arab state sat on the 9 country Security Council in 39 of its first 43 years. Israel never sat on the Security Council. [In June 2002 Syria who is still listed on the U.S. State Department as a Terrorist State, was voted in as Head of the Security Council.] The Security Council "condemned", "censured", "deplored", "strongly deplored", etc. Israel 49 times; the Arabs: Zero. The Security Council passed 131 Resolutions: 43 or 33% were neutral; 88 criticized or opposed or judged against Israel. Zero critical of Arab state, body or the PLO (founded by the Arab League in 1964).

The General Assembly passed 429 Resolutions against Israel’’s desires (62%); only 56 against Arab desires (8%). the General Assembly "condemned", "vigorously condemned", "strongly condemned", "deplored", "strongly deplored", censured"", "denounced" Israel 321 times –– the Arabs Zero condemnations. (1) This record demonstrates the extreme bias of this body of nations and their unremitting efforts to assist the Arab nations in eliminating Israel."

UN planned state of Israel as a still-birth

IMHO - the idea that Scheur puts forth - and that seems to be fairly widely accepted - that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is at the root of terrorism (the bin Laden grievance school), essentially represents a kind of "final solution" thinking. If you read alot of what is written in the Israeli press these days (christianactionforisrael.org is a great clearing house of information) - alot of Israeli's feel that is precisely where things are heading.

Carlos -- back up what you say instead of calling me a liar: how does a Muslim marry a Jew in Jerusalem?

Markus,

I didn't call you a liar. I said you were propagating lies.

Currently the Orthodox Jewish religious authorities have exclusive control over Jewish marriages, divorces, and most burials. Many Israelis object to this control, and it's currently the source of serious controversy. But nowhere is there a law prohibiting a jew from marrying an Arab. If there is, show it to me.

"I say certain very basic, minimal standards are universally applicable."

I wouldn't have thought of you as a proponent of natural law, Markus. So, which very basic minimal standard does Israel fail to meet?

I never said there was a state law prohibiting intermarriage in Israel. I said there was no civil marriage. That being the case, I would appreciate if you or someone else explained any other way that a Jew can marry a non-Jew.

And you are correct that many Israelis object to the control of the Orthodox Jewish religious authorities over this and other aspects of ISRAELI, not just Jewish, life. I support these opponents of Jewish fundamentalism, for the same reason I support those who oppose fundamentalism in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Kansas...

And while I don't equate each of these fundamentalisms, I do view them each with the contempt I believe they deserve -- not for believing what they believe in, but for attempting to impose those beliefs on others.

Rick Ballard --
Synagogue and state are insufficiently seperated in Israel. It should be a state for Jews, rather than a Jewish state.

See this editorial on Sharon cabinet's decision in 2002 to deny Israeli Arabs the right to buy land in most of Israel. The cabinet reversed itself a few days later in response to opposition:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0716/p08s02-comv.html

Yes, there is a debate going on in Israel about this, and I take sides myself in the matter.

Hope you don't mind.

Additional random thoughts about MJT's essay and the article cited.

I get the impression that the CIA and State Department are closely linked (and at odds with the Pentagon). The article I cited above (UN planned state of Israel as a still-birth) refers to the US State Dept as "Arabist". It seems fairly obvious that Scheur is an Arabist in this sense (it probably stems from a professional lifetime spent within certain ideological circles).

In my random readings of Tony at Across the Bay (beirut2bayside.blogspot) and his exchanges with Josh at Syria Comment over the recent events in the ME - I notice that he is trying to move the debate away from "Arabism" in order to forge a new ME identity - and that he specifically links (outdated) Arabism with this notion that Israel is the core of the problem. I have read with interest some of his rather frustrated comments to Josh that Josh is buying into the Arabist line that Israel is the source of the problem.

Like I've said before - I'm no historian (understatement of the year :-)) and hence I'm rather ignorant about "Arabism" and how it links up with anti-Israeli sentiment. But the recent events in the ME, in asmuch as they might be moving the region beyond "Arabism" (the Arab street - i.e. the human "pavement" :-) proving to be a little more complex than we could have known until recent events, with some crumbling of "fear" societies - hiya Tom :-)) - might be a positive signal for Israel. But then - that would make Scheur something of an old-school dinasaur.

"Scheuer advocates a savage war against the civilian population of the Middle East because, in his crackpot mental universe, those pesky Zionists leave us no other option. He goes so far over the top I can't help but wonder if he's looking for an excuse to indulge atrocity fantasies."

I'm not sure whether you mean that he is indulging in atrocity fantasies towards Muslims? Because actually I read it the opposite way. It strikes me more as an incitement for Muslims to commit atrocities against Jews (take care of the problem as it were) in order to eliminate what he implies is otherwise the inevitable - which is us wiping the Muslims out. If that reading is correct, it makes it rather doubly sh**tty. Of course, as I haven't read the book this is quite an inferential leap from a limited slice of information.

My own comment" It seems fairly obvious that Scheur is an Arabist in this sense (it probably stems from a professional lifetime spent within certain ideological circles)."

Oops - I missed that that point was explicitly made in the article:

"While Scheuer's views on the Middle East are unpleasant, they are not far from the orthodoxy among retired diplomats. The view of the superannuated foreign service mainstream is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the core issue in the Middle East and that the stumbling block to a settlement is Israeli policy rather than Palestinian terrorism."

That seems to imply an historically close relationship between the State Dept and the CIA.
Again - I would note that the article I linked to above refers to "the Arabist U.S. State Department, representing the Arab oil nations and U.S./multi-national oil corporations".

