"Didn't the terrible aftermath of the Vietnam War convince you that you had been wrong to work so hard for US withdrawal?"

After having interviewe several of the "no blood for oil" crowd, nothing has yet convinced me that these war protesters are capable of thinking beyond what is immediately visible.

To those who believe the US is the source of all the world's problems, it is inconceivable that problems would exist after we began minding our own business - why think about it further? If there are still problems, the protesters think we are still, somehow, involved.

Posted by: Joel (No Pundit Intended) at May 1, 2005 07:58 PM

Unintended consequence? Just another "mistake"?

If someone supports murder thru ingnorance and sheer stupidity I don't think you can call it unintended consequence. The only good reason I could see at the time not to support the war was the "who gives a shit argument": sure, tyranny and repression are in the cards, it ain't our country and none of our business, so who gives a shit. Cold, yes, but a perfectly valid argument. The folks chanting Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh were either of a totalitarian mindset -- communists and such -- or simply idiots, mostly the latter. I was always amazed at the utter historical ignorance of my generation. Sorry, cohorts, but that's the way it was.

Posted by: chuck at May 1, 2005 09:23 PM

The Communist tyrants primarily won in Vietnam because of the liberal establishment in the United States. Ho Chi Minh’s terrorists did not win it on the ground, but on the pages of the New York Times and within the activist ranks of the Democratic Party. The South Vietnamese never had a chance once America lost its will to continue the struggle. Historians like Victor Davis Hanson are convinced that we were winning the war, but the MSM (remember Walter Cronkite?) falsely reported the actual results of the fighting. The same thing can happen in Iraq. We must make sure it does not.

The Daily Kos, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean---and Pat Buchanan are never going to threaten the Iraqis with direct violence. Only a total idiot would suggest such a thing, and I’ve never even hinted that this was likely. No, what these individuals might do is demoralize us regarding the prospects of the new Iraqi government.

Posted by: David Thomson at May 2, 2005 12:50 AM

It's not at all fair to blame the horror of SE Asia in the 70s on liberals or Democrats; after all, Richard "Peace with Honor" Nixon signed a treaty with an opponent with no honor, and Gerald "Falling for You" Ford was at the helm when the helicopters took off for the last time for Saigon. I seem to recall that Congress was controlled by the Dems at the time, but its the President's job to lead, and Nixon in particular was a lousy leader. (Ford's biggest stumble was actually taking the job; on the other hand, someone had to do it, and I'm not sure the tag team of Jesus Christ and Alexander the Great would have been able to do a whole lot better after Watergate.)

And of course, Ford was followed by Carter, which just shows that no matter how bad things are, they can get worse.

John F. Kennedy was shot a week before I was born, and for most of my youth I thought he was the most overrated President in hisory. After all, Kennedy was the one who turned up the heat in Vietnam, he was responsible for unleashing CIA black ops world wide (Bay of Pigs, anyone?), he nearly got us nuked in the Cuban Missle Crisis, etc. etc. He launced a space program that got us to the moon, but instituted a model that ultimately proved unsustainable.

But he was a leader. The next four men in the office were hacks and tecnhocrats without anything anyone would call a vision, and the country suffered mightily for making those choices.

The Bush Doctrine, whether it works in the short term or not, is breathing life into the idea that oppressed people in the Middle East can become free. I would posit that as a good thing. Admire him or despise him, Bush is keeping Americans focused on what we can do and what we should do in the world. I would also suggest that this debate is a generally good thing for the country.

Somebody out there is going to make a lot of money with a book comparing and contrasting JFK and W, painting both in a positive light. (Benjamin/Samuel, are you still out there?) The usual suspects will have seisures seeing Saint Kennedy paired with BeelzeBush. But that book would appeal to a lot of people who understand that it's better to have a President who focuses on what we can do than one who focuses on what we can't.

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 2, 2005 07:02 AM

There are many positions in life, that once taken, it becomes psychologically impossible to reverse course.

If a person was "anti-war"(a poor phrase...not many people think war is a good thing) during Vietnam then changing course would require admitting a lot. It would also carry a tremendous amount of guilt.

Was it right to treat that 20 year old kid, who had experienced first hand, the worst of humanity, as a drug crazed baby killer?

How does a liberal left person, a champion of compassion and humanity rationalize their actions in hind-sight?

They hold on to the evil military-industrial complex concept. To do otherwise, would mean they are not compassionate, they are not champions of humanity.

Posted by: Soldier's Dad at May 2, 2005 08:02 AM

I have been wondering all this week why there has been so relatively little coverage about the tremendous surge of refugees who left Vietnam in terribly dramatic circumstances, and who were resettled in the US (and other places). I was working with a volunteer resettlement group and I heard so many stories... but all I heard this week on NPR was a travelogue to Vietnam today and some obligatory flogging of the My Lai dead horse. My conclusion is, as I wrote at "The Daily Brief", anything touching on that is a reproach to everyone who thought we should get out, and leave them to their own devices, and that everything would work out OK, and what difference would it make to the average Vietnamese where their bowl of rice came from? I have seen the figure of 2 million Vietnamese leaving after 1975, so it seems that it mattered very much, after all.

Posted by: Sgt. Mom at May 2, 2005 08:04 AM

When the US gets into wars of prevention and strategy without a direct assault, the results are like Vietnam -- or Korea, or Iraq. It's hard to rally the troops on wars based on strategy, that are not simply a reflex response to a direct attack like Pearl Harbor.

And yes, we were attacked on 9/11, but indirectly. Lots of fog there to get lost in.

One thing I will grant the Boomer generation: They were the first generation to have to absorb the meaning of nuclear war. While western adversaries were devising MAD, survival strategies were touted by government presses and films about Duck and Cover. The insanity of it all impressed Boomer kids first -- the idea of global obliteration was impressed into pre-teenage minds for the first time in history. Just about anything seems palatable in comparison to planetary fission -- leading to an affinity for 'anything but our culture' fantasies.

That the nuclear arms race came off as a cruel hoax to those kids was no joke. Yes, they were naïve, and got sucked into powerful ideologies that were self-destructive. But I really believe the core of the self-hate we see in today's western societies boils down to our ability to destroy on a totalizing scale. It's not surprising that the ideologies that evolved in opposition to Armageddon centered on self-hatred.

Posted by: Marcus Cicero at May 2, 2005 08:11 AM

“It's not at all fair to blame the horror of SE Asia in the 70s on liberals or Democrats; after all, Richard "Peace with Honor" Nixon signed a treaty with an opponent with no honor, and Gerald "Falling for You" Ford was at the helm...”

You overlook a very important distinction. Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford may have committed errors in judgment----but they believed that the United States represented the good guys and the North Vietnamese were the bad guys. America was the land of the free and Communists were the enemy of all that is decent and noble. This often was not the case with the Democrats. Many of them looked upon their own country as something vile. We were the oppressors of the planet who must be stopped. There were admittedly Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, and a number of other Democrat leaders who were proud of their country. However, they rapidly were being opposed by the radicals of their party.

Posted by: David Thomson at May 2, 2005 08:56 AM

But I really believe the core of the self-hate we see in today's western societies boils down to our ability to destroy on a totalizing scale.

That's true. I think most peace activists think Dr. Strangelove was a documentary. They see every US president, and every American as a potential Slim Pickins, riding an A-bomb and mindlessly cheering Armegeddon.

Destructive "peace" activists are the blowback we still suffer as a result of Hiroshima. They're uncomfortable with our postition at the top of the political food chain. They want us to be the krill.

Posted by: mary at May 2, 2005 09:26 AM

But I really believe the core of the self-hate we see in today's western societies boils down to our ability to destroy on a totalizing scale.

That's true.

I don't think so. I think it is false. I think the self hate came from pursuing the ideal of replacing liberal western civilization with socialism. In the process the old civilization needed to be discredited. Unfortunately, the "new" civilization didn't amount to much: in the west it amounted to free nooky, in the former colonies and undeveloped nations it amounted to a cargo cult approach to industrialization and the spread of wealth. The failures are legion: poor Russia, poor Africa, poor Vietnam, poor Cuba. No matter how much blood is sacrificed to appease the Gods of History nothing succeeds. But what the hey, the folks who promoted these disasters meant well; that justifies everything I suppose.

Posted by: chuck at May 2, 2005 09:47 AM

I am the Socialist Boogyman! Boogy boogy boogy boo! In my thrall I hold vast armies of lazy undergrads who believe they're socialists because they read some stuff in a history class! Don't forget Ward Churchill, my Grand Field Marshall, who people totally cared about and listened to before Bill O'Reilly started talking about him! And some more guys that no one cares about and will never amount to anything!

Woooooo! Did I scare you? Good, I hope so, because if you're not careful and tax rates go above a magic limit, I will automagically take over the world!

I'm not dead. I'm totally alive. I swear!

Posted by: Socialist Boogyman at May 2, 2005 09:55 AM

I am the Socialist Boogyman! Boogy boogy boogy boo!

Sounds about right, you sure got the intellect part down pat.

Posted by: chuck at May 2, 2005 10:50 AM

Socialist boogeyman,

it seems you're not really a boogeyman at all.

Why America needs to be Defeated in Iraq:

"For myself, I can say without hesitation that I support the insurgency, and would do so even if my only 21 year old son was serving in Iraq. There’s simply no other morally acceptable option."

full

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_17271.shtml

In the words of Charles Johnson at LGF, you’ll never read a better statement of the far left’s diseased, inverted reality.

Posted by: spaniard at May 2, 2005 12:26 PM

Indeed. My strength grows by the minute. Every nutjob posting on Indymedia, every fringe article written, every washed-out hippie organizing a meeting of the 5-person tri-state chapter of the vanguard party - they each feed my bottomless appetite for power!

Every time a socialist meeting ends with the group splitting over some archana, do not be fooled. The party does not become weaker simply because they have 2 members each. Nay, it simply means that there are two parties! The Judean Peoples' Front and the Peoples' Front of Judea!

Just because my followers are relegated to the far left does not mean that my fringe appeal will not someday take over! Deep in the hearts of every patriotic, freedom loving Liberal lurks....ME!

Boogity boogity boo!

Posted by: Socialist Boogyman at May 2, 2005 12:33 PM

Man oh man, this comment section is deteriorating. Come home soon Michael.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 2, 2005 12:43 PM

Why America needs to be Defeated in Iraq:

Yes, because a single blog post by some guy none of us has ever heard of is so, so representative of "the left."

Bullshit. No liberal supports Islamic fascism. If they say they do, they're not a liberal.

