I’ve discovered that picture in another blog. This is a reprint of my response with a few edits.
Drunkard – I’ve been tipsy a few times, but never drunk. Liar – My nose has grown a bit. Thief – Did Napster count? Sports fan – Go Cubs! Go Bears! Go Penguins! Go… Blasphemer – Jesus Christ, yes! Money Lover – I like to smooch Ben Franklin. Pagan – Paganism is misunderstood. I’m not a Pagan anyway. Homosexual – I’m not homosexual–not that there’s anything wrong with it. Prostitute – I don’t think I’d be very successful in that line of work. Witch – No, I don’t even like Harry Potter books that much. Atheist – Agnostic, I fear commitment. Gambler – I’d wager that nearly everyone has gambled. Porn Lover – Can’t get enough! Whoremonger – Nope. I don’t like diseases. Child Molester – Hmmm…which item on this list is not like the others… Evolutionist – Yes, I believe in DNA. Pot Smoker – Never tried it, never had the opportunity. Lesbian – If I were a lipstick lesbian, how hard would it be to find other lipstick lesbians? Fornicator – Not too much action here. Masturbator – Too much action here. Hypocrite – I practice what I preach…if I preached. Psychic – My guesses are usually educated.
Actually, referring to Scalia or Thomas as strict constructionists is just more buying into the hype. They are only constructionists when it suits their political agenda. There is no ‘strict’ about it.
I forgive you (Walton) for making this mistake, given your apparent choice of news sources.
As for good sources for conservative thought? That’s a tough one. George Will is one of the better (at least, more consistent), but that’s not saying much. He still tends to be highly partisan (party over policy).
I’ve always considered myself a conservative, but I haven’t voted for a republican (with very few exceptions) in at least the last decade (I’m 40 now). So very few republicans (or self labelled conservatives) actually want smaller government, which used to be the cornerstone of the conservative ideology.
Socially, I’m a liberal (very), but when it comes to the government spending my money, I want them to be more responsible than my broker, not less, because I don’t have a direct choice over where it goes.
As for conservatives only politicizing the judiciary as a reaction to the liberals doing so, I call bullshit..major bullshit.
And yes, the popular use of ‘judicial activism’ is simply decisions that conservatives don’t agree with (since it was the conservative spin machine that coined the term).
Epiktsays
BlueIndependent
He also was adamant that a Toyota Prius had a more significant environmental impact than a Hummer.
There’s actually a study that claims to show that. It was mentioned on the WSJ editorial page, and by Rush Limbaugh, so if you find your brow furrowing in skepticism, you’re not alone.
The study contained some assumptions that bordered on the surreal. Of the few I remember:
The R&D costs of the Hummer were minimized by claiming that it used many components already used in other GM vehicles, so development of those shouldn’t be charged against the Hummer.
The per-vehicle R&D costs were determined at a time when almost no Priuses (Priui?) had been sold, artificially inflating the cost of the Prius.
The estimated lifetimes of the various Hummer models were assumed to be 200K-400K miles, but only 110K for the Prius. (I especially like this one. What can you do to get a Toyota do die in only 110K miles, that doesn’t involve an IED?)
There were other equally silly assumptions. The organization performing the study consistently refused to reveal who funded it.
The whole thing was pretty clearly an attempt to manufacture a squawking point for halfwits.
Cpl. Camsays
On it? I thought it was a check list. Save me a seat by the fire please.
BlueIndependentsays
@ #503:
I figured the claim was fallacious, but wasn’t sure and didn’t want to blurt out a dumb response and look like an idiot. Fact is, I should’ve known the real story, being a car guy, and I had actually heard the argument before. I just wasn’t prepared to rebut right away. WIRED debunked that myth though, and the entire anti-Prius argument rests on the factory providing the nickel for the batteries. But then you find out that so little nickel is required for the batteries, the impact is no more than any other car realistically speaking, and the Prius still gets better MPG.
But just looking at a Hummer and a Prius side by side explains the true answer. The unfortunate thing is this garbage circulates via email, and people believe it because they feel all “M’urcan” about their rolling ego boosters.
Benjamin Franklinsays
BlueInd-
If you look real close on the sign, #23 is tit-for-tat
Davesays
Blueindependent @495:
I see that my blockquote was closed incorrectly. That first line after the quote, ‘So no, “judicial activism” is not a synonym of “decisions we don’t like”‘ was supposed to be inside the blockquote as it was Walton’s statement. I do think that the vast majority of the time the term is used, it is code for “opinions I dont like” and was trying to show that to him with the case he had already admitted was legitimate. Sorry for any confusion. On the other hand, to the extent that the term has any real meaning, judicial activism has had a long history in the US. See 5 US 137.
Kseniyasays
The proliferation of Hummers across the highways of America serves as an apt metaphor for the imposition of Neoconservative foreign policy initiatives upon the face of the world.
Hummers sucksays
The R&D costs of the Hummer were minimized by claiming that it used many components already used in other GM vehicles, so development of those shouldn’t be charged against the Hummer.
This is actually a reasonable point, as both the H2 and H3 are just ugly boxy bodies bolted onto standard-issue GM truck chassis/drivetrains.
Which just makes Hummers even more stupid.
Longtime Lurkersays
Late to the party, lot of posts… but has anyone yet pointed out to Walton that he is the perfect age to sign up to defend us from the civilization-threatening Islamofascists? At this point, there are a lot of foreign nationals in the U.S. Army, so he can join up, work toward U.S. citizenship, and move to Florida.
I think Walton is a sockpuppet for Jonah Goldberg.
P.S. Only seven…
Ichthyicsays
Ichthyic,please post the link to THAT Coulter piece,I cant find it lol,it would seem the right time for it lol…..
see #367
have no fear, any thread I see that has at least 3 mentions of the word “Coulter” will find me posting that link.
think: “beetlegeuse”
BlueIndependentsays
@ Epikt:
“…The R&D costs of the Hummer were minimized by claiming that it used many components already used in other GM vehicles, so development of those shouldn’t be charged against the Hummer…”
@ #509:
“This is actually a reasonable point, as both the H2 and H3 are just ugly boxy bodies bolted onto standard-issue GM truck chassis/drivetrains. Which just makes Hummers even more stupid.”
Ehh, maybe *TECHNICALLY*. But it can be argued that while component development can’t be tied directly to Hummer models versus others, the Hummer brand exists expressly to push a big tough SUV/truck image that is loosely related to the actual military-use Hummer. Ergo, fewer trucks would be marketed and sold (possibly) if Hummers didn’t exist. Knowing GM and the amount of part sharing that takes place, you can make a case for any truck being a drag on the environment.
From my perspective, you can still blame Hummers in that they use bigger engines, are large, very heavy, are significantly less fuel efficient compared to cars, and generally require more materials to build than most cars. Am I going to push legislation that will keep people from buying Hummers? No. I think the $100+ gas prices will do that, and that is what’s being seen now, as GM’s truck sales have slumped big time, and as GM even contemplates selling the Hummmer brand off.
I honestly do not see how a Prius materially will cost the environment more than a Hummer. Look at the amount of metal used to make either. Look at the size, the weight, the aerodynamics. The Hummer is also likely to consume nearly 3 times as much gas on average. Hummers force the drilling of more wells. I can keep going, but…
Brenda von Ahsensays
windy I’ve been trying to address a concept for a while now. Brenda, since Walton seems to be a bit overwhelmed right now, would you like to defend the claim that the sign is logically inconsistent with mainstream Christianity?
Over 500 comments! I can’t possibly address them or even read them, I do have a life. Ok… what is “mainstream Christianity”? I don’t know of any modern theologians who take the Bible as the literal, inerrant word of God as presented in the sign. Yes, the fundamentalists do and yes, they constitute a political force that is frightening. I’m not sure they represent a true statistical majority. Even if they do they do not represent modern theology. Fundamentalists are throwbacks to the 19th century.
Theology as it is taught in reputable seminaries, and no that does not include Oral Roberts U, bears no resemblance to Fred Phelps, which is most likely where that sign came from.
Would you also care to tell me how #152, #290, and #437 are the equivalent of “poo”? Otherwise, I’ll be forced to conclude that you are full of …poo.
PZ Meyers claims above that he reserves the right to judge Christianity by it’s worst examples, as do many others here. Therefore I have the right to judge you by that same measure. Is there a problem with that? If you want to be treated like an adult then act like one. Besides, if you are an evolutionist as I am then I would think you would take it as a compliment.
Ichthyicsays
I think Walton is a sockpuppet for Jonah Goldberg.
sound-a-likes aren’t always clones.
He has indeed apparently drunk the same conservative kool-aid, though.
among the many mistaken notions Walton has, the notion that conservatives are fighting against “judicial activism” might be one of the worst.
In fact, if he would take the time to really examine the situation, he would find most conservative-described “judicial activism” has actually been on the part of self-identified “conservative” judges to begin with.
It’s a standard tactic of the rethuglicans in the US to accuse their opponents of the very things they themselves are most guilty of.
They’ve been doing it successfully for over 30 years now.
I’ll give Walton 2 points of leniency:
1. he’s only 18 (hell, even I voted for Reagan when I was 18)
2. He has no practical experience with American conservatism.
both things combined kinda poison the well he speaks from, but it’s really up to Walton to either drink that well water or not.
seriously, Walton, if you want to understand American conservatism as it has been practiced over the last 30 plus years, you have your work cut out for you.
…I would highly suggest NOT listening to mouthpieces for ultra-right talking points, as these folks (like Limbaugh and Coulter), are merely trying to attract your attention away from the real political issues. They’re nothing but burned out noisemakers, intended to whip up a frenzy in the nonthinking ignorant horde that the rethuglicans use as a voting block.
there’s MASSIVE amounts of information on actual politics out there, you really have no need to comb through the feces of Limbaugh and Coulter (or any other talking head) to find out what’s going on.
However, if you CHOOSE to remain ignorant; lapping up the spew put forth by these people, you will of course find people who have real experience and know better laughing at you.
up to you.
another science blogger has actually written a pretty decent book you might want to peruse:
We often chastise Mooney for his “special” relationship with Matt Nisbet, but really, he’s an excellent writer, and that book is a great read, and good place to start your explorations of modern conservatism in America.
Ichthyicsays
Therefore I have the right to judge you by that same measure. Is there a problem with that?
not at all, so long as you don’t continue to get childishly defensive when you get corrected on your mistaken notions.
…like thinking that somehow evangelical xianity in the US is some sort of “fringe sect”.
Ichthyicsays
Even if they do they do not represent modern theology
what does that even mean?
do YOU represent “modern theology”?
Janine IDsays
PZ Meyers claims…
Posted by: Brenda von Ahsen
BBZZZZZZZZZZ! You have already lost the IDiot test!
Yes, Brenda, I am laughing at you. Perhaps one of the regulars here will be kind enough to explain the joke. I am not feeling so generous.
windysays
Over 500 comments! I can’t possibly address them or even read them, I do have a life.
Then how did you decide that Walton was the only one with integrity, if you didn’t even read most of the comments?
The reason I asked you to defend Walton’s claim, is that several people patiently pointed out that Walton is factually wrong: the sign does not claim that all those sinners are doomed to hell. Yet you barged in here and accused all these patient and articulate people of being poo-flinging monkeys. I hope you are a little ashamed.