So - if the US/multinational oil corporations entrenched at state have been complicit in this obvious anti-Israeli UN history - why isn't the political left defending Israel? It seems to me that the only reason the US is barely hanging on in doing so is because it is actually the right and moral thing to do. The multinational oil companies would obviously have more at stake in defending the Arab cause here. I would think true liberals would come strongly to the defense of Israel. What is wrong with this picture? As Carlos so frequently points out it must be the brown/white thing. The left SEEMS (e-prime!) to champion the 3rd world POV no matter the driving forces behind that perspective.

Caroline,

Hate to hijack the discussion further off-topic, but I'd like to respond to you.

"At what point does the overwhelming one-sidedness of the criticism begin to trump credibility and suggest a deeper malevolence towards the target?"

To my knowledge no one here speaks for anyone but themseleves. Then, for Carlos's objection 'go pick on someone else' to be even remoely appropriate you would have to show 'overwhelming one-sidedness' on the part of Markus, not some nebulous group you lump him in with.

I guess i just don't see the use in pretending that our discussions here can somehow 'balance out' the unfairness towards Irael in the press, the UN ect... by ignoring (or question the credibility of those making) criticisms which we might agree would be legitimate in a vaccuum.

You're behind the times, Michael, I wrote about Scheuer last month. And my hat tip was Andrew Sullivan.

Funny Semm - I thought other posters were hijacking the discussion and essentially losing sight of the forest for the trees in focusing on some cultural inequalities within Israeli society re marriage. I happen to agree with Carlos' basic point - "go pick on someone else" - as regards to the original sentiment expressed.

"At what point does the overwhelming one-sidedness of the criticism begin to trump credibility and suggest a deeper malevolence towards the target?"

That was my original question. Perhaps you somewhat agree with the sentiment when you imply that there is no use in "pretending that our discussions here can somehow 'balance out' the unfairness towards Irael in the press, the UN ect.."

So why does the left insist on taking the discussion down to the most miniscule criticism of Israel's faults, thereby losing sight of the forest for the trees? Is Israel easier or safer to pick on or something? I know for a fact from a family member that it's rather easy to travel there, monitor the checkpoints, interfere with IDF forces and so on, and still be fairly confident of living to tell about it so that one can give public talks and drag Rachel Corrie's parents around to various venues, and in short - establish leftist "street cred" - pretty much at the Israeli's expense. I wish some leftist would try that in Chechnya for a change.

“You're behind the times, Michael, I wrote about Scheuer last month. And my hat tip was Andrew Sullivan.”

The main thing is that both Michel Totten and yourself are the exceptions to the general rule. Most reviews of Michael Scheuer’s book ignore his not so subtle anti-Semitism. Why is this occurring? Isn’t this the real story?

MJT,

Have you seen this article on Scheuer?

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=11903046_1

Not surprising that they are not too high on Scheuer either. Guess its also not surprising that they fail to mention his party affiliation. Not that I imagine he's too buddy-buddy with Porter Goss, or anything.

Markus,

I certainly don't mind. Interesting to contrast the rescinded Israeli cabinet action with the unrescinded PA fatwa calling for death to any Arab selling land to Jews.

I take sides too, I'll always be found across the line from the murderous thugs who make up the PA. And across the line from State & CIA apologists cashing Saudi checks and spouting the Arabist line. Say, I wonder if Joe Wilson collaborated on Scheur's book? Maybe Valerie gave him some help? Strictly undercover, of course.

Knemon,

"Now let's get back to FIGHTING LIKE SCORPIONS IN A BOTTLE!!!!!"

ROFL!

Glad you took my post the right way - I think Markus is the best thing this comment section has going for it. When will we see MarkusBlog?

Why? Because we disagree and can actually have arguments like adults. Look forward to your contributions too.

"This may be a jump, but my hypothesis for some time has been that some segment of American/any society is more susceptible to shaming and will be prone to swallowing self-hate messages such as MM sends in F911. I don't think this segment coincides neatly or even roughly with any political group we see discussed here."

Wow, I was thinking the same thing. The Progressive tradition itself has strong evangelical roots, and as we all know, those horrid evangelicals are not shy about use (and abuse) of shame. As long as the Gospel is there to release the shame (the momentum thus generated can do a great deal of good), this is not much of a problem. If one keeps the shame, but loses the Gospel (or other atonement methods, regarding which any Rabbis here could speak more authoritatively than I), you've got trouble.

My (very tentative) theory is that the pressure is too much, and a scapegoat is sought out that plausibly can be labeled as "self", so it still feels like the required self-reflection, while sparing the true self the crushing guilt that would ensue (given the lack of release/atonement mechanism). So "America/Western Culture" can be mercilessly (literally) denigrated, without the referrent of the denigration including the inquisitor, despite their American/Western citizenship, as they could also be considered part of the solution, not the problem.

Of course, one of the strengths of Western culture is the space it creates for self-criticism, so it is with some caution that I advance this theory, as it could be abused to squelch that very criticism we so dearly need.

Rick Ballard: "And across the line from State & CIA apologists cashing Saudi checks and spouting the Arabist line"

Man - it was an inside joke all along and I didn't know it. Frankly - in my personal life I suck at gossip and am always the last one in the office to find out the dirt (admittedly that's largely my own fault for not caring all that much so I can't complain). But Rick - forgive my naivete - but is there some general concensus that State and CIA have long been selling out Israel for Saudi checks? Cause frankly that does on the surface appear to be the general state of affairs and would certainly explain a whole lot of history. Yeah - I admit it - this is a very naive question, albeit it, one tinged with a bit of horror? disbelief? I'm not sure what the appropriate reaction should be. But once again - it does raise for me the basic question - why hasn't the left been sticking up for Israel all these years given the apparently nefarious forces aligned against it?