Posted by: Steve at May 2, 2005 02:08 PM

“No liberal supports Islamic fascism.”

But do some liberals so despise their own country that deep in their guts that want the Islamic nihilists to win? Are they secretly gleeful when something bad happens in the Middle East? That’s the real question.

Posted by: David Thomson at May 2, 2005 04:58 PM

Peering into my magic mind-reading crystal ball, I'd reckon that the rate of American-hating extremism is probably about the same on the Left and Right. Of course, since my magic mind-reading crystal ball is pretend, like most of the discussions that take place here, I guess we'll never know. But every time someone publishes article X by extremist Y and waves it around shouting "since X is critical of the same things that my political enemies are, my political enemies are just as crazy as X!", we're lowering the level of discourse. Just a bit.

My opinion: Republicans are much better at dominating political discourse than are Democrats, so it's been much easier to point at crazy Leftists and say that all liberals are just like them - when equally crazy things are being said by your average far-right wacko on freerepublic.com. So we have a situation where, whenever a liberal wants to say something, we must first go through the whole process of condemning liberals for hating freedom, the liberal has to prove he or she hates tyranny, the liberal has to condemn Ward Churchill, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

Posted by: The Commenter at May 2, 2005 05:11 PM

The post was addressed at Socialist Boogeyman.

I wouldn't say it represents the Liberal view, but it does represent the far Left view-- and socialists are far Left.

Posted by: spaniard at May 2, 2005 05:12 PM

I wouldn't say it represents the Liberal view, but it does represent the far Left view-- and socialists are far Left.

Ah, the political wisdom of the commenter now known as Spaniard, the living expert on all things Left. Nasty leftists, twirling thier waxed moustaches and giggling their leftist giggles.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 2, 2005 06:56 PM

Mary, good post; and thank you, thank you, neo-neocon & Dean. Vietnam is really important, and evaluating the results of a policy followed are crucial.

Allow me to note that I called Kerry on the "Moral Superiority" War about Vietnam when the Swifties came out. http://tomgrey.motime.com/1093629194#330293

I said before that the US should apologize to the Vietnamese -- for not winning; for not learning how to do Vietnamization, right. (Starting with supporting THEM in doing security?)

I note in neo-neocon's excellent list of excuses, no mention of Nixon -- I think the Watergate scandal, "Nixon's the one", allowed most folk to blame ALL the bad outcomes on Tricky Dicky.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at May 2, 2005 07:06 PM

But do some liberals so despise their own country that deep in their guts that want the Islamic nihilists to win? Are they secretly gleeful when something bad happens in the Middle East? That’s the real question.

Once again: look up what "liberal" means. If you want the Islamic nihilists to win, consciously or not, then you are by definition not a liberal.

Spaniard- Far left and liberal are as different from each other as night and day.

"Commenter"- You're spot-on about the Article X/Extremist Y thing. If Sean Hannity weren't allowed to use that one, he'd have about two minutes of material per day.

Posted by: Stephen Silver at May 2, 2005 07:45 PM

DPU,

you're no great mystery. Some of the Left's strongest and most vociferous opponents are ex-Libs and Leftists themselves.

Posted by: spaniard at May 2, 2005 07:48 PM

you're no great mystery. Some of the Left's strongest and most vociferous opponents are ex-Libs and Leftists themselves.

Possibly because many leftists have the personal disposition to question their own ideas and challenge the dogma of the left as well as the right. I suspect that would be unlikely from deep thinkers like yourself.

Although I'm pleasantly surprised to see a number of conservatives, obviously unencumbered with a lot of personal crap disguised as politics, who are honestly and thoughtfully questioning some of the actions of their political creed in the last two of years. Some commenters here included.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 2, 2005 08:13 PM

DPU,

notice each and every time I go after the Left, you go after me personally.

Kimmit and FC did the same thing.

Deep thinking indeed.

Posted by: spaniard at May 2, 2005 08:17 PM

notice each and every time I go after the Left, you go after me personally.

Kimmit and FC did the same thing.

Deep thinking indeed.

I have no problem with you or anyone else going after the left, as the left has as many mistakes and episodes of shameful history as any political ideology on that's ever existed.

You just go after it in such a stupid drooling way that it's hard not to say something. Maybe Kimmit and FC felt the same way. I find it especially childish that you think you can go around saying the most insulting things about people's political beliefs and then not expect to get called on it, and can't receive a few jabs in returns without insinuating that I'll be banned because of it. That, I believe, is Michael's role. He sets the tone here, not you, and if I receive warning from him that I'm making comments that he doesn't care for, then I'll change my tone if I wish to remain commenting here. You, on the other hand, can kiss my left-wing posterior.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 2, 2005 09:38 PM

As for the whole Leftist/liberal issue, I think the problem is the conflation of a small, marginalized fringe with that side of the political spectrum in general. We're not going to take the writings of some "God's Army of Whiteness" group and hold them up as an example of conservative ideology, so there's no need to do the same for liberals. Extreme Leftists, the kind we're talking about here - the "socialists", the "we heart Islamic radicalism", the "down with America, close all the barber shops" types - these people are not only marginalized within American politics, they're marginalized within the left wing of American political discourse. No one takes themselves seriously except for themselves and, apparently, conservative blog commenters.

As for the Vietnam issue: I admit, I'm not expert on the situation. I post-date the war, so I can't say much for the motivations of the anti-war crowd, but I can speculate (after all, what are blogs for if not totally uninformed speculation passed off as analysis?). It seems to me that people who opposed the war did so because they believed the continuation of the war and of American involvement in it were worse than a victory by the North. Considering that over a million Vietnamese died in the course of our involvement and our alternative to the North was a series of unpopular dictatorships in the South, the Vietnamese people were damned either way. There was simply no good outcome for that one.

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 05:57 AM

Two points: I'd love to see concrete examples of the Left policing it's own bad actors instead of seeing stories like this from the supposedly politically-neutral AP:

BOULDER, Colo. - Stacks of papers sit on a sun-drenched table in the home of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, some full of praise and others full of dark threats and unprintable insults.

In one message, liberal scholar Noam Chomsky calls Churchill's achievements of inestimable value, while an e-mail in another pile warns: "If you ever come to Florida, I will personally bash your (expletive) brains in."

(Sorry for the link to my own site; the Yahoo! link to the original story has expired.)

Now, to your casual reader of the news, these opening graphs make it sound like the knuckle-dragging right is yet again persecuting some poor academic who dares step outside the cultural norms of beef, Jesus, and doilies. ("Liberal scholar Noam Chomsky" as a character reference. Holy cow.)

Or, for a compare and contrast example; David Duke is radioactive to the Right; Al Sharpton gets to share debate time with real Democratic Presidential nominees.

Next point: saying the Vietnamese were damned either way kind of misses the point; if our allies were ill-served by our measures, we had a responsibility to change those measures, not to abandon our allies. And your central thesis is open to easy refutation; Vietnam didn't produce boat people until after the North took over. (Poling's Rule: Watch the direction of and rate of refugee flow to find out which side has the bad guys and how bad they really are.) Now, if you're saying we couldn't have won, that argument I can respect; if you're saying winning wouldn't have been any better than losing, that I can't.

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 3, 2005 06:47 AM

Re: Ward Churchill. I believe the best liberal/left-wing response to the Ward Churchill walking strawman was from The Apostropher:

Ward Churchill has proven to be a completely inadequate foil for the right, because the uniform response of everybody on the left was 1) "Who the fuck is Ward Churchill?" followed immediately by 2) "Oh, I see: an idiot."

Personally, I'd like to move on, as I'd never heard of this loon before, and plan to forget about him as soon as possible. But he's such a delight to the right -- he confirms the worst possible mental image of the left that some hold, and they just aren't going to abandon him. Rather than his actual identity as a marginal flaky professor spouting off extremist imaginings tarted up as political discourse, I think there are many convinced that he's the intellectual center of some enormous leftist cabal.

News Flash - he isn't.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 09:01 AM

Oops, and note to Mark, I know that you were already saying that he was a marginal character.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 09:13 AM

Well, just to be fair (and for all those nice people who asked) I thought I'd come back through and see if I had overblown the level of idiotic discourse that has taken over.

blink

Wow, Mike still takes great photography and writes nice travel reports.

Everything else?

ick.

Don't say I didn't try,

Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at May 3, 2005 09:22 AM

C'mon back into the mosh pit, Rat. Just watch out for the head butts.

Or is that the other way around?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 09:24 AM

What a delightful study of mental framing we could make of that little comment you make, Mr. Poling.

I imagine, yes, that if your "mental frame" for "newspapers" was something like "newspapers portray conservatives badly", then we could infer that this was another example of such a thing. That is, if you assume bias, you will see it.

However, if you step back and look at the quote, it goes something like this: a professor receives some support and some criticism.

Hm...

Note also that the one person mentioned in support is labled as a "liberal", while the political leaning of the (murderous) critic is not mentioned. I suppose that you could infer that the (murderous) critic's political leaning was conservative, if only for symmetry's sake, or if your "mental frame" for murderous critics implied conservative. However, if not, then the labeling of Churchill's supporter as a "liberal" draws a connection between support for Churchill and liberals that did not previously exist.

The article also does not refer to Chomsky as a "character reference" - it simply states that Chomsky offered his support. Considering that most liberals haven't heard of Chomsky or Churchill, it seems an unnecessary connection to draw between the two (and liberals, implicitly).

So, I suppose that if your mental frame was to seek anti-liberal bias in the piece, it would be just as easy to find that - a connection between two marginalized extremists and liberals that didn't exist but is stated. No such connection is explicitly made between conservatives, murder, and expletives.

I suppose that if you're willing to pretend that there are things in that quote that aren't - that the second writer is a conservative, that Chomsky is offered a character witness - then you can also pretend that there is anti-conservative bias here. If you would simply like to read the words that actually exist, you find a "liberal" supporting someone that can only be considered a liberal if you believe that "if someone is critical of X, then he or she is representative of all people critical of X for any reason".

I'm not a fan of Al Sharpton either. I'm also not a fan of wildly popular conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, who once wished that all liberals could be rounded up and killed, or Ann Coulter, who has called for a global Crusade (in the very medieval sense) against Muslim-majority countries. I'm not a huge fan of the fact that Christian fundamentalists have access to Bush and help shape Republican agendas.

In general, I'm not happy about a lot, I suppose. But them's the breaks.