I don’t know of any modern theologians who take the Bible as the literal, inerrant word of God as presented in the sign.
A sign that mentions sports fans and pot smokers? Those aren’t in the bible at all, so your argument makes no sense. Try a little, at least.
PZ Meyers claims above that he reserves the right to judge Christianity by it’s worst examples, as do many others here. Therefore I have the right to judge you by that same measure. Is there a problem with that?
No, PZ said that he judges Christianity by what the majority of Christians does. “Judge” me all you want, but don’t be dishonest. And your poo-flinging accusation came before you decided on this pitiful “but atheists do it too” ploy, so it’s nothing but intellectual laziness on your part.
PZ Meyers claims above that he reserves the right to judge Christianity by it’s worst examples, as do many others here. Therefore I have the right to judge you by that same measure. Is there a problem with that?
Didn’t notice this at first. PZ claims he judges a belief system by its worst adherents, you judge people based on what other atheists do (and unlike PZ, you claim that this is a get-out-of-argument-free card). Yes there is a problem!
Epiktsays
Hummers suck:
This is actually a reasonable point, as both the H2 and H3 are just ugly boxy bodies bolted onto standard-issue GM truck chassis/drivetrains. Which just makes Hummers even more stupid.
That’s probably the least-insane of the three points I mentioned. On the other hand, I do wonder whether the study included the cost of all the advertising designed to convince the typical American male that he’ll begin suffering from testosterone deprivation if he doesn’t buy a Hummer right this minute. Or the cost of hospitalization incurred when he decides that he’s a red-blooded American rebel who’s immune to the consequences of a shoulder-height center of mass on offramps.
Well, give them credit for fighting the Republican establishment by putting “Money-lovers” up there.
frogsays
Epikt: Or the cost of hospitalization incurred when he decides that he’s a red-blooded American rebel who’s immune to the consequences of a shoulder-height center of mass on offramps.
Ain’t that the problem of almost all economics? Full accounting is tremendously difficult — both explicit accounting systems and market based systems have a tendency to fail miserably with distributed costs.
Just look at any IT department — they probably cost more in time-wastage than they save in centralization.
It’s why I lost respect for most of economics as a science years ago — the costs they account for are usually just a function of what policies they want to push.
A bit later than I’d like, but it looks like the party’s still going on here, so I tossed together a site to help collect some statistics on people’s responses at http://pnakotic.com/22sins/
It’s very bare bones, but might provide some interesting information.
T. Bruce McNeelysays
#524
Is it weird that I want to jerk off into the Stanley Cup?
Walton:
I suspect that a lot of the animosity to you is based on your fanboi admiration of Anne Coulter. Her writings and comments on evolution are pig ignorant. Such promotion of ignorance to the detriment of our society is disgusting, and I don’t see how any rational person can feel anything but contempt for such a person. Therefore, I can’t help thinking that you’re an idiot. Sorry.
Incidentally, I feel the same way about Bill Maher and his anti-vaccination propaganda. He may be witty and progressive, but in the end he is contemptible.
Fergysays
Walton@472:
So no, “judicial activism” is not a synonym of “decisions we don’t like”.
[…]
I don’t deny that conservatives have contributed to the politicisation of the judiciary, but we have done so only in response to liberal judicial activism. Roe was judicial activism not because its outcome was undesirable, but because it invented a wholly new right which is not in the Constitution, using flimsy pseudo-legal argument, and thereby deprived the American people of the right to determine the laws which govern them.
In other words, despite your feeble claim to the contrary, you DO think “judicial activism” is synonymous with “decisions I don’t like”. You really need to get your story straight!
I would feel equally outraged if the same technique were used to produce a conservative social outcome.
Somehow, I doubt that.
When the liberals use judges to push through unpopular policy agendas and place said agendas beyond the confines of democratic debate, what do you expect us to do?
We expect you (and by “you”, I mean actual U.S. residents) to respect and obey those rulings. They were made by people with far more experience, education, and wisdom than you. There are very good reasons we have a system of government that limits the tyranny of the majority in order to protect the rights of the less powerful. Perhaps you should reflect on that before blathering on about “unpopular policy agendas”.
You know, it’s rather funny to see someone so young, who is not an American (or even living in the U.S.) parroting nonsense like “…WE have done so in response to liberal judicial activism”, or “…what do you expect US to do?”. Where do you come off thinking there is any “us” that includes you, child? Just because you think Ann Coulter is hot doesn’t make you an honorary American neocon fascist, er, fundamentalist whackjob, er, Republican. Quite frankly, we have far more than we need already…
dabeastsays
God! ‘SportsFan’ beat out Beastiality Again!!!!
When do we get some respect!
I’m no biblical scholar, but I don’t recall any mention of pot smokers in the bible at all, let alone them going to hell.
Actually as I recall the bible says we’re given dominion over all flora and fauna. So how is smoking pot a hell worthy offense?
Ichthyicsays
So how is smoking pot a hell worthy offense?
It’s a gateway drug to liberalism, which leads to atheism.
Isn’t it obvious?
*rolleyes*
Janine IDsays
So how is smoking pot a hell worthy offense?
It’s a gateway drug to liberalism, which leads to atheism.
Isn’t it obvious?
*rolleyes*
Posted by: Ichthyic
Hey! I became an atheist about two years before I smoked pot.
Oh! Wait! Sarcasm! You could have warned me.
Brenda von Ahsensays
windy Didn’t notice this at first. PZ claims he judges a belief system by its worst adherents, you judge people based on what other atheists do (and unlike PZ, you claim that this is a get-out-of-argument-free card). Yes there is a problem!
Here is what Mr. Myers actually said: I judge Christianity on the basis of the stupidity and smallmindedness of the majority of its followers, and on the wretched quality of its fundamental doctrines.
Therefore, I judge Pharyngula on the basis of the rudeness and childishness of the majority of it’s commenters, and on the wretched quality of it’s fanboi discussions.
Is that better?
wksays
Re: Judicial Activism
The concept of originalism’s ladder is a useful way to understand what’s going on with the whole “strict construction”/”originalism” line of legal reasoning. [BTW, you can find the original SL post linked to in the above article here (search for “originalism”), courtesy of the WayBackMachine.]
Granted, these posts are a couple year’s old, but they are still the best articulations I’ve found on how unprincipled that theory is as currently practiced.
BlueIndependentsays
Walton:
“…So no, “judicial activism” is not a synonym of “decisions we don’t like”. Roe was judicial activism not because its outcome was undesirable, but because it invented a wholly new right which is not in the Constitution, using flimsy pseudo-legal argument, and thereby deprived the American people of the right to determine the laws which govern them. I would feel equally outraged if the same technique were used to produce a conservative social outcome…”
Well, African Americans didn’t exactly get their human rights in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, so your argument is flimsy at best. If we follow a 240 year-old document to the letter (btw, a letter-of-the-law strategy has never worked nor created freedom), the great majority of progress this country has made would never have happened, and indeed would be turned backward if put in place now.
Face it: Society changes, and so do legal documents. The Constitution was never meant to remain static, and the writings of the forefathers (as mythical as that sounds) explicitly show this. We were doing a fine job judicially until we started getting people on the court that wanted to turn back the clock to a time that never existed. Now those people are trying to do the very thing they accuse others of, changing the Constitution, and even expressing the want to change it to expressly exclude people. I note that the right to exclude others (gays, lesbians, etc.) is not guaranteed by the Constitution. In what way would you argue you or anyone else has the right to do so? Majority rule isn’t sufficient argument by the way…
And as far as your claim that the outcome of Roe v. Wade was not the main firepoint of criticism, um, you might want to talk to every anti-choicer out there. I guarantee they will not cite that as their first concern. No, the problem 100% absolutely was the anti-choice intentions of those that lost, and continue to lose on the issue. I have never heard a single anti-choice supporter cite the Constitutional aspect as the primary criticism, and further still, few of them ever make that claim. It’s about their moralizing over womens’ vaginas, sex, and about the goalpost shifting nature of their argument that “abortion is murder”.
Flimsy pseudo-legal arguments? Conservatives really don’t have the credibility to make this argument…in my oh so humble opinion. I’ll see your Warren Court, and raise you Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and even Bork for even attempting to get him on there.
Janine IDsays
Therefore, I judge Pharyngula on the basis of the rudeness and childishness of the majority of it’s commenters, and on the wretched quality of it’s fanboi discussions.
Is that better?
Posted by: Brenda von Ahsen
Please keep in mind that Brenda von Ahsen is a delicate little flower who gets the vapors when she reads nasty words. We all must be proper ladies and gentlemen or else she will let Seed know about all the naughtiness going on here.
wksays
Gahhh! Should be “years” not “year’s”, above.
[And I’m usually one of the Unnecessary Apostrophe Police — sigh!]
BlueIndependentsays
“Therefore, I judge Pharyngula on the basis of the rudeness and childishness of the majority of it’s commenters, and on the wretched quality of it’s fanboi discussions.
Is that better?”
Well, you can certainly do that. But the problem is Christians keep coming here with the same tired arguments, and we have to keep pointing them toward real evidence why their arguments are, well, wrong. Then they shuffle their feet, start stretching for hidden meanings, and ultimately end up in a dishonest mess.
Vox Day, Walton, Starbuck, Egnor, it matters not.
Fanboi discussions? If dicussing cephalopod species, the latest papers, religion in politics, and the random story about Morris, MN equate to “fanboi discussions”, well, frankly I’ll take that over all the roundabout talk of “heart”, transubstantiation, “hope” vis a vis death, etcetera ad nauseum.
Science contributes. Science gives us discovery and understanding. Science moves us forward.
Signed,
A former Christian
Rey Foxsays
“Is that better?”
Yes. You get a cookie now.
T. Bruce McNeelysays
Brenda wrote: Therefore, I judge Pharyngula on the basis of the rudeness and childishness of the majority of it’s commenters, and on the wretched quality of it’s fanboi discussions.
If you’re so damned smart, why are you unable to understand the difference between “its” and “it’s”?
Brenda, you may actually be a well-intentioned person, but you really are a dumbass. What you so conveniently overlook is that we supporters of science have EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE on our side, ton after ton after ton of evidence that anyone who takes the time to do some real learning so that they can understand it is able examine for their own satisfaction. We don’t have to believe anything because we simply let the universe tell us about itself by observing it. What do you superstitious trolls have? Not a shred of evidence to support your claim of a realm beyond the tangible universe. Yours is a chosen belief system built around a cobbled-together late Stone Age mythology with serious self-contradictions and massive credibility problems. You can choose to dismiss the scientific evidence as you undoubtedly will, but you do not have the credibility necessary for us to believe your claims until you can demonstrate that our evidence is scientifically invalid and you are able to likewise support your own case with verifiable, quantifiable, repeatable data that we can examine. Until you actually “get” the meaning of that and provide us with something we can observe, measure, make predictions about and repeat as many times as we wish, you are wasting your time and ours. How fervently you believe has no bearing on the reality of your belief. We don’t have to believe anything, we can see for ourselves the evidence that supports our system of understanding the universe. You have no choice but to believe, as you have no evidence. I know you haven’t understood a word of this so I await your illogical and non sequitur rebuttals with the anticipation of laughing at your thick-wittedness until my sides hurt.
Willo the Wispsays
Doe it really say “hypocrites”?