Ged -- I have tossed around the MarkusBlog idea, and I appreciate your encouragement.

If I did it, folks would have to listen to me mouth off about music and unpopular culture, too.

Actually, I don't spend much time in the comment section of other blogs. Is thoughtful liberal vs. conservative debate really that rare in the blog world?

Ged,

I'm not sure that the common language used fulfills either explanation. Typically the tenses used indicate (to me anyway) that the speaker/writer inhabits a "real" country that consists of whatever idyllic state he has imagined while the "opposition" inhabits a smoke filled Gehenna that hides the speaker/writer's "real" country.

I don't think that you can substitute an expiatory explanation for a language form that clearly (IMO) espouses the current realization of a Hegelian "end of history" viewpoint. In other words, paradise has arrived and the speaker/writer's opposition's biggest failure is a lack of ability to recognize it (the incredibly stupid but wily and cunning Chimpy McHitliburton). I see/read a lot more anger and frustration than guilt. The world just isn't conforming to their pomo professor's promises.

Surely, a matter to cause consternation, were it not so humorous. A real pity that they can't get a refund on their tuition.

(definitely not aimed at Markus, who did get his money's worth)

Ged - re your 5:48 post - this is the best article I've read in quite some time explaining the pathology of the American left, especially as it relates to guilt and emotion in general - and he locates the problem in Christinity. I would expect that both conservative and liberal Christians would find somthing of interest in it.

Warning though - it's about 50 printed pages long:

Robert Kocher

Caroline,

Here is a list of Middle East Institute experts. Twenty-two names, fourteen of the people name worked for the US State Department or other agencies. Lots of ex-ambassadors (Joe Wilson used to be listed - he must have found a better gig). This is one of a rather large number of "think tanks" which receive a fair amount of funding from ME sources.

State people have been cashing Saudi checks for fifty years. It's almost part of their defined benefit plan upon retirement (if they worked the ME desk at a high enough level). It's not illegal and it really is well known. Both parties - all the time.

"Actually, I don't spend much time in the comment section of other blogs. Is thoughtful liberal vs. conservative debate really that rare in the blog world?"

So far. But we're just getting started.

;-)

As my sporadic appearances here might indicate, RL often prevents me from participating in blog comment dialogue, so I'm no expert.

My efforts to engage left blogs have, without exception, resulted in having posts deleted/being labelled a troll/being smothered under a heaping pile of abuse, so haven't had much luck there. Drum/Marshall and friends have really encouraged a bunker mentality, as if the blogosphere is one big pissing contest, and they are world-class pissers, I'll give them that.

What gets me is that they have the potential to be so much more - wish I knew how to awaken it. Right blogs (and mislabeled right blogs like Drezner, to me the real liberals) tend to be more free-wheeling, but certainly not piss-free themselves.

The only diretion to go from here is up.

"I'm not sure that the common language used fulfills either explanation. Typically the tenses used indicate (to me anyway) that the speaker/writer inhabits a "real" country that consists of whatever idyllic state he has imagined while the "opposition" inhabits a smoke filled Gehenna that hides the speaker/writer's "real" country."

This doesn't explain the widespread use of the "royal we" - the ceaseless lists of atrocities that "we" have perpetrated, where the "we" is clearly the West, but doesn't clearly include or exclude the speaker.

My claim is that when the speaker wants to feel self-critical, and thus authentic, the "we" does include the speaker, but the typical amendment that follows true self-criticism does not then take place, because despite saying "we", the speaker denies responsibility. Not in my name.

Caroline,

Thank you for (the at times difficult) Kocher article. Kocher is a great illustriation of where our current academy could improve. He is obviously brilliant, and just as oviously needs engagement with the intellectual marketplace to hone his craft. And I should know.

;-)

Pot kettle. Kettle, pot. And all that.

My guess is that he was run out on the basis of his views, and that it was not even close.

The marketplace's loss.

Ged,

Good point. I suppose that I was thinking more of the "not in our name" which I interpret as "we the enlightened" - of course "not in our name" could be simple schizophrenia.

If Kimmitt had bothered to check before cracking that 4 billion a year comment, he might have found this: www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/98-916.pdf, out of which these numbers came:

In 1994, according to the State Dept, the top foreign aid recipents were:
Israel, 3 billion
Egypt, 2.13 billion
Russia, 1.41 billion
India, 160 million
Ukraine, 160 million
Ethiopia, 150 million
Peru, 140 million
Turkey, 120 million
Bangladesh, 110 million
Kazakstan, 110 million
Boliva 100 million
Haiti, 90 million
Armenia, 90 million
Bosnia, 90 million
South Africa, 90 million

Now in 2004, the top aid recipients were:
Iraq, 18.44 billion (yes, that's right)
Israel, 2.62 billion
Egypt, 1.87 billion
Afghanistan, 1.77 billion
Colombia, 570 million
Jordan, 560 million
Pakistan, 390 million
Liberia, 210 million
Peru, 170 million
Ethiopia, 160 million
Bolivia, 150 million
Turkey, 150 million
Uganda, 140 million
Sudan, 140 million
Indonesia, 130 million
Kenya, 130 million

While in an ordinal fashion, it was true that Israel received the most aid in 1994, it was 3 billion, not 4, and Egypt received over 2 billion. (interesting the countries there in 1994)

in 2004, its a bit different. Over 18 billion has gone Iraq, (and that's not including the cost of the war, which might be factored in, seeing that the war made it possible to actually give aid to Iraq.) And seeing how much is going to Afghanistan, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, Sudan (Sudan? WTF?) and Indonesia, the split between what's being given to Jews and given to Muslims might be seen in an ever so slightly different light.