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 09:26 AM

DPU: I find it especially childish that you think you can go around saying the most insulting things about people's political beliefs and then not expect to get called on it, and can't receive a few jabs in returns without insinuating that I'll be banned because of it. That, I believe, is Michael's role. He sets the tone here, not you, and if I receive warning from him that I'm making comments that he doesn't care for, then I'll change my tone if I wish to remain commenting here. You, on the other hand, can kiss my left-wing posterior.

DPU,

Go do another name search on me, see what other dirt you can dig up. It's for the cause, and if you're a Lefty you can do no wrong for the cause.

Contrary to your bloviation above, the only ones asking for Michael to come back and "take control" is you, and the ones accusing others of being trolls was FC, not me. I'm not into enforcing speech codes or banning hate speech (not that I even believe in hate speech). I simply address someone's post, or I ignore it.

I've simply noticed your responses (unlike say Marcus's) are personal, that's all. And I would say that's common the farther Left you go on the spectrum, the more it becomes about personal attacks.

So fire away with the personal attacks DPU. The only reason the things I say get under your skin is because I'm right on the money.

Fire away with the last word-- you're famous for them.

Posted by: spaniard at May 3, 2005 09:28 AM

Noticed you stayed away from that whole Sharpton thing....

No, seriously, the Left has every reason to try to sweep Ward Churchill under the rug, but he's so conveniently symptomatic of the Ivory Tower's moral blindness within certain spectrums. Praise terrorism publicly? Not a peep from within the ivy-coated walls. Postulate that their may be qualitative differences between the sexes? Off with his head!

The mind reels. You'd think people who supposedly actually read Orwell would recognize some of the signs.

Finally DPU, you want to move on? Promise never to bring up TANG again and I'll promise never to bring up some talking point more than a month old.

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 3, 2005 09:32 AM

Fire away with the last word-- you're famous for them.

David! You're back, how delightful to see you again. You just disappeared just after Carlos started posting, what happened?

As far as "personal attacks" go, if some troll here started spouting off about Chimpy McHitler, I think they would be deserving of a few shots, don't you? Your characterizations about the left are equally simplistic and insulting. If you want to start a critical dialog on socialism based on actual issues, then please be my guest. But I don't have much hope of it going much beyond a farce, as you haven't demonstrated much knowledge of political issues as either David, Carlos, or Spaniard.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 09:36 AM

Promise never to bring up TANG again and I'll promise never to bring up some talking point more than a month old.

Um, okay. What's TANG? Did I bring it up at some point?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 09:38 AM

Clarification: 'Twixt starting my last comment and clicking "post" a whole lot of stuff hit the thread. Sorry for any cognitive dissonance, and I'll try to keep up next time.

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 3, 2005 09:38 AM

In Vietnam, the dilemma was this: how many Vietnamese lives, and how many US lives, and how much money, was it worth losing in a war in which vital US interests were PROBABLY not at stake, but in which we POSSIBLY may have been able to bring a better life to the Vietnamese in the event we prevailed?

These were questions on which reasonable people could differ, and did. The people calling for "victory to the vietcong" were a tiny minority of the antiwar movement.

"David Duke is radioactive to the Right; Al Sharpton gets to share debate time with real Democratic Presidential nominees."

Well, Duke is a much much more extreme figure than Sharpton. He hangs out with neo-Nazis, sells neo-Nazi literature, openly embraces all the key tenets of white separatism and antisemitism. He's a bona-fide blow dried fascist, who got 60% of the white vote when he ran for governor in 1990. The national Republicans, to their credit, have distanced themselves from him.

I'm not a Sharpton fan at all, but he's no longer the race demagogue he used to be. I know all about Tawana Brawley and Crown Heights, but since his 1994 race against Moynihan, he's pretty consistently become just another typical black, liberal New York City politician.

The left-wing equivalent of Duke would be a Churchill, or a Louis Farrakhan, or LaRouche, who most certainly were not invited to the Democratic debates.

Posted by: markus rose at May 3, 2005 09:39 AM

Texas Air National Guard.

I'd have to do a search, but I believe that at some point during the last election cycle you made a few references to draft-dodging Presidents, and I don't remember it being about Clinton.

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 3, 2005 09:40 AM

Oh wait, I remember, the Texas nationa guard thing. I did talk a bit about those memos, both here and on my own blog. Here's a link.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 09:40 AM

Commenter, ever hear of Leni Riefenstahl? Framing counts.

The AP article I cited was a pure puff piece ("Stacks of papers sit on a sun-drenched table...") profiling a teacher of University students, who just happened to say the people in the WTC got what was coming to them.

Originally we were talking about the Left doing a poor job of keeping the creeps and the freaks out of the house. Saying "don't mind that guy with the AK-47 behind the podium" isn't going to make him go away. And tut-tutting about some story painting him as a martyr does... not... help.

Marcus Rose:

I'm not a Sharpton fan at all, but he's no longer the race demagogue he used to be. I know all about Tawana Brawley and Crown Heights, but since his 1994 race against Moynihan, he's pretty consistently become just another typical black, liberal New York City politician.

Too true... I'd just leave out the "black" qualifier though. True, but not significant to the story. Sigh.

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 3, 2005 09:59 AM

I agree with Mark P. - the liberals/democrats, and the MSM too, do a poor job of marginalizing the extreme Leftists. This makes liberals easy targets since the distinctions between the reasonable people and fringe elements are continually blurred. Losing an debate with a liberal? Just start attacking them with quotes from Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, and Noam Chomsky.

David Horowitz describes it this way in his piece Liberals and Leftists in a Time of War

It is this amalgamation of forces on the left – both liberal and radical – that makes the present task of distinguishing patriots who disagree with the policies in Iraq from anti-American radicals who want to bring down the “empire.” This latter group rarely expresses its goals as candidly as Professor DeGenova did at the Columbia teach-in. That is because it is aware that its revolutionary goals constitute an outlaw agenda the vast majority of Americans would reject.

It would be far easier to separate this anti-American left from patriotic critics, if the patriots would do some of the separating themselves. It is difficult to establish such a separation, for example, when leaders of the Democratic Party are embracing unsavory figures like Michael Moore, or when anti-American radicals become Democratic Party legislators. It is difficult when prominent figures in the Democratic Party embrace MoveOn.org radicals who opposed the war in Afghanistan and allow them to become one of the principal funders of the Party’s campaigns. Further complicating the task of clarity is the existence of an entire Internet industry, funded by liberal donors, whose agenda is to smear conservatives as “rednecks,” “racists” and “witch-hunters” whose agenda is to tar any criticism of the war as unpatriotic.

Posted by: markytom at May 3, 2005 10:14 AM

Your characterizations about the left are equally simplistic and insulting. If you want to start a critical dialog on socialism based on actual issues, then please be my guest. But I don't have much hope of it going much beyond a farce, as you haven't demonstrated much knowledge of political issues as either David, Carlos, or Spaniard.

DPU,

I quote you a Leftist who says that he wants the insurgents to win, and that makes you mad at me, not him. That's supposed to reflect on my knowledge, says you. So if you, DPU, can discredit me personally, goes the thinking, then you can make the words of the Left, which I quote, vanish into thin air without you having to address them. Neat trick, or maybe you're just a naive ignorant? I doubt the latter.

Not that ignorance is a sin. Yet in your visceral reactions to my own purported ignorance, one would think that it is a sin. You protest too much, DPU, you protest too much. Too much emotion in you DPU. I'm hitting a nerve.

So essentially you're mad because I quoted the Left. Or perhaps you're mad because this Leftist I quoted is an isolated voice? He isn't. He's all too common. And instead of making the case that he is an isolated Leftist moron, you go into ad hominem mode against me to silence me and make it all go away? It's not going to vanish into thin air, DPU. I'll continue bringing you free of charge any and all Leftist lunacy that I find out there.

You, DPU, have been on this blog hitching a ride on the backs of American Liberals-- wishing to be taken seriously, as they still are. But you aren't one of them. You are nothing but a socialist, a hard Leftist, a blame America firster. In other words, pretend as you may, you're no Marcus. In fact, you sanctimoniously proclaimed yourself an orthodox socialist. You're exactly the Left I'm talking about, not the Marcus Libs. The pro-insurgent Lefist I quoted is all yours.

Which is why what I say about the Left slides right off the backs of Marcus Liberals, but it sticks in the craw of DPU Leftists. Shows I'm right on the money.

Posted by: spaniard at May 3, 2005 10:15 AM

Mark,

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but...

It doesn't matter what Churchill was saying. It does not matter for the following reasons:

1) Churchill is a fringe lunatic. Everyone except for fringe lunatics acknowledged this until he became Bill O'Reilly's poster-boy for liberals everywhere. Let me emphasize this: he only matters so long as people care what he has to say, and the only people listening, apparently, are conservatives.

2) No one forces a student to attend a university, to take a class, or (and this is the most important part) to listen or care what the professor's viewpoints were. Considering that half of Americans voted for Bush, the effectiveness of the vast evil-liberal-university-indoctrination-program is called into question. That, or its existence.

3) Churchill is not a man with a gun. He is, let me repeat, a man who says words to which no one listens. There is a huge, huge number of nutjobs in the world saying a variety of crazy things. The best thing in the world is to simply ignore them - you feed them by giving them attention. Makes me wonder why I comment here...

You can interpret the article as a "puff piece" if you want. You can compare the AP to a Nazi film maker if you want. You can, if you want, get your panties into a bunch over Ward Churchill. I have to warn you, though, you're the only one who will be.

That reminds me of something, slightly off topic. Think of homophobes - not the average, run-of-the-mill type, but the ones who run around with signs that say "God Hates Fags" and stuff like that, or who spend years of their lives dedicated to banning gay marriage. These people, they hate gays so much that they are consumed by them - you'd have to think about gay sex an awful lot to actually lobby your government to make gay sex illegal. That takes a lot of effort. So we've got a bunch of people who hate gays so much that they cannot stop thinking about gay sex.

I shall now draw an anology: Ward Churchill is a nobody, except to the people who hate him so much that they can't stop thinking about it.

Mark, considering the enormous number of crazies in the world, and the volume of craziness they say and write, the best thing - for everyone involved - is to ignore them. Churchill wasn't hurting anyone by being a jackass, but you're certainly hurting yourselves ("yourselves" = "conservatives") by obsessing over him.

One more thing: it is disingenuous to talk about "the Left doing a poor job of keeping the creeps and the freaks out of the house". By "Left" you either mean "fringe radical leftists", in which case, what does it matter? Or by "Left" you mean "liberals", in which case I call bullshit: Churchill has never been a part of my house. So stop suggesting that he is - that because I'm a liberal I have some responsibility to take care of him. There's not enough time in the world to "Sistah Soulja" every nutjob who dislikes the same things that you or I dislike.