*irony gland asplodes*
Waltonsays
Fuck this. I’m fed up with being called “child” and patronised because I admitted my age. As Kseniya conceded, my age was not obvious until I told everyone what it was. But now my age and nationality are used as an excuse for ad hominem attacks.
I have done nothing except put forward arguments civilly and courteously, addressing substantive points. In return, I have received uncalled-for insults from many people, impugning my intelligence, age, maturity and nationality, among other things. I’m not putting up with that.
Some of you are frighteningly hostile, personally hostile, to ideas and opinions which disagree with your own, whether political or religious. Speaking for myself, I am not capable of being offended by any idea, only by insults or hate speech. But some of you seem personally offended by the fact that not everyone in the world is a liberal atheist, and that some people who are theists and/or conservatives might dare to advance their views.
I am not going to insult atheists by suggesting that this is a characteristic of atheism. Trite as it sounds, I have plenty of atheist friends and acquaintances in real life, and most of them do not behave like this. I don’t know whether the problem is that people are more aggressive on the Internet – where they aren’t accountable for their behaviour – or whether it’s simply that this blog has a higher proportion of unpleasant people.
Thanks to Nick Gotts, Kseniya and a few others who have engaged constructively and respectfully with my arguments. But they are in the minority.
I will concede that there are some points on which I have been defeated. For instance, I can’t defend orthodox Christian teaching on theodicy, because it seems to me nonsensical that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and yet that evil persists in the world and that Christ, allegedly, had to die to save us from the consequences of sin – if God is truly omnipotent, why was that necessary? Religion isn’t really my field. But I can argue conservative politics all day, and would continue doing so; but since I’m evidently going to be insulted, attacked and
patronised at every turn, I have better things to do.
Hence I will not be posting here again except to clear up any misunderstandings and misconceptions.
Waltonsays
To those of you who have been constructive in argument – Kseniya, Nick Gotts, Dave, frog, etc. – thank you. I hope you don’t consider me idiotic or ill-informed, and that we can disagree respectfully.
JeffreyDsays
Walton, I encourage you to stay and I will continue to read your posts. I do not like or agree with much, if any, of what you say. In fact, I took an instant dislike to you with your first postings and nothing has changed. Still, I do encourage postings that challenge the majority view in any venue. If you do continue to post along the lines of what you have to date, you will be savaged periodically. It is good for you as you are still forming your opinions and ideas and defending them will help sharpen your insights.
Your age is immaterial to me and I always dislike someone making age a point of contention. I know a lot of people my age, late 50’s, who I would not allow to run a snow cone stand, much less make decisions on my rights.
One point, which others have made, if you want to be taken seriously in any group of people who can tie their shoes without assistance you probably have to drop your fondness for Ann Coulter. Calling her a conservative should be something at which conservatives take offense. She is just a demagogue with a good gig. I truly believe she would be a flaming liberal if there was more money in that.
If you would like to read a conservative who does think and writes very well, explore Florence King. Until recently, she was a columnist for the National Review and has many books and columns still available. She is a gun toting, cigarette smoking, lesbian Republican. I would suggest reading Molly Ivins and Florence King in turn to obtain a somewhat balanced view of American thought.
You obviously didn’t read my immediately previous post. It equally applies to you. You have no arguments based upon tangible evidence, you have uninformed opinions and unfounded assertions many of which are largely attributable to the folly of an easily-led youth. That is not ad hominem, any more than is pointing out your monumental ignorance. Come back when you have more and better evidence than assertions with no foundation. I don’t give a flying fuck if you respect me or like me, you are irrelevant to the issue, as am I. The evidence is all that counts and you have none. Buh-bye.
spencersays
Can I double up on these by being a “lesbian porn-lover”?
Benjamin Franklinsays
Spencer-
Can I double up on these by being a “lesbian porn-lover”?
NO. But if you ever have a buddy over to watch the lesporn together, that would probably qualify you for homosexual.
Add 1 hellpoint for creative, salacious thinking.
.
.
Gustav Nyströmsays
Therefore, I judge Pharyngula on the basis of the rudeness and childishness of the majority of it’s commenters, and on the wretched quality of it’s fanboi discussions.
Really, Brenda, come on! You just admitted that you didn’t read all the comments. How do you judge a majority of commenters by a minority of them?
And reading all of the comments, by the way, would not be evidence enough to judge Pharyngula on. Confirmation bias, and all.
Janine IDsays
Fuck this. I’m fed up with being called “child” and patronised because I admitted my age. As Kseniya conceded, my age was not obvious until I told everyone what it was. But now my age and nationality are used as an excuse for ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: Walton
First, I will call your bullshit about being patronised because of your age. There are commentators who are also open about their age, the same age as you. There is no problem.
The problem is the nature of your argument, they are weird. You are an eighteen your old brit, yet you use “we” when you talk about what american conservatives do. You express disagreement with some core populist conservative talking points, i.e. homosexuality is evil; so much so that it appears you do not know the realities of the situation. And on top of it all, you moan about ad hominem attacks. This after you express admiration for two people who made their respective careers on ad hominem attacks.
I told you this before, place your lot with the indefensible and you will get grief for your efforts.
As for your claim that *nn C**lt*r was taken out of context of a legitimate point, I also call bullshit. She speaks in sound bites. There is no context to be had except for the surface.
Walton, stop identifying with modern american conservatism, develop your own identity and stop your sobbing.
windysays
So Brenda, you cling to your misrepresentation of PZ but can’t defend your assertion that the sign represents the the Bible “as the literal, inerrant word of God”! Where are pot smokers in the bible?
Bwaaak bwak bwak bwak bwaaaak!
Waltonsays
To Janine ID at #551.
First, I will call your bullshit about being patronised because of your age. – People have been calling me “child” in a patronising manner, often prefixed with “ignorant”. (See Fergy, supra #529, and MAJeff in various posts.) This did not happen until I disclosed my age.
You are an eighteen your old brit, yet you use “we” when you talk about what american conservatives do. – And where is the problem with me choosing to do so? My age and nationality should be completely irrelevant to the validity of my argument. Just forget I told you anything about myself, and think of me as a 30-year-old American small-town conservative if it makes things easier.
You express disagreement with some core populist conservative talking points, i.e. homosexuality is evil; so much so that it appears you do not know the realities of the situation. – Plenty of conservatives do not believe that homosexuality is evil. Don’t lump all conservatives into one homogeneous box; it’s as empirically inaccurate as asserting that all Democrats are flaming socialists. Even Bill O’Reilly, a hate figure for the left, has dissented somewhat from the Catholic Church’s line (he’s a practising Catholic) in expressing support for gay rights (though not gay marriage). Some self-identified strong conservatives, such as Grover Norquist, don’t disclose their religious or moral views at all, and have no recorded viewpoint on homosexuality. And even as early as the 60s, Barry Goldwater was in favour of allowing gays in the military; are you saying he wasn’t a real conservative? Furthermore, even those conservative figures more hostile towards homosexuality (Jerry Falwell, for instance) have consistently condemned the clownish stupidity of Fred Phelps and his ilk.
As to Ann Coulter, I wish I’d never mentioned her. Since I brought up her name in a single throwaway remark, every other post directed at me seems to be about Ann and how much you all hate her. I am not Ann Coulter, nor am I responsible for her public relations. So it would be nice if we could talk about something else for a change.
I am guessing that the main reason you object to Ann is her bizarre viewpoint about evolution and intelligent design. For the record, I do not agree with her on that. She’s a political pundit, not a scientist, and I always get the impression that she’s out of her depth when talking about science (as indeed am I, but I recognise my own failings in this regard). I don’t turn to her as a source of scientific information.
Hope that clears things up.
Nick Gottssays
I am guessing that the main reason you object to Ann is her bizarre viewpoint about evolution and intelligent design.
Wrong, at least so far as I’m concerned: I hate her because she’s a lying scumbag who justifies wars of aggression.
Pablosays
“Roe was judicial activism not because its outcome was undesirable, but because it invented a wholly new right which is not in the Constitution”
Actually, there are countless rights that are not in the Constitution. For example, the Constitution does not say that I have the right to stand in my driveway on one leg during a rainstorm singing Judy Collins songs. Yet, if my local city council tried to pass a law saying I couldn’t do it (provided I was not “Disturbing the Peace”) it would never survive a challenge. Why? Because the constitution does not give government the authority to govern such things.
This is the point to remember about the Constitution: the constitution is a directive for the GOVERNMENT, not for the citizens. It tells the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do.
The USSC, in Roe vs Wade, ruled that the Constitution does not allow the government to create laws restricting access to an abortion.
The question answered in that case was not, “Is there a right to an abortion in the constitution” but “Is there something in the Constitution that allows government to makes laws against abortion?”
Failing to find the latter, they ruled the law to be unconstitutional.
The Ninth Amendment makes it very clear that it doesn’t have to be stated as a right in the constitution to actually be a right:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
So even if the USSC did “invent a wholly new right” then they were allowed to do it.
cobracommandersays
I actually, seriously hit 16 out of 22 here. I’ve been a bad, bad boy. See you in Hell!
frogsays
Walton: And where is the problem with me choosing to do so? My age and nationality should be completely irrelevant to the validity of my argument. Just forget I told you anything about myself, and think of me as a 30-year-old American small-town conservative if it makes things easier.
In an extended conversation, which this is, the “agenda” and internal coherency of the players becomes important. Where in the case of a single-round game, the ad-hominem and related attacks are illegitimate, when the conversation becomes a multi-round, global argument (which it has clearly has become: conservatism vs. the world), the rules change. We long ago left arguing the original post (where you would have a point), and entered the continuing cross-thread conversation.
It does appear “weird” that you identify so closely with American conservatism. It is fair to wonder where your argument is going — is it authentic (ie, are you make identity claims that aren’t true)? is it sincere (are you just bullshitting)? are you arguing in good-faith (I think you have shown that — very few trolls ever agree that they’ve lost a round)? Is your position across conversations coherent (are you just arguing conclusions and not process)? Is your judgement sound enough to make continuing the conversation worthwhile (are you some crazy fascist or Maoist under it all)?
You have to recognize that most arguers who take your position on this blog fail at most if not all those points. It honestly is difficult to give credibility to the judgement of someone who takes pure propagandists like Rush or Coulter seriously. And there is an underlying difference in logic between the scientific, materialist, empirical mindset of most of the readers here, and your movement’s scholastic, idealist, legalist system of interpretation; misunderstandings will be rife, and actual understanding will be worse (I think many people would actually be more aggressive if they fully understood the underlying assumptions of your viewpoint!)
The flames just reflect that. If you want to keep on playing, don’t take the flames too seriously — sometimes hyperbole is wonderfully clear, even if it is impolite. It’s part of the rhetorical space you have chosen to enter.
MAJeff, OMsays
Walton, go look at the rest of the comment where I called you a little boy. Go look at what else I said.
Now, you can come up with individual examples of conservatives who aren’t anti-gay. Whoop-dee-doo. What you seem to be intent on denying–and what I as a participant in and student of these political battles, along with plenty of the rest of us are pointing out–is that the conservative movement, despite isolated individuals, is deeply anti-gay.