"Is Israel easier or safer to pick on or something?"

Yup. Jews aren't into the whole "fatwa" thing.

Ged - I think you've hit something important here. I've had thoughts along similar lines.

My fellow Berkeleyans are always telling me not to demonize the "other" - with the implication that it takes more courage to criticize one's own. I think this is bullshit.

Why? Well, they focus all their criticism internally - on the "west" rather than you-know-who - but isn't that really just setting up a new "other" to demonize? Instead of them furriners, they hate the Chimpy McRedstaters ... or rather, their caricature of them.

This is just another way of saying what you said -but it's eerie to see thoughts so similar to my own.

Glad you liked my call for a SCORPIONIC throw-down.

Bringing up civil marriages in Israel in a geopolitical discussion is silly and irrelevant. Why not talk about gay marriage in the U.S.? It is equally germane. The marriages of those who are not halachically Jewish are recognized in Israel, they just have to go overseas to get married. Many Israelis go to Cyprus, even if they could be married in Israel, because of hatred for the religious institutions. It is an internal, almost administrative issue with a small impact on the civil liberties of Israelis. It is not one of the Nuremberg Laws, and should be of little interest to a non-Israeli unless you are a legal studies scholar.

Focusing on this minute,local issue in such a way reinforces the image of Israel as a pathologically racist violator of human rights (which it is not). It plays into the hands of the worst anti-Israel propogandists. Israel has been subject for so long to so much hateful, unbalanced, and untruthful propoganda, that good faith critics of Israel should take it into account, and be careful that they won't be lumped into the same category.

The Left is engaged in a Moral Superiority "war" -- they NEED to feel, not necessarily think, that their position is Morally Superior.

Recall Kimmit's (prior thread) "indefensible foulness" of actions "we" have done -- we the Christian West. Which he includes himself in, to gain the Christian Civ Western credit for supporting human rights, but considers himself superior to those unwilling to criticize it (in the way he does).

Why is it a lie? Because our Ally, Joe Stalin, ordered the inhumane execution of thousands of Polish officers at Katyn, and a couple other mass graves. In WW II "we" did, in fact, commit foul crimes. But they are defensible, as lesser evils always are, by comparison to the greater evil we fought.

If these evils were "indefensible", it would require one to be willing to stop the alliance (or vote against the President who continues the alliance); and, if the result is losing the war, to accept losing the war and give up responsibility for the result. (Killing Fields, yada yada)

The Left has in their mind an Unreal Perfection as the implicit alternative (though they deny it). Any actions any US gov't takes which include immoral results is thereby condemned, with the deeply, passionately held feeling that
there MUST be another way... to get the good result without the costs.

Neither I, nor Kimmit, raped any Salvadorean nuns, nor napalmed Vietnamese, nor murdered Polish POWs. Nor do either of us want Hitler to win, or commie Killing Fields in SE Asia. I'm not sure about other Castro/ Sandinista issues in Latin America; I certainly don't want more commie dictators there.

But fighting evil requires, at times, war -- and supporting war is hell because it means accepting the evil of killing civilians, torturing the innocent, etc. Not condone, have systems to try to reduce it, punish those on your side who commit crimes -- but continue to support the leader who is fighting evil despite the lesser evils our side has committed.

It's quite amazing how these things work out. I've always argued that in many ways the lunatic fringe of the Right and the Left exist in the same sphere. The anti-War Left wants peace, but foolishly thinks they can do without some war. The anti-war Right wants old-stylr nationalistic isolationism. These are those unreconstructed folk who opposed U.S involvement in WWII, and would have us bloody up the Mideast--not to fight terror, but for something else.

I made a like-minded argument with regards to Ward Churchill and Ann Coulter on my site: http://www.massivesack.com/massive_blog.html#1mar

Wingnuts of all ideologies are quite alike.

- Kelly

One serious problem caused by the "wraparound effect" is that once the far left and the far right meet, it becomes very difficult to point at one spot in the loop and call it the center. Being a moderate is as extreme a position, these days, as any other. I've been forcibly reminded of that lately (not that I'm a moderate, but I do have a few moderate views- the rest of my opinions are smack-dab in the center, as I define it).

Even worse, if the continuum is twisted enough- and I think it is, these days- you wind up with the Moebius Dilemma. Both sides are pretty much the same.

Liberty Dad, you wrote:

"But fighting evil requires, at times, war -- and supporting war is hell because it means accepting the evil of killing civilians, torturing the innocent, etc. Not condone, have systems to try to reduce it, punish those on your side who commit crimes -- but continue to support the leader who is fighting evil despite the lesser evils our side has committed."

I totally agree. When our leaders or the leaders of our allies, like Israel, are fighting the existential enemy that is Islamofascism (or its ancestor, regular old fascism), then it's important to continue to support the good guys. As far as we're concerned, I think, the good guys are simply above reproach. Even if we commit lesser crimes, we never have to bear responsibility for those crimes, because hey, we're the good guys! If our ends are totally awesome, in every way, but our means were a little...shady...then we never have to think twice. I say critical self-reflection is dangerous, because it might embolden our enemies, much more so than, say, asking terrorists to "bring it on". Critical self-reflection is dangerous, especially to national security policy makers, because it, um, it doesn't support our troops.

I think Kant said something about the morality of an act being based on the intention rather than the result. Man, our intentions are so good, we're the best!

Freedom!

And while I don't equate each of these fundamentalisms, I do view them each with the contempt I believe they deserve -- not for believing what they believe in, but for attempting to impose those beliefs on others.