That's what's so frustrating, I say again: to have a nutjob come out of nowhere and suddenly be told that because he dislikes some things that I also dislike, for different reasons, that he and I heart each other. Well, guess what, bucko? Since Prince Abdullah and George Bush made with the kissy, I now accuse you, Mark Poling, of having a hard-on for the Saudi Royal Family.

Mark Poling supports terrorism! Mark Poling wants to marry Osama bin Laden! Time for the Right to start cleaning house and kicking out all the terrorist-sympathizers.

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 10:22 AM

You, DPU, have been on this blog hitching a ride on the backs of American Liberals-- wishing to be taken seriously, as they still are. But you aren't one of them. You are nothing but a socialist, a hard Leftist, a blame America firster. In other words, pretend as you may, you're no Marcus. In fact, you sanctimoniously proclaimed yourself an orthodox socialist. You're exactly the Left I'm talking about, not the Marcus Libs. The pro-insurgent Lefist I quoted is all yours.

Well now, here's the thing -- I haven't said anything pro-insurgent. Ever. And yet you keep trying to paint me with that brush. Why is that?

And yes, I'm a socialist, although I don't know about "orthodox", as that's a big field, and there is no official strain of that political creed. Doesn't really matter though, because you are so pig-ignorant about political theory in general that merely the label is enough to set you off on a screed. The fact that I'm pro-democracy, anti-authoritarian, pro-individual rights, pro-human rights, and pro-free market makes not a whit of difference to your minimal understanding of the term "socialist."

Eh, go ahead, keep up with your inner debates with demon leftists, David/Carlos/Spaniard, or continue with your bizarre on-line personality changes and cartoonish left-wing sock puppetry. You're too far out on the fringe for me. The last word is yours.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 10:42 AM

“I shall now draw an anology: Ward Churchill is a nobody, except to the people who hate him so much that they can't stop thinking about it.”

The heck with Ward Churchill. This is the bottom line: the Democrats who hold the veto power over that party’s presidential nominee are uneasy with American Exceptionalism. These are people who, first, last, and foremost, consider themselves citizens of the world. Their allegiance to the United States is of secondary importance. Never forget how poorly Senator Joseph Lieberman did in last year’s primaries. Do you want to see the new face of the Democratic Party? Well, all you have to do is visit the Daily Kos. The Dude rocks and takes no prisoners. Numerous Democratic politicians dare not displease him.

Posted by: David Thomson at May 3, 2005 10:50 AM

Double,

your fascination with online monikers is amusing. It borders on neurotic. Is "Double Plus Ungood" your REAL name? Do you reveal anything of yourself with your moniker that I don't? Do you see how insane your obsession is?

That's great you're "pro-democracy". Any Leftist moron cheering for the Iraq "minutemen" will say the same thing. In fact they do it BECAUSE they are pro-democracy, they say.

Not that I care what you, DPU, believe. My analysis of the Left is based on the general, not the specific, so what YOU personally believe is only of marginal of interest to me.

What arrogance of you to think that YOU are the standard by which ANYTHING should be judged.

Posted by: spaniard at May 3, 2005 10:50 AM

People, people...

I'm just as guilty of this as all of you, but please, please remember that fighting online is like competing in the Special Olympics.

Win or lose, we're just a bunch of retards. Let's all, myself included, just chill a little.

We won't win any battles, or change the world, or even change any minds, it seems, at the rate we're going. Nothing more vital is at stake than pointing out how stupid someone you've never met is? Than nothing is at stake.

Chillax, as the kids say.

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 10:55 AM

This is the bottom line: the Democrats who hold the veto power over that party’s presidential nominee are uneasy with American Exceptionalism

David-

No matter how many times you repeat this lie (this is at least the 20th) it's still not true.

Posted by: Steve at May 3, 2005 11:15 AM

Chillax, as the kids say.

Chilled, as requested.

But, as you've pointed out, we're not here to convince others. It's primal scream therapy.

Besides, you're all figments of my imagination.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 11:29 AM

3) Churchill is not a man with a gun. He is, let me repeat, a man who says words to which no one listens.

Ward Churchill and the AK-47

Oddly enough, "Satya Magazine is a monthly publication focusing on vegetarianism, environmentalism, animal advocacy, and social justice." Guess the vegetables, wetlands, and bunny rabbits pay for the advertising. Or maybe it's privately funded by Batman.

Oddly enough, I believe that as a tenured professor at a University that receives a lot of funding, Ward Churchill is in my house, not just yours, and I don't like it. But I do like the roach analogy; just because I've seen one and done something about it, I don't think for a minute I've taken care of the whole problem.

Oddly enough, I called Bush to task for being too cozy with the Saudis in a different thread. And I'm sick and tired of the kowtowing to the religious right fringe groups by Congressional Republicans. So much so that I'm contemplating a vow to actively campaign AGAINST any Republican -- any -- in 2006.

Oddly enough, I never said (or even implied, I think) that you personally are a fan of Ward Churchill. But I will imply that you tolerate people who are.

And oddly enough, I think that's a problem for Liberalism, and oddly enough, as a Libertarian I think that's a problem for our country as a whole.

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 3, 2005 11:31 AM

Satya Magazine

If you'd heard of Satya Magazine before today, raise your hand.

And keep it down, before pointing the finger at liberals for not "denouncing" it yet.

Posted by: Steve at May 3, 2005 11:34 AM

Oddly enough, I never said (or even implied, I think) that you personally are a fan of Ward Churchill. But I will imply that you tolerate people who are.

I think this is directed at The Commenter, but isn't that all tied up in something called freedom of thought or of expression, or something? I don't understand the use of the word "tolerate" here. I suspect that there are a great number of professors in the world that have opinions that I strongly disagree with. Are we all (left and right) supposed to hunt them out and pillory them? Why isn't it sufficient to just ignore them?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 11:41 AM

“David-

No matter how many times you repeat this lie (this is at least the 20th) it's still not true.”

Why take my word for anything? Who am I? Instead, you merely need to visit the Daily Kos. This guy is the real deal. The national Democratic revolves around him. Gosh, perhaps you don’t know how to Google. In that case, I will provide you with the link to his blog:

http://www.dailykos.com/

Ain’t I a nice guy? This guy can raise a lot of cash almost immediately. He cannot be marginalized. Money talks, and bull excrement walks.

Posted by: David Thomson at May 3, 2005 12:09 PM

In that case, I will provide you with the link to his blog:

http://www.dailykos.com/

Ain’t I a nice guy?

You may be a sweet guy, but your HTML skills suck. That's providing the URL, not the link.

Here's the link:

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 12:12 PM

You're all figments of my imagination. - DPU

True.

Why isn't it sufficient to just ignore them? - DPU

How are you suppose to ignore them when they go on a national tour to stir shit up? I'd be happy to ignore him if Churchill didn't come to my town to make love with the anti-Israel folks in Berkeley. Then we have Juan Cole on NPR radio spots essentially doing the same.

Posted by: d-rod at May 3, 2005 12:19 PM

DPU, I'm all for freedom of thought; what I'm not for is the idea that every thought is equally good, true, positive, or whatever valuation system you want to attach to it. (Well, I should qualify that as every thought that comes from not-Right....) I certainly don't want Ward Churchill to go to jail. I do want people in the street to spit at his feet. (Fortunately, in this regard I'm pretty well satisfied.)

It's not enough to just ignore his kind of poisonous crap. It's got to be socially painful to spout this stuff. And places where it's safe to spout this stuff should be identified and as agressively attacked, lest we get the hell shocked out of us someday, a la Timothy McVeigh, or worse, a truly effective terror network within our own culture. I'm not confident that such a thing couldn't exist; if it comes into being, it will be because reasonable people become comfortable with simply ignoring unreasonable people.

Odd that this thread got onto the Bogus Injun. Mary started it by talking about how our generation deals today with the consequences of the Vietnam experience. Churchill's whole persona is modelled on the domestic revolutionaries of the period. If you could look past the controversy about "little Eichmans", if you could just tune out his hateful words into "yada, yada, yada", Ward Churchill would seem, well, retro. Quaint. Harmless.

Sorry. I don't find this stuff amusing anymore. We got to 9/11 by being complascent. Never again.

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 3, 2005 12:21 PM

d-rod, good to see you.

(1) What's with all the caps on your blog? And in my comments section? A new look, or has someone hacked it?

(2) I ignore people on national tour all the time. Is he advertising on TV or something? (Michael Moore advertised on his speaking tour here in Canada, but I haven't seen Churchill do the same, so I claim ignorance.) Even so, it can still be ignored, in the same way I ignore Fox News and televised sports.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 12:26 PM

Daily Kos. This guy is the real deal. The national Democratic [sic] revolves around him

What evidence is there of this, other than the fact that you say it does?

Let's go through this again: the radical far left does NOT have a veto over who the Democratic presidential nominee is. If they did, the nominee last year would've been Dean (or Kucinich, or Sharpton, etc.) If Kerry was their "compromise" candidate, then they must be so radical after all.

In fact, the far left wing of the Democratic party has been unhappy with the presidential nominee, well, every election since 1992, believing that Clinton, Gore, and Kerry were all too centrist.

The DLC has considerably more power in this regard than Kos ever has or ever will, which is why the nominee in '08 will likely be Edwards, Hillary, Biden, or Bayh. Liberals all, but none even close to where Kos is on the spectrum.

Posted by: Steve at May 3, 2005 12:26 PM

It's not enough to just ignore his kind of poisonous crap. It's got to be socially painful to spout this stuff. And places where it's safe to spout this stuff should be identified and as agressively attacked, lest we get the hell shocked out of us someday, a la Timothy McVeigh, or worse, a truly effective terror network within our own culture.

To my mind, that's the chain of thought that leads down a bad road. Here in Canada, we have certain laws the prevent freedom of speech should the speech be considered "dangerous." I find these laws ineffective and prone to misuse. Besides, when people are muzzled like this (or because they fear popular retribution), they take on the air of a martyr to freedom.

Screw that. The most effective way of dealing with opinions you disagree with is to ignore them. The fear that others will be swayed by them is usually unwarranted. And if it hadn't been for the big fuss made about this guy, he'd still only be preaching to the students flaky enough to take his class, or those reading obscure webzines.