It isn’t only the religious right, either. McCain himself supports an amendment stripping all recognition of gay couples as families. No rights, no protections, no benefits. Not families. That’s “moderate” conservatism for you. We’ve gone around about Lawrence. You keep up with the silly “original intent” and “strict constructionist” without paying any attention to the fact that McCain wants to appoint justices who agreed not only with the right of the state to break down doors and arrest people for having private sex, but supported the existence of the law. But of course, we can’t also mention conservative lawmakers in North Carolina blocking the repeal of that state’s sodomy laws (even though unconstitutional), resulting in two men being charged with sodomy lately. Because, after all, no one supports sodomy laws anymore, and there isn’t an entire conservative legal infrastructure trying to undo not only Roe, but also Lawrence and Griswold. And of course, we should avoid any conversations about conservatives refusing to support hate crimes inclusions or non-discrimination policies regarding gay men and lesbians, nor should we mention the ways that the Bush administration removed job protections for gay and lesbian federal employees, blocked any pursuit of sexual orientation discrimination claims, and targeted gay-specific HIV prevention and treatment programs for audits.
Nope, nothing anti-gay about the movement whatsoever. Nothing. Those isolated individuals are the reality of conservatism. That must be why we have no DOMA, why those men weren’t arrested, why McCain has decried attempts to limit the rights available to gay men and lesbians, and why we’re protected from discrimination in federal law. You’re right. Conservatives rawk!
Waltonsays
Pablo #555 – While your analysis makes sense in itself, this isn’t how the Supreme Court actually justified Roe. The District Court invoked the Ninth Amendment, but the majority in the Supreme Court expressly rejected this argument and instead relied on an implied “right to privacy” in the Fourteenth Amendment, basing this on earlier cases such as Griswold v Connecticut. Justice Douglas, in his concurring opinion, even went so far as to say “The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.” I think it’s pretty clear, as I’ve said on another thread, that the framers did not intend the Ninth Amendment to be used by the judges to invent new rights. Rather, they meant that the enumeration of specific rights in the Bill of Rights did not exclude or eliminate the traditional rights of citizens conferred by (English) common law, or by state law, or other sources.
For example, the Constitution does not say that I have the right to stand in my driveway on one leg during a rainstorm singing Judy Collins songs. Yet, if my local city council tried to pass a law saying I couldn’t do it (provided I was not “Disturbing the Peace”) it would never survive a challenge. Why? Because the constitution does not give government the authority to govern such things. – I agree that such a law could be struck down, but it might well fall under various enumerated rights, including the First Amendment right to freedom of expression, and the rights to property and privacy conferred under most state constitutions. I find it incredibly implausible to suggest that if such a law were enacted and then challenged in court, the court would strike it down without referring to any specific enumerated right in either the US Constitution or a state constitution. Can you name me a case where such a rationale has been used?
Janine IDsays
And where is the problem with me choosing to do so? My age and nationality should be completely irrelevant to the validity of my argument. Just forget I told you anything about myself, and think of me as a 30-year-old American small-town conservative if it makes things easier.
Sorry, I have the same reaction to anyone who expresses themselves in the royal “we”. And the simple fact you do this at a remove makes it more of a problem. Imagine if I were to use “we” when talking about what the military junta in Myanmar.
Plenty of conservatives do not believe that homosexuality is evil. Don’t lump all conservatives into one homogeneous box; it’s as empirically inaccurate as asserting that all Democrats are flaming socialists.
How very disingenuious. Many of the most prominent american conservatives do just that. The most prominent american conservative who decried homophobia was Barry Goldwater and he was well out of step with modern conservatism the last few decades of his life.
Furthermore, even those conservative figures more hostile towards homosexuality (Jerry Falwell, for instance) have consistently condemned the clownish stupidity of Fred Phelps and his ilk.
Sorry to point this out but Jerry Falwell was a greater threat to my existence then Fred Phelps could ever hope to be. Jerry Falwell was better able to influence the enacting of anti-GLBT laws. Just because one crazed asshole thought that an even more crazed asshole was clownish does not absolve Falwell of all the harm he has done. And Falwell creating more misery then Phelps.
As to Ann Coulter, I wish I’d never mentioned her. Since I brought up her name in a single throwaway remark, every other post directed at me seems to be about Ann and how much you all hate her. I am not Ann Coulter, nor am I responsible for her public relations. So it would be nice if we could talk about something else for a change.
What? So you can better cloak what you find admirable? If I were to say in a throw away line that I admire Che (WHICH I DO NOT!), would you let that slide. Or would you see that as one more sign about how I think?
I am guessing that the main reason you object to Ann is her bizarre viewpoint about evolution and intelligent design.
No! I hated that person years before her stupid advocacy of ID. In the context of everything she has spewed out over the years, it came as no surprise that she supports ID. I object to *nn C**lt*r because she is a child of privilege who espouses a sheer contempt for everything that does not fit in her fantasy world. Her ideal world would be a nightmare for 99.99 percent of humanity. She is a worthless waste of time.
Hope that clears things up.
MAJeff, OMsays
I am guessing that the main reason you object to Ann is her bizarre viewpoint about evolution and intelligent design. For the record, I do not agree with her on that. She’s a political pundit, not a scientist, and I always get the impression that she’s out of her depth when talking about science (as indeed am I, but I recognise my own failings in this regard). I don’t turn to her as a source of scientific information.
Wrong. She’s a provocateur and radical propagandist, not a serious commentator. That you turn to her as a source for anything is troubling.
Vaalsays
Evolutionists? Is that along with Gravitionists or Einsteinists? What next, musicians? Elvis fans?
Must be running out of real estate in Hell, now that just about ever male on the planet is destined to go there. Heaven must be intolerably dull. Maybe God slips down and wears a fake beard (aka Life of Brian) to watch a game or two.
Waltonsays
I have noted that for a number of people here, gay rights seems to be the most important issue, or among the most important issues. That’s fair enough. I sympathise.
And like I said, I am not in any sense anti-gay or homophobic. Homosexuality is not illegal, and homosexuals, like all other law-abiding citizens, deserve the equal protection of the law. I am also, as I have clearly said, in favour of same-sex civil partnerships, which should confer all the same financial benefits, inheritance rights etc., as a marriage. (Indeed, I’d extend the same concept to non-sexual partnerships, such as cohabiting siblings. Any two people who live together legitimately, in a relationship of mutual trust, should be entitled to legal recognition of that relationship and to all corresponding rights and privileges.)
Where I, and many other conservatives, do draw the line is at the enactment of certain anti-discrimination laws regarding private organisations. If a church or other private religious organisation does not wish to recognise the legitimacy of a same-sex partnership, then they should not be forced to. In a secular country with freedom of religion, you’re under no obligation to support that church or religious organisation in any way; and they should have the right to enact whatever internal rules they see fit.
To address one topical issue which perfectly illustrates this: I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to exclude homosexual members and scoutmasters. However, I also believe that public funding and support (where they receive it) should be withdrawn from the BSA, since an organisation which discriminates in this way between one law-abiding citizen and another should not receive state funding.
In short: the government, and all institutions thereof, should be required to extend equal rights and protections to LGBT citizens, just as it does for any other citizen. However, private citizens and organisations should be free to act on their own moral conscience as regards their own private property. This, I think, strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of homosexual people to equal protection and the need to preserve freedom of religion and conscience.
Sorry for this rambling. I’m just clarifying what I, personally, believe, and doing my best to dispel any suggestion that I’m hostile towards homosexuals. I don’t speak for the conservative movement as a whole, just for myself.
Pablosays
“The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.”
No, it does not CREATE those rights, because those rights already exist!
Rights exist regardless of whether the are enumerated or previously delineated.
BTW, if “rights to privacy” exist in common law (you’ve said it’s in state constitutions), then how is invoking a right to privacy “inventing a new right”?
The question is, where does the constitution allow the government to restrict abortion?
Benjamin Franklinsays
Walton-
Glad you decided to jump back into the fray- Good on ya mate!
This, like most active blogs has a wide mix of contributors. There are great wits, nitwits, prols, drolles, and trolls. But there are nuggets of incisive truth, so act like a gold miner, keep sifting through the tons of mud and cherish and keep the occassional valuable booty.
frogsays
Walton: I find it incredibly implausible to suggest that if such a law were enacted and then challenged in court, the court would strike it down without referring to any specific enumerated right in either the US Constitution or a state constitution. Can you name me a case where such a rationale has been used?
Thank you for proving that originalism never existed, except as a political dodge for covering up naked power plays. If originalism had existed, then the “unenumerated rights” argument would clearly be a major player — it’s one of the original 10 amendments, for chrissakes!
But it has been loudly ignored for two centuries — because it clearly makes the US government, as it has been practiced from it’s inception in 1789, impossible. It makes the entire governmental system of the US static, if read plainly. Every power that is not explicitly given to the federal government, as understood in 1789, is forbidden to the federal government.
That’s not a conservative agenda — that’s an impossible utopia, given that the US constitution is explicitly designed to be unamendable except in the most extreme case — 100 year old concensus or martial law.
Once again, sit down with the Articles of Confederation and the 1789 constitution, and read them side by side. It is trivial to show that any modern understanding of the constitution — conservative, liberal, fascist or marxist! — is incompatible with the cultural and historical context of its original implementation. It’s the reason why eternal contracts are nonsense — meaning is never stable enough to outlast 3 generations.
Pablosays
If a church or other private religious organisation does not wish to recognise the legitimacy of a same-sex partnership, then they should not be forced to.
Strawman alert!
I guarantee you, those gay people fighting to get married aren’t insisting on doing it in a Southern Baptist church.
The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize civil marriages right now (gay or not). Why would anyone think they will be forced to in the future?
Religions can allow whoever they want to marry. Who cares? We are talking about the Government.
Sheesh.
JKesslersays
9 or 11, depending on definitions.
I don’t think you will find any “Evolutionists” here, whatever that means. If by “Evolutionist” you mean “people who acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for evolution”, then yes you will find us here.
windysays
I will concede that there are some points on which I have been defeated. For instance, I can’t defend orthodox Christian teaching on theodicy…
That’s not a hard concession to make, since no one has successfully solved the problem of theodicy. But you couldn’t even defend your original claim in this thread, that the sign is “completely divergent from mainstream Christian teaching in its ideas about sin, salvation and redemption”. (Other than that all Christians would not agree on the list of sins, which is a red herring since there is not a consensus mainstream Christian list of sins.)
As I said before, you might be a bit overwhelmed being in the minority here and I don’t blame you for turning to discussing something more “fun”, like politics. But as a poo-flinging monkey who lacks integrity (interestingly your sensitive insult radar had no problems when Brenda said that), I think it’s interesting to note this.
Janine IDsays
To address one topical issue which perfectly illustrates this: I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to exclude homosexual members and scoutmasters. However, I also believe that public funding and support (where they receive it) should be withdrawn from the BSA, since an organisation which discriminates in this way between one law-abiding citizen and another should not receive state funding.
Posted by: Walton
So, are you saying that you disagree with dubya’s “Faith Based Operation”?
You know what? If you were to try to have a discussion with those you admire about some of these issues, you would be dismissed as a socialistic liberal. Once more, I implore you, rethink what you are defending. You have no ground to stand on.
Waltonsays
Windy at #569: I admit that I read the sign somewhat incorrectly at first. It isn’t inherently inconsistent with mainstream theology. However, I do also think that this kind of condemnatory, “burn in hell” kind of Christianity is counterproductive, and contrary in spirit (if not in letter) to what Jesus taught.