Markus,

that's fine. And it's also like that in muslim Arab countries too, and worse. So I say we dissolve them all and remake them in our own western secular image, not just Israel. Got it? Not just Israel. And let's do it despite the democratic will of the people because it's not democracy we care about but modern secular Liberalism (which has been showing some of it's latent contempt for the will of the people lately even in our own country).

This falls under the category of Leftwing moonbatism. The Left doesn't think muslims should be expected to conform to western "progress". It's "literally killing" them the Lefty apologists claim.

Excerpted below, the Left, while on the one hand it demands that Israel conform, on the other hand requests that muslims be excused from conforming. Behold Liberal cultural relativism in action whenever they're dealing with their little brown Muslim pets (but not with Israel obviously):

The situation of Western Muslim minorities is not so different from that of ostracized students dying to fit in with their prevailing peer culture. For example, an American Muslim woman announces that today she will lead congregational Friday prayers before an audience of TV cameras and reporters.

But is prayer leading — admittedly an exception to 1400 years of Islamic tradition — really the highest priority for an American Muslim woman? Since Islam does not have a hierarchical Church, mandated to approve or disapprove such a change in practice, every Muslim can do what he / she thinks it is right.

So why the wide publicity? It is because the woman and her supporters are dying to fit in with Western ideas of “progress,” ideas which assume that her not taking a prayer leading role would somehow be discriminatory.

Notice how the Leftist moonbat insert quotes on the word "progress" in order to justify their nutty apologies for their retrograde muslim pets.

Read the whole thing. The Moonbat fully explains her position.

http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/13729/

Markus, Kimmit, et al., you're no different.

PC (hey, nie initials. hmmm....),

"I say critical self-reflection is dangerous"

Which would explain why you have evidently never tried it, I guess.

Keep flailing away at those straw men. Might build up your muscles for when we really need you.

"nie initials"

should read "nice initials". Hey, what's this preview button do?

"Markus, Kimmit, et al., you're no different."

Carlos, I know you don't like being stuffed in pigeonholes. Markus and Kimmitt are Americans too, not to mention human beans, so I doubt they much enjoy it either. Refute their arguments, you actually do that pretty well from time to time, but they don't deserve to be treated like pigeons any more than you do.

Ged,

God bless you for looking out for Markus and Co. I think they're swell too. But I wasn't just taking a gratuitous shot at them. They engage in the same moral relativist double standard vis a vis Israel and Arabs as the moonbat in that article is doing when she argues muslims should be expected to conform to western standards. How bout you address that instead.

correction:

They engage in the same moral relativist double standard vis a vis Israel and Arabs as the moonbat in that article is doing when she argues muslims should NOT be expected to conform to western standards.

To the "Proud Conservative,"

There is plenty of over-heated right-wing commentary in here, but yours is by far the worst and I don't have time to babysit everybody. This is your last warning before I show you the door.

I'm going to throw this out there in the context of the whole leftist anti-American (big Satan)/anti-Israeli (little Satan) screed (in defense of not going too off-topic). It's part of my ongoing attempt to understand what I consider a pathology. Kocher touches on it quite a bit in the article I linked to but now I see that it actually has a name, which I had never heard before, but which may well be familiar to the many historian types who frequent here. It's called the "Baran-Wallerstein" thesis and it is meant to address the failure of traditional Marxist theory:

"The post-World War II period demolished the last traces of the classical immiserization thesis. Workers in the most advanced capitalist countries were prosperous by any standard imaginable, either absolute or relative; and what is even more important, they felt themselves to be well off, and believed that the future would only make them and their children even better off than they had been in the past. This was a deadly blow to the immiserization thesis and hence to Marxism. For the failure of the immiserization thesis is in fact the failure of classical Marxism. If there is no misery, there is no revolution; and if there is no revolution, there is no socialism."

"...what Baran has done is to globalize the traditional doctrine of immiserization so that, instead of applying to the workers of the advanced capitalist countries, it now came to apply to the entire population of those countries that have not achieved advanced capitalism. It was the rest of the world that was being impoverished by capitalism, not the workers of the advanced countries."

This idea that American capitalism is the cause of global immiseration is expressed by Chomsky, Ward Churchill et al. and is explained here -

Marx Without the Realism

I assume that to some extent, Israel gets bashed by the left via guilt by assocation with the US.
So - what I want to know is - does the Baran-Wallerstein thesis have any validity? Is America's prosperity the direct cause of the 3rd world's poverty? This is an assumption that seems to explain the left's consistent championing of 3rd worlders, even when they are fascist dictators.

Seriously, for a moment.

I think it's lovely that I can actually quote other people who are saying the same exact things that I am and still be told to stop. Not strawmen, but actual people writing in this comment section.

The irony, it is delicious.

"The irony, it is delicious"

If you had a legitimate interest at heart, i.e. the truth, this blog, this country, you would find such irony anything but delicious. That you do indicates little but vanity on your part.

More for the Opinion Journal article I cited:

"In the new configuration, both the workers and the capitalists of the advanced countries became the oppressor class, while it was the general population of the less advanced countries that became the oppressed--including, curiously enough, even the rulers of these countries, who often, to the untutored eye, seemed remarkably like oppressors themselves."

The first part of that quote calls to mind Ward Churchill's "little Eichmann's quote- and again, explains the hostility of the left towards israel as "Little Satan", while the 2nd part of the quote makes clear that even 3rd world dictators are viewed by the left as "oppressed" by the capitalist great Satan, thus explaining the left's defense of them.