If he's making threats, or inciting violent revolution, or making plans for terrorist attacks, then there are laws in place and law enforcement people to deal with it. If he's doing none of those things, then he isn't a problem. Declaring pure opinions or ideas to be dangerous is a problem.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 12:35 PM

Oddly enough, Satay magazine also features an interview with Ted Rall, who, in his current war against the world, is now pissing off the Zoroastrians.

The problem with many 'progressive' and activist organizations - they don't report homicidal threats or even actual murders to the police, as we saw with San Francisco Indymedia's reaction to the killing of policeman David Mobilio by an 'anti-corporate' activist.

Indymedia and their readers didn't report a murder confession because they were convinced that Ashcroft was watching them anyway.

Speaking of sociopaths, did anyone read the entire Satay interview with Ward Churchill? Here's a clip:

So if it takes eradication of the beast [the USA] from within, how would you see that happening?

Well, first the withdrawal of consent, people imbued with consciousness to withdraw altogether from an embrace of the state.

..I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether.

So what does that look like?

There’s no U.S. in America anymore. What’s on the map instead? Well let’s just start with territoralities often delineated in treaties of fact—territoralities of 500 indigenous nations imbued with an inalienable right to self-determination, definable territoralities which are jurisdictionally separate. Then you’ve got things like the internal diasporic population of African Americans in internal colonies that have been established by the imposition of labor patterns upon them. You’ve got Appalachian whites. Since the U.S. unilaterally violated its treaty obligations, it forfeits its rights—or presumption of rights—under international law. Basically, you’ve got a dismantlement and devolution of the U.S. territorial and jurisdictional corpus into something that would be more akin to diasporic self-governing entities and a multiplicity of geographical locations. A-ha, chew on that one for awhile.

I'd like to think that he was chewing on peyote at the time, but he always sounds that way. There's not enough peyote left to fuel that.

Churchill and his supporters do require some attention. They're doing a tour?

Posted by: mary at May 3, 2005 01:02 PM

Mary-

That sort of thing is so completely looney-tunes that yes, I believe it is best ignored. Because bringing it out into the open only brings Churchill into the "national discussion," where he doesn't belong.

Posted by: Steve at May 3, 2005 01:12 PM

The problem with that, Mary, is that Indymedia is also something I'd classify as a lunatic asylum. The conflation of "liberal" with "crazy lunatic fringe" is, you know, tiring and insulting. I'd say that Democratic Underground and Indymedia are the left-wing equivalents of Free Republic.

But, what about the original post that we're all supposed to be debating?

I think some people have pointed out the similarities between calls to pull out of Vietnam with current calls to pull out of Iraq. I'd like to point out that someone can make a principled case for withdrawal that has everything to do with fighting terrorism.

The Bush administration has pushed the line that to create a time table for withdrawal will "embolden" the insurgency in Iraq. There are plenty of reasons to think that Bush has already done plenty to embolden the insurgency, especially with his "bring it on" rhetoric, and considering the increasing rate of violence despite a number of steps to stop it (elections, etc.).

There has been little talk, however, of emboldening the people of Iraq. What little we know of Iraqi public opinion indicates that a large majority would like the US to leave. If we were to establish a timetable for withdrawal - stating that once certain criteria were met, the US would commence withdrawing - could offer the Iraqi people a greater incentive to achieve those criteria.

This isn't a call to withdraw - this is to point out that all of these arguments (withdrawal will embolden the terrorists, withdrawal will embolden the Iraqi people and cut support for the insurgency, and so forth) are attempts to read the future and people's minds, and as such are speculation. There's no use in pretending to call it "educated guessing" because, honestly, who here can claim to be able to predict accurately what millions of Iraqis would do under those circumstances?

Personally, I don't know where I stand on withdrawal - I'd like to see this thing through, though it seems like it will take the better part of a decade for the situation to resemble our goals. The threat of emboldening terrorists doesn't really strike me as all that important - don't the terrorists seem pretty bold already? A number of Iraqi tribal and Sunni leaders have said they would support the US if given a clear indication of when we'll be leaving - it seems like there might be more incentive for clearly demarcating a future withdrawal.

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 01:19 PM

What's with all the caps on your blog? And in my comments section? A new look, or has someone hacked it? - DPU

Somebody whacked it. Hopefully, it will return to normal soon.

Posted by: d-rod at May 3, 2005 01:20 PM

Commenter - The conflation of "liberal" with "crazy lunatic fringe" is, you know, tiring and insulting. I'd say that Democratic Underground and Indymedia are the left-wing equivalents of Free Republic.

Indymedia is 'progressive'. As a 'progressive' magazine, they are linked to and respected by other 'progressive' journals like Common Dreams. Is 'progressive' equivalent to liberal?

I used to think they were, but now, I'm glad to realize that they are two entirely different entities.

Steve - I think we should be paying attention to these groups, to commenters like Lunacy who says:

So let me get this straight - he formed a corporation to take on another corporation and then settles for taking on a low-level lackey? Talk about shooting low.

What a baffoon. I mean, he provides his own answer in his small-minded, immensely generalized manifesto: you can't beat a financial machine through small-time physical violence.

or truth sayer who says:

for every pig offed by a person there are a hundred inocent people offed by pigs andy you are a hero and a patriot

Indymedia is not a lunatic fringe. These "progressives" are a hate group threatening and preaching violence, more equivalent to the KKK and the National Alliance than to the Free Republic.

It's never a good idea to ignore hate groups preaching violence.

Posted by: mary at May 3, 2005 01:50 PM

d-rod - All caps works pretty well with the Costa Rica photos

Posted by: mary at May 3, 2005 01:56 PM

Steve - I think we should be paying attention to these groups, to commenters like Lunacy who says: [...snip...] Indymedia is not a lunatic fringe. These "progressives" are a hate group threatening and preaching violence, more equivalent to the KKK and the National Alliance than to the Free Republic.

You can find the same level in intense hate and incitement to violence in the comments section of LGF on any day of the week. I just choose to not link to them.

There are extremists on every political side of the fence.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 01:58 PM

DPU - has there ever been a point in time where someone confessed to a genuine murder on LGF? Did the LGF commenters then cheer for the murderer? Did Charles of LGF fail to report the murder to the police?

..and when the murder confession turned out to be valid, did the commenters on LGF still cheer for the murderer?

When officer Mobilio's wife asked the Indymedia posters for compassion, several told her that her husband deserved to die.

This is the most extreme incident that has happened on Indymedia, but it's not the only one.

The two sites are not in any way comparable. The worst commenter on LGF is equivalent to the worst commenter on Kevin Drum's site, but I wouldn't call Washington Monthly a hate site.

Posted by: mary at May 3, 2005 02:09 PM

“You can find the same level in intense hate and incitement to violence in the comments section of LGF on any day of the week.”

That’s absolute nonsense. Some LGF commenters might be a bit excitable---but an Indymedia type actually murdered a police officer. There is simply no comparison between the two. Think not? Read the following:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/1545326.php

Posted by: David Thomson at May 3, 2005 02:16 PM

Some LGF commenters might be a bit excitable...

Well, there's an understatement.

Look, shake any extremist site hard enough, and all kinds of nutjobs are going to fall out. We can sit and compare them all day, but my point is is that both sides have them.

Or is your contention that there are no lunatics who associate themselves with right-wing politics?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 02:24 PM

I should also add that this murder is a quintessential example of MSM bias. Very few people are aware of this cop killing. Don’t believe me? Then ask ten of your friends what they know about it? My guess is that perhaps two of them have even heard of this horrifying incident. On the other hand, had this been a murder committed by a right winger---we would hear about it just every single day. A movie producer would be hurrying together a film project.

Posted by: David Thomson at May 3, 2005 02:25 PM

A movie producer would be hurrying together a film project.

Does that movie producer have a veto over who the Democratic presidential nominee is?

Posted by: Steve at May 3, 2005 02:28 PM

This is the most extreme incident that has happened on Indymedia, but it's not the only one.

I wasn't aware of this incident, and yes, I find it sick and contemptable. Need I say that I've never visited Indymedia?

However, I'm similarily sickened by the cheers of the LGF commenters on the news of Marla Ruzicka's death in an Iraqi car bombing, or the slanderous lies appearing about her in Horowitz's rag. More cheering on of murder, just from a different side.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 02:33 PM

Very few people are aware of this cop killing. Don’t believe me? Then ask ten of your friends what they know about it? My guess is that perhaps two of them have even heard of this horrifying incident.

Are you familiar (no Googling, now, play fair) with the name Maher Arar? How about Zahra Kazemi?

If you aren't aware of the two important incidents surrounding these names, should I conclude that there is a bias in the media? Or just that the news is another form of entertainment, and that they put on what they think people would like to watch?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 02:46 PM

I should also add that this murder is a quintessential example of MSM bias.

Yea yea, whatever. Have you noticed that Fox News hasn't touched this either, and neither of practically any conservative blogs besides LGF? There must be some reason for this- it does, after all, seem like an ideal five-days-a-week-on-O'Reilly story- but of course it's easiest of all to blame the evil monolithic MSM.

This cop killer was a loathsome individual who was stupid enough to confess to the crime on Indymedia. I'm not defending Indymedia, but does this somehow make them responsible for the crime?

Posted by: Steve at May 3, 2005 02:47 PM

The difference between the Right's lunatic fringe and the Left's is that the Right's aren't pro-jihadist traitors. That's all the difference in the world.

But to the Left, this is a distinction without a difference.

That's why they're on the Left.

Posted by: spaniard at May 3, 2005 03:08 PM

“This cop killer was a loathsome individual who was stupid enough to confess to the crime on Indymedia.”

A radical right winger would have been described by the MSM as the logical result of his group’s ideology. This leftist murderer is perceived as merely an isolated individual and not emblematic of the Indymedia social milieu. When is the last time the MSM have done serious stories about this organization?

"I'm not defending Indymedia, but does this somehow make them responsible for the crime?"

Yes, at least partly. Indymedia is not appalled by the crime. Many of its members were ecstatically happy. The policeman allegedly deserved to be shot.

Posted by: David Thomson at May 3, 2005 03:19 PM

Actually, Spaniard, when you have white supremecists cheering 9/11, I'd say you have some "pro-jihadist traitors" on the right as well. Not to mention people who, you know, blow up buildings and kill hundreds of people. Your difference is artificial.

And isn't that the point, folks? Back and forth, back and forth - your extremists are worse than our extremists! Isn't the point that they're extremists?