Christian teaching is that everyone – everyone – is a sinner, not just certain defined groups of people. Assuming a literal “hell” is presumed to exist (which depends on how you interpret the relevant scriptural passages), every single person – regardless of their sexuality, apparent virtue, etc. – would be going there, were it not for the sacrifice of Christ. Whether or not they are homosexuals, masturbators, gamblers etc. has little to do with it.
Christianity is not supposed to be an excuse to hate, or to feel superior to people who live a “less moral” lifestyle. That was the attitude of the Pharisees in Jesus’ time, and you may note that, according to the Gospels, he was extremely critical of their teaching – and he chose to spend time with prostitutes (Mary Magdalen), tax collectors, Samaritans (who were viewed as heretics), and other people who were condemned on moral grounds by Jewish religious society. So this is why I feel that this sign, if not fundamentally contradictory to Christian doctrine, is at the same time not commensurate with the original spirit of Christ’s teaching.
Don’t get me wrong, I find some Christian teaching bizarre myself, which is why I’ve moved away from trying to defend it head-on. But this is why I was not keen on the idea that “this sign represents the way Christians think”. It doesn’t – or, at least, it shouldn’t. If it does, then American Christianity is in a rather poor state, morally and spiritually.
Pablosays
Christianity is not supposed to be an excuse to hate, or to feel superior to people who live a “less moral” lifestyle.
It’s already been explained to you many times that this No True Scotsman approach doesn’t really work.
Waltonsays
Janine ID at #570: Yes, I know some American conservatives would view me as a borderline liberal. I was treated with great suspicion on Conservapedia (where I used to be an editor) because I don’t subscribe to young-earth creationism, among other things.
But I agree essentially with most of the goals and principles of the conservative movement. I agree with reducing the size of government; less taxation; judicial strict constructionism; a strong military; and an interventionist foreign policy which involves taking the war to the terrorists. All of these things are very important in choosing which candidate to support. I might be more liberal than McCain on gay rights etc., but because I agree with his stance on foreign policy, the economy and other key matters, I prefer him to Obama or to any other possible candidate.
In the end, isn’t partisan politics always like that? Does anyone agree with every single viewpoint of their chosen party or candidate? Ultimately, it’s just “best fit”. One picks the candidate who is closest to one’s own views.
Janine IDsays
…American Christianity is in a rather poor state, morally…
I know, I am cherry picking here. But Walton, you are so close to the truth. Believe it or not, I am rooting for you to understand this and move on from honoring bad personalities.
Waltonsays
To Pablo at #572 – Would you not acknowledge that it is possible to have respect for the teachings of Jesus and for Christian doctrine, without defending every single person (or even the majority of people) who term themselves Christian?
Indeed, it would be logically impossible to defend everyone in history who has called themselves a Christian. From Oscar Romero, to General Franco, to Martin Luther King, to George W. Bush, to Oliver Cromwell, to Jeremiah Wright, to Barry Lynn, to Jerry Falwell… all these people had completely different political ideologies and philosophical outlooks, but all were devout Christians of one kind or another.
So is it so wrong for me to argue that the purveyors of sectarian hatred, and those who have a Pharisee-like “I’m better than you” moralising condemnatory attitude, are not representative of the spirit of Christian teaching? And am I so wrong in the theological argument I made at #571 above?
Bill Dauphinsays
Sheesh! Avert your eyes from this blog for a day or two and suddenly there’s 550+ comment threads! Being a regular Pharyngulite is starting to look like a full-time job! Has anyone figured out how many more words per day that PZ the average regular commenter writes?
Anyway, I’m so thoroughly hellbound that it’s easier to note the exceptions:
In the “not habitually, but I can’t claim never” category…
Drunkard
Liar
Thief
Gambler
Pot Smoker
In the “not me, but I don’t object” category…
Pagan
Homosexual
Prostitute
Witch
Whoremonger
Lesbian [this is in the “I ain’t got the equipment” subcategory… but isn’t it really redundant to “homosexual”?]
Finally, in the “Hell, no, not me! These people really are going to Hell!” category…
Child Molester
BTW…
Florence King.
Sounds fascinating. I’ll have to check her out.
She is a gun toting, cigarette smoking, lesbian Republican.
The very idea gets me hot. Not that getting hot will do me — a cranky old married straight male nonsmoker — any good in this instance. ;^)
CanadianChicksays
Walton, please, show me where those people legitimately fighting for legal recognition of same sex marriage are simultaneously demanding that all religious institutions perform said marriages?
Right. You can’t. Because that’s a strawman at best.
If the Catholic church wants to say that two women can’t be sacramentally married, that’s an issue for the members of that church to deal with – not anyone outside of it. Just as it’s an internal matter for them to say that a Catholic can’t marry a Jew or a Buddhist sacramentally.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what a religion says about who can or cannot be married – it’s the LAW that I’m concerned with. Hell, I think it’s ridiculous that civil marriage and religious marriage have become so co-mingled.
Oh, and if you count everything I’ve done in my past, consider occasional tipsiness to make me a drunkard, and count agreeing to have sex because it was just easier after a dinner date than actually having to make conversation as prostitution then I score 14. I’ve never smoked pot. You can raise it to 15 if you add “whore-monger”, since if solicitation and running a whore house were legal, I’d happily be a madam.
You’re cracking me up, dude! A teenaged “editor” at Conservapedia – that explains a lot. You keep explaining what you think christianity is “supposed to be” while conveniently overlooking what it actually demonstrates itself to be. By your logic, we should love communism because it claimed to be a movement of the people. Perhaps if you started to define things by what they present themselves as rather than what they purport to be you would end up with a more realistic appraisal.
frogsays
Walton: However, I do also think that this kind of condemnatory, “burn in hell” kind of Christianity is counterproductive, and contrary in spirit (if not in letter) to what Jesus taught.
This is almost hopeless. Have you read the material like the dead sea scrolls from Israel in the first century? The spirit that would be consistent with the historical context is what these fools are selling — it is inconsistent with mainstream christianity, which fits with the “spirit” of many centuries later.
There is no “authentic” Christianity — primitive Christianity was likely much more similar to these fundamentalist than orthodox teaching.
It’s always the problem with the scholastic attitude — consistency with dogma is the core of that kind of analysis.
Pablosays
So is it so wrong for me to argue that the purveyors of sectarian hatred, and those who have a Pharisee-like “I’m better than you” moralising condemnatory attitude, are not representative of the spirit of Christian teaching?
Is it wrong for you to argue that? Of course not. You can believe whatever you want. What is wrong is for you to think that what you believe constitutes “true” Christianity is a compelling argument. That’s the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Janine IDsays
But I agree essentially with most of the goals and principles of the conservative movement. I agree with reducing the size of government; less taxation; judicial strict constructionism; a strong military; and an interventionist foreign policy which involves taking the war to the terrorists.
I cannot help that this is all a bait and switch action from “conservative” leaders. Under Reagan and the Bushes, the government grew and it’s operations became more cloudy. Also, how can a strong military be grown and maintained with low taxes. The current tax rebates while military spending keeps going up is going to be a heavy burden for decades to come.
As for McCain, he was smeared by dubya and the religious right back in 2000. Now he is whoring himself to those nutcases. How will this effect his administration if he is elected.
If you are looking for a conservative voice that has a great grasp of what the current crop of “consevatives” are doing, I suggest Kevin Phillips. Try reading American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush and American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century.
And keep in mind, Barry Goldwater style conservatism has been ignored by the american right since the days of Nixon. By this point, I am badly repeating myself, but you show admiration for the most vile people. But you also seem to be too thoughtful to be a part of that. The simple fact that you left the insanity that is Conservapedia is a point for you. Now keep thinking.
Bill Dauphinsays
Walton (@571):
…he chose to spend time with prostitutes (Mary Magdalen), tax collectors, Samaritans…
In a secular country with freedom of religion, you’re under no obligation to support that church or religious organisation in any way; and they should have the right to enact whatever internal rules they see fit.
Um, no…
If you thought about this for a split second, you would realize the sheer idiocy of your comment. Religious organizations have no such “right to enact whatever internal rules they see fit”–just ask the Catholic Church how their “internal rules” regarding pedophile priests worked out…
Walton, not to jump back so far in the conversation, but I want to address a point. Your age and nationality specifically. This has become an issue because it clarified some naivety on your part. You don’t seem to really understand what conservatism in America actually is or what the majority of conservatives actually believe.
I’ll say this: if more conservatives thought like you, I don’t think we’d have a lot of the problems we do now.
However, they don’t. I live in Texas, they don’t think like you. Not by a long shot. You would be a liberal to them. Are you beginning to understand?
Bill Dauphinsays
Religious organizations have no such “right to enact whatever internal rules they see fit”–just ask the Catholic Church how their “internal rules” regarding pedophile priests worked out…
If we modified Walton’s formulation a bit, so that it was that religious organizations have a “right to enact whatever internal rules they see fit, as long as those rules don’t violate the laws of the larger society,” we might have something. But even then, the interaction between religious self-governance and secular law is complex: What about a practice that is technically illegal (e.g., ingesting psychoactive drugs or giving wine to minors), but which is [a] a key element of religious practice and [b] arguably harmless to anyone other than consenting participants?
While I haven’t read the whole thread, it seems to me that Walton is seeing a world with stark, bright-line disntinctions between public and private, religious and secular, etc. In my experience, the truth is more that there are complex, nuanced, and somewhat hidden interactions between those aspects of life, requiring a subtler, more situationally relative approach. While I generally uphold the principle of treating all commenters the same regardless of age, perhaps this sort of nuanced worldview is an attribute of maturity.
Waltonsays
To Bachalon at #585.
I don’t think I’d necessarily be viewed as a liberal overall. But yes, I will concede that my views on matters such as gay rights and the role of religion in society, while perfectly centrist and mainstream in the UK, might be considered mildly liberal in the US. However, my views on the economy, foreign policy, the role of government, law and order, and immigration are all unapologetically right-wing.
To put it another way. I have “conservative” positions on the following issues:
1) Taxes – I support reducing levels of direct taxation; we have far too much in the UK. In a US context, I admire Bush’s tax cuts and the abolition of estate (inheritance) tax, and I think we should do the same thing over here.
2) Foreign policy – I support keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I support a “hardline” stance against terrorism, and taking the war to the enemy.
3) Law and order – I endorse the death penalty in a limited subset of circumstances (though I think the current “Death Row” system in many states is needlessly barbaric). I am undecided on whether we should reintroduce it in the UK.
4) Drugs – I 100% support the War on Drugs and think that a hardline anti-drug policy is the right way to go.
5) Immigration – needs to be tightly controlled. In a US context, I would support tightening border controls and strongly oppose amnesty for illegals.
6) Education – I support school choice. I think a partnership between the public and private sector is the way forward.
7) Strict constructionism (obviously this is a US issue only, since we don’t have a codified constitution in the UK). I have already elucidated my position on this at length.
8) I am sceptical of anthropogenic global warming and of the environmentalist movement.
9) I am pro-life and would generally prohibit abortion, except where the woman’s life is threatened by childbirth.
In contrast, my “liberal” (well, moderate) positions are as follows:
1) I support same-sex civil partnerships (though not marriage).