Proud Conservative - why don't get serious for a moment and argue positions you actually believe in, instead of attempting to parody other posters. You might be surprised to get a pretty positive reception (although you might want to disguise yourself under a new moniker first :-).

Proud Conservative - why don't get serious for a moment and argue positions you actually believe in, instead of attempting to parody other posters. You might be surprised to get a pretty positive reception--Caroline

I believe that Caroline is speaking on her own behalf,at this point.I don't see how 'pretty positive' would be an apt description for many other reactions.But Caroline is 'nice'.

Proud Conservative: I think it's lovely that I can actually quote other people who are saying the same exact things that I am and still be told to stop. Not strawmen, but actual people writing in this comment section.

No, what you're doing is paraphrasing an exagerration of what other people are saying.

Look, buddy, plenty of silly things are said around here. And in this particular thread most of it comes from the right, if you ask me. It's getting on my nerves, and right now yours is the worst of it. If you weren't faking it I'd give you a troll warning for sheer sand-pounding stupidity alone. And since you are faking it we'll throw obnoxiousness in on top of it.

Dougf - why the quote around nice? :-)

In all seriousness though, the reason I suggested that PC argue what he really believes (which I assume is a leftist POV) is because as Ged of E noted above, sites deteriorate when they degenerate into yeah-saying and hostility to alternative perspectives. (Drum's site being a prime example as I learned the hard way and which I have commented on several times before). If eveyone agrees, who is there to debate? So I actually DO want PC to argue his actual positions honestly. He could start, e.g. by defending the Baran-Wallenstein thesis, because as I tried to state above - I think it lies at the core of the current left's anti-American/Israel, pro-3rd world dictator, excuse the "brown people" no matter how abhorent their cultural practices - screed. In other words - I think it goes a long way to explaining the reasons the left is getting into bed with the far right (the far right being Islamo-fascism, the bin Laden grievance school of thought, Saddam apology and so on). If the thesis turns out to be indefensible in fact, then the left's whole ideology should come tumbling down like humpty-dumpty. I have no doubt that the devil is probably in the details but political discourse these days seems to rarely be "in the details". It seems instead to have largely deteriorated into broad emotional brushstrokes. I will definitely have to track back and find Ged of E's great line about painting houses instead of Faberge eggs because at this point - I think we could use a few less house painters and a few more faberge' egg painters!

MJT,

"It's getting on my nerves, and right now yours is the worst of it."

It got on PC's nerves too, and that's why he's been parodying it (not without skill) to try to shame the overzealous right into silence.

I happen to think there is way too much of this shaming into silence bullying going on from all sides, so I am unhappy with his approach, and agree with Caroline that it would be better for him to authentically engage.

At which point we could fight like scorpions! Yeah!

MJT,

Cigarettes and blindfolds all round, eh?

Excellent, nothing like a good hanging pour encourager les autres.

Hmm, if I made the list, may I have a few minutes to work on my 'Tis a far, far better thing I do...' speech? Generally it's a one time delivery and I'd like to be at my best.

Caroline,

"Is America's prosperity the direct cause of the 3rd world's poverty?"

How in the world could causation ever be proven? I know that an answer in the affirmative is part of a certain type of leftist/anarchist mantra but I've never seen anything approaching a logical explanation of cause/effect regarding the argument. Freight train loads of casuistry and sophistry but no verifiable statistics nor even proposed methodology that was in the least objective. There was a very good reason why Marx never even hinted at the features of a practical implementation of Marxism. It's a pity that today's faux Reds can't see the joke.

Rick : "There was a very good reason why Marx never even hinted at the features of a practical implementation of Marxism"

very good point. Also a good point re proving causation - which we see in the current debate re whether Bush's actions have in any sense "caused" the events in Lebanon.

Nevertheless - my sense of recent history is "real" enough as it were to at least endorse neo-neocon's recent metaphor of the donkey (or was it mule) making its slow way to its destination before the helicopter (Bush) picked the whole mule up and got it there tout suite (or something like that! - my apologies to neo-neocon for butchering her metaphor). So I feel fairly confident in saying that yes- Bush's Iraq policy had quite a bit to do with the current events unfolding in the ME.

So I think we have to be able to do a little better than that in refuting the Baran-Wallenstein thesis. And I say that only because I think until we do so - we will continue to face a really huge number of people - here in the US, in much of Europe and elsewhere - who buy into it - I assume largely on an emotional level (again I think the Kocher article best addresses this sort of diffuse emotional guilt). The fact of the matter seems to be that a very large number of people appear to believe that America is directly responsible for 3rd world poverty (loosely the Baran-Wallenstein thesis). I am starting to think that directly discrediting that thesis with facts is the best way to get people to stop taking the anti-American (and by extension anti-Israeli) side in this global war which will likely go on for several decades.

Only problem is - I don't have any idea re whether or not it's true. Or even roughly true or not. My knowledge of the actual facts of history and economics are simply not acute enough to refute it. I guess I was sort of vaguely hoping that someone else was more educated on this than I am. Apparently not even the author of the Opinion Journal article was up to the task - as he said it was too complicated to address. Perhaps that lets us all off the hook but it does little to dispel the emotional impact of the thesis and its very real world consequences.