So every time I point out that commenters on Free Republic frequently talk about murdering people they don't like (usually gays, sometimes liberals, always Hillary Clinton), I'm told that oh, Indymedia is worse! Because, I guess, what's really important is making sure that liberals know how awful their side is, and how your side is, you know, so much better?

No, no, no no no. This should not be a partisan issue. It becomes a partisan issue when members of one political persuasion only talk about how awful the extremists of the other side are - then it's, again, about scoring political points. If we're going to talk about extremists, it should not be about how awful the other guy's extremists are. Sorry, I don't "have" extremists. I don't "own" Stalin, conservatives don't "own Hitler", to give a couple of extreme examples - but I don't "own" Indymedia anymore than Spaniard "owns" Free Republic. We bear no responsibility for what insane people on either site say.

And if you imply otherwise, you're either a) smart enough to know the difference and using it to gain points, or b) stupid or crazy enough to actually believe that you can actually have a discussion in which we say "my side's crazy nutjobs who talk about murder and genocide are better than your crazy nutjobs who talk about murder and genocide".

For the record, LGF's posters frequently talk positively about murdering people and using genocide as policy. I'd say the only difference between those people and Indymedia's is that LGF just hasn't gotten the opportunity yet.

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 03:22 PM

DPU - I already said that Indymedia was equivalent to right-wing hate groups like the KKK and the National Alliance.

The people who run Indymedia were not responsible for the crime, but they were responsible for reporting it. Please don't try to claim that they don't monitor or censor their site, because there's overwhelming evidence that they do.

When a writer from the Liberal Willamette Week of Portland wrote about censorship in Indymedia, his life was threatened by commenters in Portland.

On mainstream sites like Kos and Washington Monthly people vent anger & cheer the death of their supposed 'enemies' all the time, but they're not equivalent to Indymedia.

Groups and academics like Churchill who claim to represent 'progressive values' are preaching hate. Americans who call themselves 'progressives' and 'activists' murder and preach hate in the name of their cause. They are equivalent to white supremacist organizations, and they share many of their views. This is not news, it's common knowledge.

From the Willamette Week:

On Nov. 17, police had to intervene to rescue KOIN reporter David Okarski, who, according to police reports, was attacked by a hostile mob of "peace" protesters in front of the Justice Center.

This is not the only apparent contradiction.

On March 15, as demonstrators took over three lanes of the Morrison Bridge, two "peace" protesters menaced an independent filmmaker until he turned off his camera. And KOIN cameraman Lory "Ole" Olson recalls that even as the crowd chanted "This is what democracy looks like," some demonstrators were telling him to get off the bridge. "They're not living up to their beliefs," he says.

If the Left could admit that their left-leaning 'progressive' activists are equivalent to right wing white supremacist groups, it would be a great step forward.

Posted by: mary at May 3, 2005 03:28 PM

A radical right winger would have been described by the MSM as the logical result of his group’s ideology.

That would be easy to prove, David. Can you point to an MSM article on Timothy McVeigh that claimed that? He was certainly an extremist right-wing mass murderer.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 03:29 PM

If the Left could admit that their left-leaning 'progressive' activists are equivalent to right wing white supremacist groups, it would be a great step forward.

When you say that "The Left" should admit this, who exactly do you have in mind? And by what method? I think that most liberal and let-wing posters here have already stated that they find these guys either looney or dangerously deranged. Are you looking for something more? It's not like we have access to the VLWC's media-control section or anything...

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at May 3, 2005 03:34 PM

Mary: "If the Left could admit that their left-leaning 'progressive' activists are equivalent to right wing white supremacist groups, it would be a great step forward."

I guess, if I have to label myself in this binary world view of yours, I'm a liberal. And I guess, in your categorization, that means that "left-leaning 'progressive' activists" are "my" extremists.

Yes, some of them are the equivalent of "your" "right wing white supremacist groups".

And the white-ring supremacists are yours, aren't they Mary? I mean that's the implication of the binary, either/or world view that you're trying to foist on us.

Posted by: VinoVeritas at May 3, 2005 03:55 PM

White-ring, right wing - you know what I mean anyhow.

Posted by: VinoVeritas at May 3, 2005 03:58 PM

After the cop killer story, anybody comfortable still saying we should just ignore the nuts?

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Sorry, I'd be first or second on most IndyMediots' lists (second or thir for the Islamofascists; third or fourth on most McVeighlians') and
I
am
speaking
out.

DPU, I want society as a whole to protect me, not the US-version of the RCMP. I don't want to make any speech illegal. Instead I want to make it as hard to say "kill the [direction of choice]-wing bastards" in polite company as it is to say "kill the niggers." Don't you get that? And I don't want to get there by making it socially acceptable to say the word "nigger." (Or, for that matter, making "[direction of choice]-wing" an insulting term. The problem I have is with the "kill the-" or "screw the-" part of the sentence.)

Capisce?

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 3, 2005 04:19 PM

When you say that "The Left" should admit this, who exactly do you have in mind?

Some simple equations:

indymedia=white supremacists; both are organized and active hate groups

kevin drum loony commenters=lgf loony commenters; neither are organized or active hate groups

kevin drum does not equal david duke

charles johnson does not equal indymedia

if you say LGF = indymedia, and if I say kos = the KKK, we'll both understand why this is offensive.

I feel like I'm organizing a PC workplace seminar..

Posted by: mary at May 3, 2005 05:34 PM

This really has turned into the funniest conversation I think we've had here yet.

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 05:44 PM

Casual observation would suggest that the violent tendencies of leftists are aimed almost exclusively inwards - at the U.S. - at the government, law enforcement, the military, capitalistic business interests, and even at religious conservatives - what might be loosely lumped together as "authority figures", or “the establishment” or “the system" (how's that for a 60's throwback?). Aside from the far-right wing neo-Nazi anti-semites, however, it seems that the wrath of the far right (use as an example the average LGF poster) is directed towards criminals, jihadists, and people who appear to despise the United States (which means they themselves as citizens of this country) - and that's why they lump the leftists in with the folks they hate. In other words, the right generally opposes the “anti-establishment” forces.

Which makes me wonder, how does one actually compare the 2 kinds of extremists? As an American I mean? Because the leftist extremists direct most of their hatred inward - at their own, while the rightist extremists seem to direct their hatred outward - at the "other" (but also inward, when they feel that their own citizens - the despised "leftists" or "liberals" would like to see them brought down in favor of the "other"). I think that's why the left is so vilified by the right - i.e. the likes of Ward Churchill - because he's attacking within, at his own people. Ditto Michael Moore - slandering Americans overseas. But meanwhile, the left seems to despise someone like say, Zell Miller, who mainly advocates closing ranks against an external enemy. Why do Indymedia folks despise him so? It has to be because he is siding with the establishment.

Personally, I think it all comes down to whether one thinks the US is really a force for good in the world or not. I recognize that the US does a great many bad things but I have no illusions about the alternatives. I can only conclude that many leftists DO in fact have those illusions and should they ever succeed in deconstructing the US and paralyzing it, they will be either bitterly disillusioned or dead. Too late then. I figure another “establishment” will simply replace the one we have and I seriously doubt it will be an improvement (it could well resemble the mafia, e.g.).

I also realize that the left utterly despises the “US vs THEM” mentality. In fact, the left generally champions what has been called “alienism” – or the tendency to regard the “alien” (the Other) as somehow morally superior to the "Us/me". I agree from a moral perspective that it is a good thing to dissolve the US vs THEM duality. But I get the impression it only works if the OTHER is on the same page. Otherwise it's pretty much a prescription for suicide.

I do think the U.S. is generally a force for good and I have no illusions about the superiority of the OTHER should the left ever succeed in deconstructing American society (which I think they may well succeed in accomplishing BTW). That puts me in the “pro-establishment” camp and it also, at a gut level, makes me MUCH more concerned about the extremism I see on the left than what I see on the right. Like I said, it’s just a gut instinct, a survival kind of thing. I'm not proud of it. In fact, I'm struggling with it. But it seems very hard to remain neutral, as "Krishnamurtian" as that might be.

Posted by: Caroline at May 3, 2005 05:44 PM

Commenter "This really has turned into the funniest conversation I think we've had here yet."

Actually I kind of liked that discussion we got sucked into with Mika where he was defending ethnic cleansing.

Posted by: Vinoveritas at May 3, 2005 05:54 PM

Indymedia is populated with socialists.

What more do you need to know.

Posted by: spaniard at May 3, 2005 05:59 PM

See folks? It's a laugh riot. Kos, who talks for a living, is equivalent to the KKK, which is responsible for the murders of, well, at the least hundreds and probably more likely in the thousands of people (and not responsible in the pretend "he's a traitor because he talks poorly about the US but in the real murder stab shoot hang sense) - and continues, every now and then to hang someone, or drag them to death. But hey, totally the same as writing a blog!

Oh, and I love Caroline's pseudo-pop-psychological analysis of extremists that allows her - conveniently - to left-wing extremists (who murder people every now and then) than right-wing extremists (who blow up buildings). I mean, nice!

My favorite is the notion that Indymedia is somehow organized. Those people couldn't organize themselves out of a paper bag - most are either pimply faced teens who are really pissed at their parents, smelly hippies, or pederasts who like hanging out with the first at their solidarity meetings. Seriously, have you ever seen these people in action? Apparently not, if you think they're an organized threat. I feel more threatened by an AARP takeover than I do from these jokers.

But, generally, I think it's funny when people say "I am legitimately worried about terrorism, I desire to fight it, and people who disagree with me are soft on terrorism", and then turn around and say "I think the extremism associated with my opponents is worse than the political extremism associated with my allies, and as a result I will ignore the political extremism associated with my allies, even though that political extremism has resulted in many more deaths than the political extremism of my opponents". Nothing says "I hate terrorists" than complaining about Indymedia while right-wing terrorists set off bombs in Atlanta!

Ahhhhh, sweet sweet bias.

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 05:59 PM

Vinoveritas,

NO SOUP FOR YOU!!

Posted by: mika. at May 3, 2005 06:04 PM

"Oh, and I love Caroline's pseudo-pop-psychological analysis of extremists that allows her - conveniently - to left-wing extremists (who murder people every now and then) than right-wing extremists (who blow up buildings). I mean, nice!"

If that were a complete sentence, I might actually be able to respond to it. As it is, your objection to my comment isn't really clear, at least to me.

Posted by: Caroline at May 3, 2005 06:06 PM

Caroline,

your post at 5:44 is the single best post on this thread.

Posted by: spaniard at May 3, 2005 06:10 PM

Woops! My bad, and apologies. I should preview first!