2) I support the separation of church and state, broadly speaking. I don’t think public funds should be spent directly on religious institutions, or in a manner which overtly favours a specific religious denomination or sect. In the US, I recognise that the First Amendment mandates an even stronger line than this (whereas in the UK we technically have an Established Church).
3) I don’t support the teaching of creationism (or intelligent design) in schools. It seems unconvincing to me in light of the scientific evidence, and I am willing to defer to the findings of the vast majority of the scientific community (being acutely aware of my own ignorance so far as science is concerned). The evidence raised in Kitzmiller v Dover further convinced me that it isn’t really science.
4) I recognise the need for some state regulation of civilian gun ownership; in particular, no civilians should possess automatic weapons (since they have no legitimate purpose for sporting or self-defence). I don’t oppose the gun control laws we have here in the UK. However, I would also acknowledge that in the US, the Second Amendment does constitutionally guarantee the right to bear arms (though I know this is presently under legal dispute).
So, with this in mind, do you really think I’d be classed as a liberal in Texas? (I’ll defer to your expertise, since I’ve never been there.)
Nick Gottssays
Walton may be thinking of a recent UK controversy over adoption by same-sex couples. Despite pressure from the Catholic Church (backed by other religious bodies), a law has recently been passed that forbids adoption agencies discriminating against same-sex couples. These agencies are not state-run, but depend on public funds, which reinforces Bill’s point about the grey areas between public and private. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6311097.stm
frogsays
Walton: But I agree essentially with most of the goals and principles of the conservative movement.
Every time I look away, you give more evidence of my analysis — and I think it’s generally applicable to conservatives and other similar “movements”, left and right. The goals and ideology override empirical evidence — you don’t say that you agree with their analysis on point A & B, but you privilege the results — “goals and principles” — over the analysis that would lead to them. Probably not intentionally, but in practice. Otherwise, it is highly unlikely that you would agree with them in general — any collective is going to be 50% garbage.
Ideology is mankinds most wasteful pursuit.
Bachalonsays
Walton, yes you would. By even allowing some abortions given extenuating circumstances, by even questioning the death penalty (I personally know 2 people who have tried to find a way to be able to be the person that actually does the execution. Lucky for all of us, that is handle by prison staff), by supporting the wall of separation, by even uttering the words “gun control” (we take our guns very seriously here), and last by not doing all you can to get creationism in school (there’s a big flap going on with our board of education right now).
For even daring to break with the party line here, that makes you as much a liberal as Barack Obama (who by the way isn’t a liberal). Texas is a very conservative state. I could tell you some horror stories about what I heard following the decision of the Lawrence case. For someone like me, a self-identified liberal socialist with strongly atheistic and feminist leanings who is also gay, anywhere outside of Austin is not the friendliest place. You can still find a lot of people here (I live in a small town outside of Houston) or are openly racist.
Waltonsays
Bachalon #590 – Really? That is bizarre, considering that I’m one of the most right-wing members of my university’s Conservative Association.
I could tell you some horror stories about what I heard following the decision of the Lawrence case. – I’m aware that Texas is a very conservative state, and it does seem bizarre and pointless to most British people that Texas still had anti-sodomy statutes until they were struck down in 1997 (we repealed ours, without any need for judicial fiat, in the 60s; they were barely enforced even before that). But are you really telling me that many Texans actually want to send police round to citizens’ bedrooms and arrest them for engaging in consensual gay sex? Are there not more important things to spend public money and resources on (given the high general crime rate and drug problems in US cities, for instance)?
I disagree that Obama isn’t a liberal, but I will say that my problem with him is not so much with his substantive domestic policies (does he even have any?) as with his lack of experience. I also, as stated, disagree vehemently with his policy on Iraq. Withdrawing troops would be an absolute disaster. (Hopefully he will realise this if he is elected.)
McCain himself has, of course, been labelled as a liberal by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. No doubt some of the Texans to whom you refer would regard him as a liberal. However, I’m roughly in line with him on most issues (except perhaps immigration) and I regard him as a conservative.
Bill Dauphinsays
do you really think I’d be classed as a liberal in Texas?
If you support any form of gun control, Hell yeah!!
(I’m joking, but only just barely.)
Actually, I think that if you lived here in the U.S. you’d have a very hard time finding a candidate to vote for, or any community of like-minded people with whom to caucus: Mainstream conservatives wouldn’t like your tolerant positions on “God, guns, and gays”; Libertarians who might like your (somewhat) tolerant stand on same-sex unions and your support of lower taxes would hate your positions on drugs and guns; folks who agreed with you on separation of church and state would wonder how you could be “pro-life” (which really means “anti-choice,” and on specifically religious grounds); homeschoolers and voucher fans who liked your support for “school choice” would consider you a traitor on the teaching of creationism….
The problem is that you’re looking at conservatism as a coherent philosophical construct, and it really isn’t that in practice (to be fair, almost no political movement is). Instead, it’s a yoking together of shared emotions, gut feelings, and preconceptions. I’m not saying there are no thoughtful, intellectually honest conservatives; I’m only saying that they’re rare among leaders of the conservative movement… and when they do appear, they’re generally considered iconoclasts.
Ksays
we repealed ours, without any need for judicial fiat, in the 60s; they were barely enforced even before that
Um, not quite – ever hear tell of someone named Alan Mathison Turing?
Waltonsays
To Bill Dauphin at #592: I agree that it is difficult to label myself precisely within the conservative movement. I used to regard myself essentially as a libertarian, but over time I’ve become more hardline on law and order (particularly drugs), and I’m a strong neoconservative/hawk as regards foreign policy. (Hence why I didn’t support Ron Paul; he’s very good as a senator, but I vehemently disagree with his stance on national defence.) I’m evidently not part of the “religious right” either, due to my opposition to creationism in schools.
I would say that my underlying philosophical rationale, inasmuch as there is one, is a belief in qualified liberty. That is to say, prima facie, I trust human beings to make their own decisions about their lives, without government interference or control; hence low taxes and a free market economy. However, this is qualified by the fact that the proliferation of certain social ills – such as drugs – is harmful to all of society, and, by contributing to crime and social breakdown, ultimately limits everyone’s freedom and enjoyment of life. Thus I’m not a pure libertarian. I also recognise the fact that “freedom doesn’t come free” and that we are at war with global Islamic terrorism, and therefore that we need to fight to defend our freedom.
Re abortion, I don’t think it’s a religious issue at all, and I don’t understand why it must always be lumped together with same-sex unions. There is no persuasive secular argument against same-sex unions, since there is no evidence that they do society any harm, or affect anyone except the persons who choose to enter into them.
Abortion, on the other hand, boils down to this: at what stage of development does a fetus become a human being, and therefore merit the protection of the law? Since we don’t have a definitive, objective answer to this question (as we have no idea at what age a human consciousness develops), I would err on the side of caution and consider a fetus to constitute a human being from its earliest stages of development. This is nothing to do with religion; it’s a secular argument. Hence why I oppose abortion. If it were just a religious matter, I would not wish to impose it on the rest of society as a matter of law, since we live in a plural, secular society in which no one religious view should be imposed.
frogsays
Walton: Since we don’t have a definitive, objective answer to this question (as we have no idea at what age a human consciousness develops)
Once again, have you bothered to look at the empirical evidence? Myelination of the CNS isn’t complete until an infant is about 3 months old — so human consciousness is impossible until that point. Just pick up a neuroscience textbook before spouting off on neuroscience.
For god’s sake, it just isn’t that hard to refuse to hold an opinion until you’ve bothered to have a passing knowledge of the underlying empirical reality!
Bachalonsays
Walton,
Really? That is bizarre, considering that I’m one of the most right-wing members of my university’s Conservative Association.
And perhaps you might be starting to understand the differences between where you are and were I am.
I’m aware that Texas is a very conservative state, and it does seem bizarre and pointless to most British people that Texas still had anti-sodomy statutes until they were struck down in 1997 (we repealed ours, without any need for judicial fiat, in the 60s; they were barely enforced even before that). But are you really telling me that many Texans actually want to send police round to citizens’ bedrooms and arrest them for engaging in consensual gay sex?
Well, YES. JESUS CHRIST, MOTHERFUCKING YES. These people think about homosexuality than I do.
Are there not more important things to spend public money and resources on (given the high general crime rate and drug problems in US cities, for instance)?
What are you? A liberal? I think there are, but seriously, Americans are good at finding anything other than the issues that matter.
Here’s a good example that I’m reasonably sure I’ve used elsewhere, maybe even here, before.
There is a scale of 1 to 100. 1 being the most liberal of liberals, 100 being the most conservative. If one is a 78 on the scale, most things are going to seem liberal, even things that aren’t actually espoused by liberals. Do you see?
Bachalonsays
Whoa, I forgot to close my tags. Sorry ’bout that.
Grammar RWAsays
human consciousness is impossible until that point
We vegans would like to remind you that it’s not only human consciousness which deserves our consideration.
For humans, there’s a point near 20-26 weeks in the womb when pain may begin, and every M.D. looking at the data can tell you this. Not coincidentally, you’ll have a hard time finding an M.D. offering abortions after the 20th week. Walton forgets that the ethics he’s concerned about are also taken into consideration by people who’ve given the Hippocratic oath.
It is unethical to fail to educate one’s self on the facts pertaining to what one calls ethical issues.
There’s a copy of this post with a link in moderation. I apologize for my impatience. Walton, come back to it when it appears, please.
Bill Dauphinsays
Walton:
I used to regard myself essentially as a libertarian, but over time I’ve become more hardline on law and order (particularly drugs), and I’m a strong neoconservative/hawk as regards foreign policy.
Good that you said “used to” there; a law-and-order, hawkish/interventionist libertarian would be a major oxymoron.
(Hence why I didn’t support Ron Paul; he’s very good as a senator, but I vehemently disagree with his stance on national defence.)
First, he’s a congressman (i.e., a member of the House of Representatives), not a senator. Functionally (and often temperamentally), there’s a big difference between the two. Next, the man is a dangerously radical nutjob (I was living in Texas back when he was getting his start in politics). The problem with “smaller government” conservativism in the U.S. is that rather than having the goal of measured, rational reductions in government bureaucracy, it’s usually code for the desire to completely tear down whole functions of the public sector that the right wing finds ideologically intolerable (e.g., public education, social welfare infrastructure, etc.). Paul’s position on school choice, for instance, is really a Trojan Horse that would have the effect of eventually bankrupting (and therefore abolishing) the entire enterprise of public education.
Re abortion, I don’t think it’s a religious issue at all, and I don’t understand why it must always be lumped together with same-sex unions.
I was engaging in no such lumping in this case… but since you ask, the reason abortion and gay rights often end up in the same conversation is that many of us liberals perceive the other side’s position on both issues as deriving from fundamentally puritanical ideas about sexuality. Both abortion and homosexuality challenge the orthodox religious/conservative view that the only legitimate expressions of human sexuality occur within “traditional” (i.e., heterosexual, monogamous, open-to-God’s-gift-of-children) marriage. No doubt there are principled opponents of abortion who are genuinely (albeit misguidedly, IMHO) concerned with the “sanctity of life,” but there are many others who believe (and even a few of them will admit this) that abortion, like contraception, is bad because it allows sexual “sinners” to escape the consequences of their sin.