It apparently being a slow Saturday night, I will also note this excellent article, which also happens to cite the Baran- Wallerstein thesis:

Europe and the Post-Modern Left

A quote from the article:

"Finally, the Marxist wing was rejuvenated by and continues to derive energy from Immanuel Wallerstein's epic The Modern World-System (Wallerstein, 1974). In this work, Wallerstein significantly extended Paul Baran's idea that, while it is true that Capitalism eventually co-opted the workers within Capitalist societies, it did so only by shifting immiseration to the third world. That is, modern Capitalism succeeds only to the degree that it sucks wealth out of third-world societies. This is often called the Baran-Wallerstein revision. It lies at the heart of the "Neo-Marxist" school, sometimes called simply "Radical Political Economy." As with all of the lines of idealist thought descending from Rousseau, however, this thesis is less a rational investigation of global economics and more an attempt to preserve the ideological purity of Marxism. In this, the Post-Modern Marxists have descended into mere anti-Capitalist propaganda whose primary goal is to radicalize the young and the willing. The shame of this is that there are important critiques to be made of modern supra-national organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But, as long as the left affiliates with the Post-Moderns and their obviously deceptive propaganda, any attempt that they mount to reform these organizations is easily discredited."

Caroline,

It would not matter one whit if it were proven to be untrue. Marxism is a religion with its Articles of Faith written in disappearing ink. Every generation of Marxists comes up with its very own schema for projecting how current conditions "prove" that the inevitable outcome is ever closer (although always over the horizon). The schema is always predicated upon the notion that disparity in income is always the result of "oppression" and that the "oppresors" must be economically reduced to some sort of mean in order for "justice" to prevail.

I found Kocher's analysis to be a difficult read due to his hyperbole. His description of those espousing Marxist sentiments was reasonably accurate in that none of those described could be considered productive in the sense that they actually possessed a skill set that went beyond manipulation of symbols. Not the types you would probably hire to actually build something.

Why do think the numbers involved are "huge"? Because the journo fellow travelers play them up? I believe that a good longitudinal study would show that the group in question is age specific with a need for constant replenishment. After all, one must be truly deficient in some sense to be able to ignore reality's constant muggings. That, or on a tenure track.

Marxism is a religion with its Articles of Faith written in disappearing ink.

Hm, no. Marxism is a dying political philosophy and displays precisely the same characteristics as previous ones, such as Social Darwinism, Manifest Destiny, and the White Man's Burden.*

*despite its recent resurgence

Rick - I definitely agree with you that Kocher is full of hyperbole and that makes him a difficult read. Your assessment that "none of those described could be considered productive in the sense that they actually possessed a skill set that went beyond manipulation of symbols" is also apropos. However, I think he does an excellent job of breaking down the distinction between reality (i.e. the types you would probably hire to actually build something) vs the emotional/guilt laden/utopian/socialist/non-reality based fantasy that leftists are so committed to (and he seems to actually be quite literally alarmed by the ascendance of this perspective on both the national and international levels). Without him actually stating it, however, it strikes me that much of the leftist delusion he is trying to refute is precisely the Baran-Wallerstein thesis. In other words, this diffuse, emotionally-laden conviction that America is directly responsible for 3rd world poverty that has become the central rallying conviction of an entire generation (both deomestically and abroad), whether they are familiar with Marxist theory or not.

"I believe that a good longitudinal study would show that the group in question is age specific with a need for constant replenishment."

I think there is some truth in that. Some data at least shows the younger American generation to be more conservative than their parents. However, there is also an enormous propoganda effort backing the thesis up and it is internationally widespread (after all, Kocher based much of his argument on the example of Kofi Annan). You seem fairly dismissive re the strength of that propoganda. While I might agree with you when you say "After all, one must be truly deficient in some sense to be able to ignore reality's constant muggings", I am not so certain that there aren't a whole lot of "truly deficient" folks out there that we need to worry about.

In other words - we need a whole lot LESS people in the world like Scheuer - who are even WILLING to entertain the notion that bin Laden has a genuine grievance. (How is that for bringing the thread back on topic!)

Good grief I thought that Hayeck, Friedman, et al had long since put paid to Marx (not to mention history) and its bastard step children like BW's "That is, modern Capitalism succeeds only to the degree that it sucks wealth out of third-world societies. "

This is the old shibboleth that wealth is a zero sum game and belief in this is on the same level as belief in a flat-earth.

Just track the last 50 years of economic development and you can see the string of "miserable oppressed victims of capitalism" flow through Japan, Korea, Thailand, China, India etc.

What happens is those poor 3rd worlders compete in the labor market and undersell their competition (gee, just like Walmart) and get richer and more expensive until they move to the next rung on the ladder and the next poor miserable victim of capitalism repeats the process.

Do you really think that there's going to be one poor 3rd world country that is last on the list and can't improve?

All it takes for a poor miserable 3rd world country to start getting wealthy is the rule of law fairly and justly enforced, especially for private property and contracts. After that an individuals labor starts adding value and wealth that isn't stolen by the state.

And you'll never persuade the left about any of this because Communism in all its forms is the same as any utopian religion that is posited on the perfectability of man.

Oh I forgot to mention that the reason that the easy path to riches doesn't happen more often and easier is that there are too many people that would rather be king of a sewer than just another member in heaven, aka power and greed.

Capitalism is the ultimate meritocracy and many people hate it because the fear that they can't cut the mustard. It's much easier to be a member of a self-proclaimed elite and lord it over the peasantry. The EU will give us the perfect example of what happens when that plays out over the next few years.

AlanC - "And you'll never persuade the left about any of this because Communism in all its forms is the same as any utopian religion that is posited on the perfectability of man."

I guess being rather new to the world I still believed in the force of reason, which is why I spent several posts in a sort of Eureka! moment. As in Ah-HA! Now I think I see an explanation for all of this leftist insanity! It's ta-da!! - The Baran-Wallerstein thesis! Now if we can just prove the thesis wrong everyone will join in together to defend America (and Israel!), which is obviously a force for good more so than a force for evil in the world.