My point was something like this: unless you've got a degree in psychology or, preferably, psychiatry, anything any of us say about motivations, or psychological profiles, or what it means when these people talk about US or THE OTHER or anything that is, well, pop psychology bullshit.

I just thought that it was nice that you came up with a fancy-schmancy fake psychological analysis of people you've never met that allows you to be more comfortable with violence associated with your end of the political spectrum than with political violence associated with the other end. I mean, it's so convenient!

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 06:10 PM

Haha, and I love Spaniard's explanation: it's full of socialists! Right, every person on Indymedia is a "socialist", every "socialist" is out to get us - the Red Menace, right? - and so forth.

Does anyone remember the movie Clue, when Tim Curry says that he was being blackmailed because his wife was friends with....socialists? And everyone gasped? And he starts to cry and says, "well...everyone makes mistakes..."

Ahahaha, just like that. Except then it was a joke, and now Spaniard's serious. Which is funnier? We report, you decide.

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 06:14 PM

"My point was something like this: unless you've got a degree in psychology or, preferably, psychiatry, anything any of us say about motivations, or psychological profiles, or what it means when these people talk about US or THE OTHER or anything that is, well, pop psychology bullshit."

Commenter - I've got an advanced degree in Psychology and I work in Psychiatry at a major American University. What say you now?

Well, truthfully, you should say that I know about as much as the next human being who seriously tries to understand these things. I despise the so-called "experts" myself.

Spaniard - if you are really Carlos in disguise - I missed you. :-) But I don't think so, unless you're a real quick-change artist...

Posted by: Caroline at May 3, 2005 06:22 PM

Commenter,

for some people, statements of fact get stuck in their craw (leading to personal attacks), and for others it's just "funny." Essentially, they are the same response.

Yet in neither case is the statement of fact, nor its implication, rebutted.

Posted by: spaniard at May 3, 2005 06:22 PM

Spaniard,

I just think it's funny. Gasp! Socialists! Enough said.

Sorry, it was just a little...overheated? Melodramatic? Couldn't help myself.

It's also funny because it assumes a world - like that in Clue - where the mere mention of the Red Menace is enough to give people the vapors.

Seriously though, you didn't really say anything, except a lot about what you believe.

After all, I could say "LGF - populated by Nazis! Enough said!" How do you refute a giant, sweeping assumption like that?

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 06:28 PM

Caroline,

Thanks, missed you too. You and DPU have an open invitation to contact Michael if you have any questions re my presence on this blog. Any more than that I'm not at liberty to say. Cheers ;-)

Posted by: spaniard at May 3, 2005 06:29 PM

Commenter,

saying LGF is populated by "nazis" is Leftist hyperbole.

saying Indymedia is populated by socialists is a mundane statement of fact.

See the diff?

Posted by: spaniard at May 3, 2005 06:31 PM

Commenter - the KOS=the KKK was included as an example of dopey bias. If you thought I meant it literally, you need to work on your reading skills.

Nick Budnick, the liberal writer whose life was threatened by local Indymedia readers took them seriously. Most nazis are disorganized pimply faced kids. That doesn't mean that they should be ignored.

This is interesting. You say:

I think the extremism associated with my opponents is worse than the political extremism associated with my allies, and as a result I will ignore the political extremism associated with my allies

I could be misreading this, but do you consider the extremists on the left to be your allies?

Posted by: mary at May 3, 2005 06:35 PM

Spaniard - that's the first thing you've said that makes me wonder if you aren't in fact Carlos - it was the same sense of humor. :-)

But now "Carlos the Jackal" comes to mind, and truthfully, I don't much like that thought:-)

Posted by: Caroline at May 3, 2005 06:36 PM

DPU: However, I'm similarily sickened by the cheers of the LGF commenters on the news of Marla Ruzicka's death in an Iraqi car bombing, or the slanderous lies appearing about her in Horowitz's rag.

But here's what Horowitz's Frontpage really says about Ruzicka:

"Unlike Rachel Corrie, who lost her life in Gaza serving a solidarity movement with terrorists and who consequently became a martyr for the anti-American cause, Marla Ruzicka was respected and mourned not only by the left but by supporters of the war who knew her, and even by members of the Bush administration and military whom she first harrangued and then petitioned and who ended up in a partially voluntary cooperation with her endeavors."

full

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17933

You owe Horowitz an apology.

Posted by: spaniard at May 3, 2005 06:40 PM

Spaniard,

See, silly billy, that's my point. Someone on Indymedia can say "I'm a socialist" while violating everything socialists are supposed to stand for. LGF posters can advocate genocide of subhumans ("Palis" or "Muzzies"), but claim not to be Nazis. I guess it's all a matter of perspective...idiots on the left talking about murdering cops, idiots on the right talking about murdering millions of people, they're all just extremist idiots who will never amount to more than just idiots (like us) yelling at each other via computer.

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 06:42 PM

Commenter,

I see your point.

So forget what THEY say they are. What do YOU think they are?

Answer honestly.

Posted by: spaniard at May 3, 2005 06:44 PM

Oh no, Caroline. I believe we both made the mistake of mistaking sarcasm for admission. Woops!

Anyway, this is crazy, I'm out of here. Peace!

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 06:44 PM

Caroline:
“Casual observation would suggest that the violent tendencies of leftists are aimed almost exclusively inwards - at the U.S. - at the government, law enforcement…”

And how does Timothy McVeigh fit into this paradigm?

“Aside from the far-right wing neo-Nazi…”

Oh I see – the “right” is allowed to exclude their wackos but the “left” isn’t.

“…But it seems very hard to remain neutral, as "Krishnamurtian" as that might be.”

Ah, what did we do before Google allowed us to become instant experts whenever we want:

“The core of Krishnamurti's teaching is contained in the statement…"Truth is a pathless land". Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.”

Posted by: VinoVeritas at May 3, 2005 06:49 PM

Caroline, when Commenter tried to pull the "and who are YOU to talk about psychology" card (sort of the reverse of the Appeal to Authority) on you, I scrolled with pleasure awaiting your reply.

Always good to read your thoughts. The smackdown was pure bonus.

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 3, 2005 06:50 PM

Ok, one more, just one more, I promise.

Spaniard, I think they're malcontent idiots who have seized upon a particular identity - the radical cool revolutionary rebel! Rock on! - that amounts to nothing in real life.

The average LGF commenter who calls for genocide by night probably leads a very similar life to the average Indymedia idiot who calls for murder by night.

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 06:55 PM

I promised! I lied!

You're right Mark, Caroline totally spanked me. My bottom is still sore!

But seriously folks, go right ahead and play Make Believe! and pretend that you can, with accuracy, "analyze" the thoughts and intentions of fringe radical groups. Go ahead, it's easy! With Make Believe, anyone can be an expert on anything they want!

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 07:05 PM

Woops, I must have missed your post, Caroline. I guess I was schooled.

Posted by: The Commenter at May 3, 2005 07:11 PM

Oh I see – the “right” is allowed to exclude their wackos but the “left” isn’t.

Not only is the Left allowed to exclude their wackos, they are encouraged to do so at every opportunity.

If an Indymedia commenter or if Ward Churchill says 'kill the pigs', and if the Left says, "move along, there's nothing to see here" or "just ignore them, they're harmless" - that's not excluding them and it's certainly not a condemnation.

Whacko progressives like Churchill aren't liberals and they're not allies of the Democrats.

Posted by: mary at May 3, 2005 09:15 PM

commenter,

agreed that they are all malcontents. Who isn't.

But I tend to take people at their word. If they say they're commies, then they're commies. If they say they're nazis, then nazis.

It's safe to say that most on Indymedia would claim socialism, and others communism, and a few others anarchism.

If Indymedia is the Leftist equivalent of the KKK, as you claim, then what does that say about commies and socialists.

Posted by: spaniard at May 3, 2005 09:54 PM

So killing Nazis make for Nazi?

I guess every cop is a criminal, and every criminal a saint. Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name.

Posted by: mika. at May 3, 2005 10:06 PM

Caroline, I fully agree with your view about Leftists more anti-American and Rightists more anti-jihadist (who are anti-American). The Left is angry that the US is not perfect; and they seek perfection and believe in the perfectability of humans.

Much of Left seems similarly angry against Christianity because humans are NOT perfect, and essentially reject God because ... evil exists, or disasters occur.

And Mary, the ANGER of the Left against the powerful (who are failing to create the Ideal) is louder, though perhaps less deep, than the anger of many on the right against MSM bias. The Left can't reject their wackos because the wackos merely honestly express many of the feelings so many Leftists have, though most understand expressing such feelings (i.e. kill the pigs) is not so good.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at May 4, 2005 07:30 AM

"The Left can't reject their wackos because the wackos merely honestly express many of the feelings so many Leftists have, though most understand expressing such feelings (i.e. kill the pigs) is not so good."

I suppose you could assume that someone on the Left wants to kill pigs, but knows that expressing a desire to kill pigs wouldn't go over well, so they keep their traps shut and tolerate crazy wackos who do say they want to kill pigs.

If I'm reading that right, you're saying that the average leftist is just as crazy, but is smart enough to keep quiet about it. Man, I can't tell you how much I love it when people accuse liberals of wanting to murder police officers. Nothing crazy about that!

Or, I dunno, you could assume that the average Leftist sees no reason to reject "their" wackos because they don't see them as "their wackos". I mean, if a crazy person were standing on a street corner shouting about how we should kill all Muslims because they're really Martians, and that George Bush is doing God's work by killing Muslims, would you feel a need to tell everyone that you reject "your" wacko? Are you responsible for the words of every person who might agree with you about something (like in this case, support for Bush and the war in Iraq) tangentially?

But hey, if someone wanted to pay me to do it, that would be great, because that would definitely be a 9 to 5 job, rejecting every crazy person that could tangentially be associated with some view or another that I hold.

Just wait until we get to the crazies who think that water flouridation is good because it kills demons!

Well, liberals, time to get back to work hating God and wanting to murder the police. It's a tough job, but I suppose somebody has to pretend-do it.

Posted by: Scooby Doom at May 4, 2005 08:05 AM

Oh, I have a good one. Mika apparently thinks that because some Muslims do bad things, then all Muslims are Nazis, so it's wrong to condemn people for advocating genocide (because, like, the Nazis totally never tried genocide) against Muslims.

I mean, wow. Good to know people like Mika are still around, right? Otherwise people might, you know, start to forget what real racist lunatics look like.