Abortion, on the other hand, boils down to this: at what stage of development does a fetus become a human being, and therefore merit the protection of the law? … I would err on the side of caution and consider a fetus to constitute a human being from its earliest stages of development. This is nothing to do with religion; it’s a secular argument.
The argument boils down to what constitutes personhood, and virtually everyone who tries to define that as anything other than independent life (i.e., having been born) ends up making reference to some concept of a metaphysical soul. That may be “nothing to do with religion” in your mind, but I assure you that as a political movement, in this country, opposition to abortion has everything to do with religion.
I think this is the problem with your take on American politics: You see what people say, but you don’t have the secret decoder ring, which can only be gotten by digging around in the cereal box a bit. I’d face the same issues were I to try to comment on British politics, don’t you think?
Fergysays
Can we please not turn this thread into yet another pointless debate about abortion? The discussion has already gone so far off the rails as to have no relation to the original topic of the article, which by the way, OMITTED any mention of abortion (but did include “sports fans”, who apparently are a whole lot worse, I guess…)
Waltonsays
To Bill Dauphin at #599. I don’t have time for a full reply now, but I’ll make a few brief responses.
First, he’s a congressman (i.e., a member of the House of Representatives), not a senator. Functionally (and often temperamentally), there’s a big difference between the two. – Apologies, I misspoke. I do understand the difference between a Senator and a Congressman; I’m extremely familiar with the US system of government.
I am fully aware that most pro-lifers are religious and base their opposition to abortion on religious grounds. Rather, the point I was trying to make is that there’s no logical reason for viewing it solely as a religious issue; it ought to be an ethical dilemma for everyone, religious or not. There would be nothing inherently contradictory about being a pro-life atheist.
…there are many others who believe (and even a few of them will admit this) that abortion, like contraception, is bad because it allows sexual “sinners” to escape the consequences of their sin. – I am aware that some people oppose abortion as part of a broader outlook on sexual morality generally. But I am bemused (and slightly horrified) that anyone would see it as some sort of “punishment for sexual sin”; for one thing, what about young girls who become pregnant as a result of rape? Or where naive young teenagers become pregnant, having been emotionally and physically exploited by older men? In those cases, telling them that they had to keep the baby purely as some sort of bizarre “punishment” would be not only unjust, but barbaric. Rather, the reason why I would not necessarily endorse abortion in such cases (unless the girl’s life was endangered by childbirth) is that I do see the fetus as a human life. I acknowledge the evidence presented above by some people, and as I’m not a doctor, I’m not qualified to have any sort of intelligent opinion on when a fetus becomes, in any meaningful sense, a human being; but as I said, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. I don’t deny your assertion that some people might well see it all in terms of “punishment for sexual sin”, but if they do make such an argument, I think they’re both wrong and ethically repugnant (and fundamentally out of step with Christian values as well: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”)
I’d face the same issues were I to try to comment on British politics, don’t you think? – Maybe, but British people are exposed to a lot more information about American politics (especially during an election cycle) than vice versa.
frogsays
Walton: … I do see the fetus as a human life. I acknowledge the evidence presented above by some people, and as I’m not a doctor, I’m not qualified to have any sort of intelligent opinion on when a fetus becomes, in any meaningful sense, a human being
????
Really — ???? WTF?
You should never ever say “I’m unqualified to have an intelligent opinion in field X, but I have strong opinions on field X”.
“I’m not an engineer — and have never studied the field — but I strongly believe that steel in unusable in bridges”.
“I’ve never studied physics, but most assuredly the Copenhagen interpretation implies the psychics are real”.
“I’ve never opened a bible, but I’m convince that Jesus was an alien being”.
“I’ve never studied the constitution, the law or semantics, but we should definitely apply originalist theories”.
If you think you should have an opinion on something — go study a field for a while, even as a layman or dilettante, then come back when you at least have a reasonable argument for your position, other than hand-waving “the safe position is”.
Why does this come from the right so often? Every asshole has the right to an opinion, but that doesn’t mean that they’re opinion is of any value! If anyone should know that, it should be a conservative.
Grammar RWAsays
Sad that even the Milk Snatcher was better on reproductive rights than Walton. How does a person become so divorced from reality that he thinks a blastocyst has rights?
Grammar RWAsays
their their, frog
Waltonsays
Well, I’ve accepted the limits of my current knowledge and I’m more than willing to learn. We’re waiting for the link posted by Grammar RWA (#598 above) to get through moderation, which may add extra scientific information to this discussion.
You may note that I have repeatedly acknowledged, on every thread, that the physical and natural sciences are entirely outside my area of expertise. Unlike areas which I do know about – such as foreign and defence policy, military studies, and constitutional law – I have only a basic understanding of science, and on scientific points I’m more than willing to listen to the experts, of whom there are many in this forum. So I’m intentionally not purporting to be knowledgeable about this subject.
But if medical science could give us a conclusive, or even a good, answer as to when a fetus becomes a human being – when the nebulous concepts of “humanity” and “consciousness” develop – then surely there would be no ethical controversy over abortion, because everyone would agree that a fetus either is, or is not, a human being?
Grammar RWAsays
There’s no scientific content in my link. But hell, you can get a decent education by googling pain+weeks+fetus if you have any grasp of biology.
But then I realize that if you’re studying law, and you don’t know how to tell reputable scientific journals from non, you’ll be adrift in the ocean. Ask KillerChihuahua and friends.
windysays
I would err on the side of caution and consider a fetus to constitute a human being from its earliest stages of development.
It’s not a fetus until the 9th week. Before that, it’s an embryo.
So, Walton, not only do you continue to prove yourself to be an ignorant little boy, you have shown yourself to be a lying ignorant little boy. It’s been a day since the manipulative tantrum in which you assured everyone that if you were referred to as an ignorant little boy again that you would stop posting, yet here you are still flapping your jaws with abandon. I suppose it’s unfair to expect a little boy to demonstrate his grown-up-big-boy integrity and stand by his own word though, isn’t it?
Bachalonsays
Walton, how do you define “human being?” Because right now, from what you’ve said, you strike as a person without empathy. Great, so the psychological trauma of having to carry a rapists baby to term means nothing to you? Only a man would ever say such a thing. What would you tell a girl who asked to get an abortion in such a case?
Congratulations, once again you show your astounding ignorance of how beliefs and politics actually intersect in this country.
Waltonsays
To Milo Johnson at #608 – I shouldn’t even be responding to abuse like this. Frankly, I think it’s pathetic that you feel the need to attack me in this manner; and that you are so sickened by the idea of someone disagreeing with your strident views that you see fit to call them an “ignorant little boy” in an attempt to get them to leave.
You are an embarrassment to atheism (just as hatemongers like Fred Phelps are an embarrassment to theism). Most people on this forum are at least willing to engage constructively with my ideas and discuss them. Unlike you, I can respect others as human beings even where I do not concur with their ideas.
I am not going to reply to you again, because I don’t want to be drawn into an insult-flinging match, nor do I intend to sink to your level. And no, I am not going to stop posting just to make you happy. I’m going to continue discussing issues constructively with other members of this forum, and ignore any further abuse I receive from you.
Grammar RWAsays
Milo, you ass, shut up. Some people, Nick Gotts and others, are enjoying talking to Walton, and you’re trying to lower others’ enjoyment of this blog. If you don’t want to read him, get firefox/greasemonkey/killfile.
Bill Dauphinsays
Fergy:
Can we please not turn this thread into yet another pointless debate about abortion?
I haven’t really been talking about abortion, per se. I’m talking about the unspoken (and often somewhat hidden) ulterior/ideological agendas that lie under ostensibly principled political positions; the politics of abortion is just one example. For instance…
I am aware that some people oppose abortion as part of a broader outlook on sexual morality generally. But I am bemused (and slightly horrified) that anyone would see it as some sort of “punishment for sexual sin”; for one thing, what about young girls who become pregnant as a result of rape?
This is precisely the example that proves my earlier point: It makes perfect sense for abortion foes to carve out the nearly ubiquitous “rape-and-incest” exception if you think of unwanted pregnancy as the consequence of sexual sin: Since there’s no sin in being raped (unless you happen to be a Muslim woman, of course), it’s acceptable that you should be protected from the consequences. OTOH, people who truly believed (as virtually all abortion opponents claim to) that the fetus was morally equivalent to a born child wouldn’t support any such exceptions: Since when, after all, do we execute children for the crimes of their biological fathers?
If, as I suspect, the unacknowledged basis of most folks’ opposition to abortion is largely religious notions of sexual morality, that’s a problem for someone who wants to be a pro-life secularist… which goes back to my earlier point about Walton not matching up to any one American political definition as well as he(?) imagines.
As for your complaint about thread drift, what do you expect after 600+ comments? Howevermuch I disagree with his politics and think he’s naive, Walton strikes me as thoughtful about and engaged with the world around him. In what sense is chatting seriously with a bright young foreigner who’s interested in U.S. politics a bad thing?
fixersays
I’m going to continue discussing issues constructively pompously and humorlessly with other members of this forum
Fixed it.
Waltonsays
To Bachalon at #609.
What would you tell a girl who asked to get an abortion in such a case? – In all honesty, I have no idea. That would be a horrific moral dilemma, and it would be both arrogant and false of me to pretend I had an easy answer.
I’m sorry that you see me as a person without empathy. I’m really not like that in real life, but I appreciate that this may not always come over in my discussion of abstract political issues.
Waltonsays
To Grammar RWA and Bill Dauphin (#611 and #612): Thank you.
I really don’t care who is enjoying chatting with the child, and I really don’t care if the child engages with me or not. I simply pointed out his dishonesty, inconsistency, and immaturity. If you don’t like my comments, you are welcome to ignore them yourself.
Waltonsays
To respond to Bill Dauphin at #612:
OTOH, people who truly believed (as virtually all abortion opponents claim to) that the fetus was morally equivalent to a born child wouldn’t support any such exceptions. – And, indeed, I don’t support exceptions for rape and incest, harsh and unsympathetic as I may sound in saying so. Once the fetus has passed the point at which we can regard it as a human being (whenever that may be, and this is the area which is open to dispute), it is only acceptable IMO to kill it if the mother’s life is directly at risk.
It is, of course, perfectly clear (as you point out) the views of many abortion opponents are, in practice, bound up with a condemnatory morally-conservative (perhaps rather Pharisee-like) approach to sexual behaviour. I don’t disagree with you that this is a major factor in the political thinking of the American religious conservative movement. But I am merely arguing that there is a secular justification, and that my “pro-life” stance is genuinely just that – I want to preserve innocent human life.
I know that this raises absolutely horrific moral dilemmas, such as cases of rape. And I do think that, in the worst possible scenario – where an underage girl is raped and becomes pregnant – the shock and harm that a full-term pregnancy would cause to her, both mental and physical, is a valid argument for allowing an abortion. In such a case, even if she were physically able to carry the baby to term, condemning her to do so would be functionally equivalent to destroying her life, and I think that may outweigh the life of the fetus. So I’m not making an absolute blanket statement here. (Just as killing a human being to save another is not always wrong.)
Grammar RWAsays
I’m sorry that you see me as a person without empathy. I’m really not like that in real life
Translation: I don’t really believe in forced birth and brood mares for the state, I just play an anti-choicer on the internets.