However, it seems I'm rather late to the party as usual - like I said earlier, usually the last one in on the office gossip. It seems everyone else was probably already familiar with this idea that obviously informs the likes of Chomsky and Ward Churchill and so on. And as AlanC and Rick point out - it's truth or falseness probably makes no difference whatsoever to those who for whatever reason just want to believe in it.

My apologies to anyone who followed me off into this misguided excursion..

Sigh...

"That is, modern Capitalism succeeds only to the degree that it sucks wealth out of third-world societies."

This is a scarcity mentality that just doesn't hold up to history. Free markets generate new wealth. Government intervention mostly prevents the generation of new wealth. In 1999 John Stossel presented an interesting documentary, "Is America #1?," comparing prosperity and business creation in India, Hong Kong, and the US, which helps to show why Hong Kong and the US create wealth so much easier than India. Democracy movements in the Middle East are wonderful, but for these countries to really succeed they need to install a free market system to generate new wealth as well.

Here is a write-up from Stossel's documentary:

"Why is America so rich, while India is so poor? Stossel shows you thousands of bureaucratic forms which Indians fill out in the hopes of getting licenses to start a business, a process which takes years. Even the big boys have trouble: Stossel shows you the Indian Parliament which debated endlessly whether Coke and Pepsi should be allowed in the country. Large numbers of enterprising Indians gave up, emigrated to America, started businesses and helped create millions of jobs.

In Hong Kong--which has no natural resources, a population density is 20 times that of India and average income higher than Britain, Canada and Australia--Stossel shows you how easy it is to start a business: he just fills out one form, rents a booth in a mall, and presto! Stossel Enterprises is selling ABC frisbees!

Stossel shows you how European welfare states have throttled business enterprise, and he talks with French and German entrepreneurs who now thrive in America. He shows that while America has problems, other countries have worse problems, and even America's poor people typically have clean water, a roof over their head, a color TV, a microwave oven and a car. Stossel interviews new citizens who express great passion for economic liberty and the American dream."

The interesting thing to me is that folks like Bobby Kennedy would agree with much of this, but would then contend that "crony capitalism", or what I would call the CEO cartel, is the main obstacle to a fairer, freer world political economy.

Where would the illustrious professor De Long come in on all this, Kimmitt? Also, if Marxism is on the outs, why is he at the center of Ivy League curriculums?

BTW, I clicked your link - looks great, especialy the Galaga. Used to play that in coin-op! lol

Caroline,

Fret not.

Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
'T is the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demure,- you're straightaway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.

- Emily Dickinson

Caroline,

Don't apologize. Brian's comment is actually the rebuttal to the Baran-Wallenstein thesis. Chile's experience over the past 30 years is another (as is Peru's - although less impressive). The Czechlands and the Baltic states have been doing OK since the USSR's demise.

Hernando DeSoto's 'Mystery of Capitalism' provides further foundation to Stossel's thesis. You will eventually run into the problem that facts don't overcome faith but it is very handy to have a clear alternative to propose. A little factoid to hang onto is that the confiscation and redistribution of all US GDP above the world average would in fact raise the non US GDP by 20%. Of course, the US average would drop by 80% in doing so. I wonder how many American or European lefties would sign up for life on $7.5K per year.

It's just a silly, stupid and dangerous game. Our faux Reds would add white and blue in a heartbeat if they were ever faced with actually giving up 80% of their dough to achieve world "equality".

Our faux Reds would add white and blue in a heartbeat if they were ever faced with actually giving up 80% of their dough to achieve world "equality".

Yeah, but we'll send them off to labor in the fields and get "reeducated." There was a certain rough justice in the communist world where the early adherants and intellectual cheerleaders tended to end up dead.

Here's more on economic success and DeSoto's ideas from http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=22

Excerpt:

Economic progress and social well-being depend primarily on two variables: people's character, i.e., their abilities and attitudes, and their social and political institutions. Differences in these factors largely explain differences in levels of economic progress. America's founders understood the importance of all these factors, especially institutions, when designing our Constitution.

A legal system that allows individuals clear rights to property is a key to success. Most individuals in developing countries "own" things, but have no legal or formal rights to them. Hence, long-term contracts can't be created or enforced; without contracts, credit can't be obtained; and lack of credit stifles entrepreneurship. This dramatically inhibits wealth creation.

In his book, "The Mystery of Capital," Peruvian Hernando de Soto explains how the growth of wealth requires property rights which can be exchanged. "It's about building capital or loans on property rights. What we've forgotten...is that the poor don't have property rights."

In America we've taken the notion of property rights for granted and forgotten what a profound and subtle role they play in a moral system
fostering prosperity. America's most grievous faults involve deprivation of these rights. Slaves, Native Americans, and the Japanese internees of WWII are obvious and compelling examples.

As we're seeing in the developing world, rights to private property play a fundamental role in advancing or retarding social progress. Here's how:

Clear, enforceable rights to property create solid expectations. And expectations guide decision making. The holder of property rights can transfer the fruits of her efforts to whomever she chooses. This reinforces the value of family as a social unit and increases the incentive of people to provide for future generations. If property rights are insecure, time horizons are dramatically shortened and long-term investment suffers.

Here is the key. Property rights enable individuals to use and exchange their resources as they see fit; but only as long as this use doesn't harm others. When they are well defined and enforced, property rights ensure peaceful competition, foster human rights, and protect from abuses of state power. When rights to property are insecure, all other rights are at risk.

In any economic system property rights strongly influence how individuals make decisions. Each society does in fact define, allocate, and protect property rights. Even Communists recognize them; they simply assign them all to the government. However, we've learned that without the basic social building block of private ownership, economic