So, do you feel a need to reject Mika, who happens to also support Bush and fighting Muslim terrorists, but also wants to commit mass murder against innocent people because of their religion and ancestry? Hmmmmm?

Posted by: Scooby Doom at May 4, 2005 08:10 AM

Tom Grey:

"…the ANGER of the Left against the powerful (who are failing to create the Ideal)…"

As I recall, during the Clinton years conservatives were no slouches at anger against the powerful. (For the record I think Clinton was a very flawed human being, who nonetheless reversed years of fiscal irresponsibility and gave America balanced budgets - a legacy that Bush has squandered.)

"The Left can't reject their wackos because the wackos merely honestly express many of the feelings so many Leftists have, though most understand expressing such feelings (i.e. kill the pigs) is not so good."

Thank you Tom. You are an honest conservative. People like Mary and Spaniard will self-righteously lecture liberals about their responsibility to reject "their" wackos, but nothing a liberal can say is ever good enough. And even if it is once, twice, a hundred times - the next time a leftist wacko speaks up, the baying starts again.

So thank you for your honesty. It is revealing.

Posted by: Vinoveritas at May 4, 2005 08:12 AM

Vino,

Liberals use the Left to get at the Right.

That's not "rejecting your wackos."

Posted by: spaniard at May 4, 2005 08:34 AM

Scooby Doom,

Go practice your taqiya subterfuge somewhere else. Islamism = Nazism. And I'm all for killing Islam as a viable ideology. Pushing back Islamists does not make for genocide. Try again.

Posted by: mika. at May 4, 2005 09:03 AM

Mary! Spaniard! Liberty Dad! Caroline! After him! Don't let Mika get away with that!

He's the kind of guy that gives intolerance a bad name!

I'd do it myself but I'm too busy. I'm off to read the web sites of the commie-atheist-leftist web sites and give 'em hell.

That is my job isn't it?

Posted by: VinoVeritas at May 4, 2005 09:15 AM

"Pushing back" = murdering innocent people. Hurray for euphamisms!

The Nazis didn't like to call it murder, either!

Conservatives, disavow this extremist! Until you do, we'll never be able to take you seriously!

Posted by: The Commenter at May 4, 2005 09:58 AM

Mary, you wrote:

"If an Indymedia commenter or if Ward Churchill says 'kill the pigs', and if the Left says, "move along, there's nothing to see here" or "just ignore them, they're harmless" - that's not excluding them and it's certainly not a condemnation."

Part of the problem is that very few people are probably even aware that Indymedia, Free Republic, DU, LGF, Ward Churchill, etc. even exist. People like us who use the internets to visit blogs and things like that remain a minority. And, as hyperaware as we are, I bet that there are many, many more extremists like Churchill, left and right, that no one knows about because they remain in the woodwork with miniscule, powerless audiences.

Seriously, ask friends, neighbors, people on the street, anyone out in the real world if they've heard of Indymedia, DU, Kos, LGF, or Free Republic. I bet they haven't. I bet the average person has some vague idea that there are fringe crazies out there, because there always have been and always will be, but does not know or care about the specifics - because that would require effort to seek them out and read their stuff, and that's a big part of what these people want - an audience outside their tiny little circle-jerks of extremist rhetoric.

In other words, people can't disavow something if it's so irrelevant to their lives that they don't even know it exists. Plus all the stuff I said before.

But we've all seen Mika in action! We all know about him. He has basically said this: people on LGF who write that they wish they could murder millions of people - including children - and advocate the use of nuclear weapons against civilians are not Nazis because all those people - including the children! - are "Islamists" who need to be "pushed back"!

Maybe we should give them "hot showers" first before we "cook" their corpses in our "ovens"!

Well, for the record, I reject Mika's extremism, and condemn it. Anyone else?

Posted by: The Commenter at May 4, 2005 10:15 AM

Commenter,

you're putting words in his mouth, so what's to apologize for.

Besides, like Caroline said, it's not the negativity of the Left that we object to, but rather the object of their negativity-- like all things American/West/Christian/Traditional.

THAT'S what the Left owes us an apology for.

If he wants to "push back" against our enemies, then I'm all for it.

Posted by: spaniard at May 4, 2005 10:19 AM

mika. - Your Reutersesque values-neutral approach to war just doesn't work.

In Algeria, the French learned that you can't fight terrorism with terrorism. The Serbs learned the same thing.

Nihilism, terrorism, ethnic cleansing and the direct targeting of civilians, as a military tactic ultimately and always destroys that state and its people. Look at the Palestinians.

Andre Glucksman said it best:

"…what do extremist ideologies like the communism or Nazism of yesteryear and the Islamism of today have in common? After all, they support ostensibly very different ideals – the superior race, mankind united in socialism, the community of Muslim believers (the Umma). Tomorrow, it could be altogether different ideals: some theological, some scientific, others racist. But the common characteristic is nihilism."

The root element is the attitude that anything goes, particularly when with regard to ordinary people: I can do whatever I want, without scruples. Goehring put it like this: my consciousness is Adolf Hitler. Bolsheviks said: man is made of iron. And the Islamists whom I visited in Algeria said that you have the right to kill little Muslim children, in order to save them."

Wherever you go, this belligerent hubris is considered lethal. In the huts of the Amazon, young men are taught to conquer this capacity for excessive violence. You can fight together, but you cannot fight in any way that comes to hand, and you don’t set out to fight just anyone. The same idea occurs in the teachings of the Greeks, the paidera. All European education is based on the same principle.

All European education used to be based on that principle. The indigenous tribes of the Amazon know that terrorism is taboo but you, like Reuters and others of their ilk, do not. Posted by: mary at May 4, 2005 10:20 AM

Thank you Mary =).

Posted by: The Commenter at May 4, 2005 10:23 AM

I have to admit though, the constant misuse of terms like "nihilism" and "existentialism" to refer to things like Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, Nazism, and Communism makes me sad.

=(

But that's a general complaint, and not directed at anyone.

PS Spaniard, Mika's done this before, justifying ethnic cleansing and mass murder. I'm pretty sure he's doing it again - saying that he wants to kill "Islam" (how one does that without killing Muslims, innocent and guilty alike, I'm not sure) and that "Islamists" (when the whole discussion so far has been about whether it's ok - it isn't! - to want to kill Muslims, not Muslim extremists) need to be "pushed back" (a cute little euphamism for mass murder and ethnic cleansing, practices that Mika has defended before). I'm pretty sure Mika is, you know, a racist extremist!

Posted by: The Commenter at May 4, 2005 10:35 AM

The term nihilism was Glucksman's. He's a philosopher and he's French, so I assumed he knows what he's talking about.

Islamic terrorists are organized, and they do have definite political goals, like the establishment of a government under Shariah law, but their tactics lean towards nihilism.

They are not existentialists, though.

Wretchard has an interesting esssay on the effects of terrorism on a society.

Posted by: mary at May 4, 2005 10:48 AM

Seriously, ask friends, neighbors, people on the street, anyone out in the real world if they've heard of Indymedia, DU, Kos, LGF, or Free Republic. I bet they haven't.

That's true, but San Francisco knows Ward Churchill. One of his books was displayed in the "City Lights" bookstore - it was about the corrosive effects of reservation life (written by a real Indian, don't you know).

After that terrible shooting in Minnesota, people might pick up that book thinking that it would help them learn more about reservation life. After reading through a few pages of Churchill's uninformed drivel, I'm sure most readers would say "now wait a minute..", but they'll have wasted their money. The perils of being uninformed..

Posted by: mary at May 4, 2005 10:55 AM

I totally know you feel. One day I decided to stop reading movie reviews before I went to see them, so as not to ruin the movie. Then I sat through all three hours of Alexander. Man, the perils of being uninformed, indeed.

But if we can agree that that's the biggest threat offered by Ward Churchill - that someone is inconvenienced by the time it takes to get a refund for his lame book they mistakenly bought - then I think we've finally come to understand the truly horrifying nature of the threat posed by that man and his ilk.

Posted by: The Commenter at May 4, 2005 10:59 AM

Commenter - I don't want to rile everyone up again, but it's just a fact that there are organized and violent hate groups on the Left.

They're not liberals, they're not existentialists, and they're not your allies, even if they promise to vote for Democrats.

Posted by: mary at May 4, 2005 11:08 AM

"And I'm all for killing Islam as a viable ideology." -- mika

"Mary! Spaniard! Liberty Dad! Caroline! After him! Don't let Mika get away with that!" -- Vino

Actually, mika is over the line. As anyone who actually knows any Muslims knows, there is a qaulitative difference between those who follow the Koran and those who follow bin Laden. mika, STFU with the anti-Islam stuff. Or at least be a LOT more precise in your language. Got a problem with Wahabism? Me too. But about a fifth of my company is Islamic, and they're good people. (None of course are from Saudi Arabia. Apparently nobody from Saudi Arabia actually works. The Kingdom would fall in a day if the guest workers went on strike.)

Lay off.

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 4, 2005 11:47 AM

Ain't it grand. Commenter defends Islamists, the most inhuman hateful supremacist violent expansionist oppressive fundamentalist angry anti-freedom murderous criminals on the face of the planet today, and has the gall to call me a racist extremist for wanting them gone.

Posted by: mika. at May 4, 2005 12:02 PM

Good stuff guys, I appreciate it.

For the record, as a liberal, I absolutely loath and hate the radical Left, Indymedia, all those idiots. I mean real, visceral hatred - I've seen these people in action. They're more like cultists than "political" anything. I honestly feel that there's a common thread throughout history and other cultures, maybe something in the human psyche (Caroline?) that is fed by extremism. It doesn't matter what the veneer is - cults, totalitarian socialism, fascism, religious extremism, whatever. It's all the same, when you look at the people underneath.

For the record, I've never defended Islamic extremists. For the record, I've protested things like genocide and ethnic cleansing. Mika has a tendency to conflate "being Muslim" with "being a radical Islamic fundamentalist" and seems to believe the response to "being Muslim" is to use force to kill and drive them away. Thanks for recognizing that, Mark and Mary.

Bad Mika! No genocide for you!

Posted by: The Commenter at May 4, 2005 12:25 PM

Taqiya is a tactic of dissimulation used by Muslims against non-Muslims. It's very common practice for Muslims to lie about the war against non-Muslims. A believer can pretend to any statement as long as it's with the tongue and the "heart" is comfortable. The 9/11 terrorists lived in the US for years before the 9/11 attacks. Ask yourself, how did they acculturate? By the use of taqiya. Meaning: "Smile before y