Read Pandagon, Walton. But I don’t recommend you post there; you’ll get your ass handed to you.
Owlmirrorsays
But if medical science could give us a conclusive, or even a good, answer as to when a fetus becomes a human being – when the nebulous concepts of “humanity” and “consciousness” develop – then surely there would be no ethical controversy over abortion, because everyone would agree that a fetus either is, or is not, a human being?
Um.
Have you read this? It’s by Carl Sagan, addressing the issue of fetal development of the brain.
…you strike as a person without empathy. Great, so the psychological trauma of having to carry a rapists baby to term means nothing to you? Only a man would ever say such a thing.
It has nothing to do with lacking empathy or being a man; he’s just being more logically consistent than most abortion foes are.
Personally, I don’t think anyone should be forced to carry anyone’s baby to term for any reason, but if you believe (as I do not but Walton seems to) that the embryo/fetus is a true human person with full rights, then its mother’s psychological trauma, however tragic, is no justification for its murder.
As I said before, the fact that pro-lifers do carve out the rape-and-incest exception gives the lie to their pretense of defending the sanctity of life. This, along with the fact that those who would criminalize abortion (e.g., the South Dakota ban) never propose the sort of penalties that murder would demand, is what convinces me that the so-called pro-life position is fundamentally disingenuous. They pretend abortion is murder in order to give their position moral weight, but they don’t act like they really believe it because, I think, they don’t believe it, and they know nobody else does either. IMHO, “pro-life” is almost always code for “anti-sex,” which in turn is a fundamentally religion-based position.
And that’s why I (politely) called Walton out on (among other things) his claim to be both pro-life and secular.
Waltonsays
Owlmirror at #619: That’s a very interesting article, and no, I hadn’t read it before or been presented with that argument. Indeed, it addresses precisely the area I was concerned about.
I always felt that “viability” was a flimsy point of distinction to use, ethically; is the capacity for independent survival – which, of course, is not possessed by some human beings; consider the position of some terminally ill and disabled people – a logically valid criterion? However, I’m pleased to see that Sagan moves away from that line of argument.
Since I’m not terribly familiar with the science (as I’ve already conceded), I hadn’t come across the idea of using detectable brainwaves as the relevant criterion. But it certainly seems less arbitrary than any of the other factors, since it is ultimately the workings of our brains which makes us human, and brain activity is the only physical factor from which we could possibly infer any sort of human consciousness.
So no, I don’t have a rebuttal for that line of argument, and I’m going to have to go away and reconsider my thinking on this. (I hope this makes clear that I am open-minded and willing to consider new information when it comes up.)
Bill Dauphinsays
I don’t disagree with you that this is a major factor in the political thinking of the American religious conservative movement. But I am merely arguing that there is a secular justification, and that my “pro-life” stance is genuinely just that – I want to preserve innocent human life.
Understood… but when I chimed in you seemed to be trying to place yourself in an American political context (e.g., would you be a liberal in Texas); if you want to do that, you have to understand what that context really is (as opposed to what it claims to be). You personally may be able to reconcile pro-life advocacy and secularism; you won’t find many fellow travelers in American politics.
Bill Dauphinsays
I always felt that “viability” was a flimsy point of distinction to use, ethically
Stipulated. And if you reject some arbitrary definition of in utero “viability,” you’re left with only two logically reasonable milestones to consider: The beginning of gestation (i.e., the moment of conception) and the end (i.e., birth). If you stick strictly to biology, it is (I fearlessly assert) patently absurd to call a freshly fertilized egg a full-fledged person… which leaves birth as the only defensible secular definition of the beginning of a human person’s life. To argue otherwise, it seems to me, you must posit some sort of metaphysical ensoulment event… and then we’re right back to religion.
See why I’m skeptical of the yoking of pro-life and secularism?
Waltonsays
I think, perhaps, the conclusion I can draw from this is that I don’t fit exactly into an American conservative niche. My social (as opposed to economic or foreign-policy) views are slightly too “liberal” (in the broadest and most nebulous sense of the word).
Yet I will say that I can read a column by a conservative author, such as Ann Coulter, and generally agree with the overwhelming majority of its content. So if one is faced with a simplistic choice of being labelled as “conservative” or “liberal”, I think “conservative” fits me a lot better, even in America. Don’t my free-market economic and hawkish foreign policy views outweigh a moderate stance on social and moral issues?
I also hope I’ve shown that while I’m by no means infallible, or even particularly brilliant, I do try my best to be open-minded and intellectually honest, and I do rethink my views when presented with new information or compelling arguments (such as that presented by Owlmirror above regarding abortion). I’m not a knee-jerk adherent of everything that leading American conservatives say.
I’m genuinely saddened that Milo Johnson considers me an ignorant child, and I don’t know what I’ve said to give him that impression. I hope that he will revise this assessment at some time. I can’t help being relatively young, but I don’t think I’m stupid or ignorant, and I haven’t knowingly lied. I acknowledge that I have been wrong on many things in the past and that I may be wrong now.
Grammar RWAsays
Don’t my free-market economic and hawkish foreign policy views outweigh a moderate stance on social and moral issues?
In the sense that they lead to an ever-increasingly stratified and authoritarian society which trends toward eliminating social freedoms and individual ethical decision-making, yes.
Bachalonsays
Walton, he called you an ignorant child because, no offense, you sort of are. I know you detest bringing age and nationality into this, but you were the one who revealed both. You can’t decry others using that; no changing the rules in the middle of game.
I’m going to be honest, when I found out both, a lot things made sense. Specifically some startling, er, ignorance of how politics and beliefs in American actually work. To your credit, you’re fairly well-read, certainly more than most people I encounter, but there’s a large difference between reading something (like say, a virgin writing about sex) and actually experiencing it. That’s the difference. You don’t really know how conservatism and conservatives work here. You can’t without being here.
There is no shame in being ignorant. I myself am ignorant of a great many things. If someone points that out, I don’t get upset. Rather, I see it as something new to be learned. You seem to suffer from the same problem that many here in America do: they take it as a personal insult, often interchanging it freely for “stupid,” yet strangely enough, not doing anything to remedy it. They wail long and loud about how dare someone call them ignorant.
But it’s true: you are ignorant, and in this increasingly infantilizing culture, you are not yet an adult. I won’t call you a child, but you do have a lot of rather…immature views on things. You seem stuck on a lot of things, which the main obstacle being that, again, you haven’t experienced things.
You express shock over the fact that sex could be considered a punishment to some people. Yet it is. People here talk about how sex is a gift from god, yet they oppose comprehensive sex aid, free contraceptives and the morning after pill, thus making sex a punishment.
I’m not quite sure what else to say. It’s good to see you questing after knowledge, but one thing you have to understand here: most of the commentators here are both older than you and are natives of this (being America) country. Just keep that in mind in future postings.
Grammar RWAsays
Aye, Bachalon, but Milo flat out told him to leave. I mean, he isn’t J.
Waltonsays
You don’t really know how conservatism and conservatives work here. You can’t without being here. – I take your point. I’ve never lived in the United States or experienced it first-hand. I am, as you say, very well-read in American politics and I do understand the mechanics of it; but I do realise that there’s a gap between academic knowledge and daily experience.
You express shock over the fact that sex could be considered a punishment to some people. – No, I was expressing shock at the idea that someone would want to impose pregnancy as some sort of “punishment” for having illicit sex (Bill Dauphin asserted above that this is part of the rationale behind many pro-life views in the US). If this were taken to its logical conclusion, one would have to conclude that sexually transmitted diseases are a punishment on people for having illicit sex, so we shouldn’t try to cure them – and that would plainly be a ludicrous and barbaric view. I was merely trying to explain that my rationale for opposing abortion was radically different to that.
For the record, I’m not particularly “pro-sex”. I don’t think sex before marriage and sexual promiscuity are positive things for society at all. But I don’t think I have the right to try and impose my personal moral views on others.
Thank you for being polite and respectful in your tone. Milo Johnson, whatever he may have meant, was a long, long way from being polite and respectful, hence why I reacted to him with hostility.
Grammar RWAsays
And these defenses of Ann Coulter! When I was a reichwing Christian, I still wouldn’t have associated myself with such small-minded tripe. She is shitlicking low.
The woman feels it acceptable to invoke homophobic slurs against political adversaries. The social acceptability of that language correlates with gay-bashing. It says a lot about Walton.
Grammar RWAsays
But I don’t think I have the right to try and impose my personal moral views on others.
I am pro-life and would generally prohibit abortion, except where the woman’s life is threatened by childbirth.
Limit one per customer, sir.
Ichthyicsays
I am, as you say, very well-read in American politics
ROFLMAO
Is that what you call perusing the spew of Limbaugh and Coulter?
being well read?
that’s fucking hilarious!
like I said, you should consider becoming a comedian when yo grow up.
Dsays
If this were taken to its logical conclusion, one would have to conclude that sexually transmitted diseases are a punishment on people for having illicit sex, so we shouldn’t try to cure them – and that would plainly be a ludicrous and barbaric view.
Yet many hold that view as well. Whatever has colored your view of American politics and discourse is truly different from the reality on the ground here.
Grammar RWAsays
I don’t think sex before marriage and sexual promiscuity are positive things for society at all.
Mmmm. I can’t resist exploring this psychic dungeon, Walton.
Why do you believe sexual partners should not confirm that they are compatible before they sign legally binding contracts? I don’t think I’d buy a used automobile from you.
And why should the pleasures of the body not be experienced by those who prefer their lives be absent such contracts?
Grammar RWAsays
And do you make exceptions for gays who live in states where they can’t marry?
Dsays
Oh and Walton, as you are a fan of Coulter, perhaps you’d like to take PZ’s challenge.
Grammarboy, you don’t have very good reading comprehension despite your cognomen, do you? I didn’t tell the child to leave, I reminded him that he bluntly stated that he was going to stop posting if anyone called him an ignorant little boy again, and that he did not keep his word after I called his bluff and did so. Get it right, especially if you want to be the self-designated comment referee. And Walton, as far as “polite and respectful” goes, you have to earn that from me and if you present yourself as an ignorant little boy in the manner you have, I will grant you neither. You came in here to prove something, you made a fool of yourself, and you are trying to deflect the accountability for your own tantrum-induced words by whining that I’ve been rude to you. You come to a noted atheist venue and think that you’re the one that can reinvent the wheel and convince us that your fairy tale isn’t a total load of crap, and you don’t seem to realize that you’re about the twelve thousandth troll to do so just in the time that I’ve been reading and writing here. I find it telling of your own inner neediness that you think that I’m susceptible to the argument that I “make atheists look bad.” First, atheists are already the most hated group in this country, so I can’t really drag unbelievers into the mud. Second, I’m not in a club, I don’t care what anybody else thinks of me or what I think, I’m not trying to persuade you or anybody else, and when you start throwing asinine and juvenile assertions around like you initially did I’ll continue to call you out on it. So, put up or shut up. Either keep your word and take a hike, or admit that you said something juvenile and stupid in a moment of rashness and take the responsibility that a real man does. Earn a little respect like an adult does, or stop pretending to be one.
Fergysays
But I don’t think I have the right to try and impose my personal moral views on others.
I am pro-life and would generally prohibit abortion, except where the woman’s life is threatened by childbirth.
Limit one per customer, sir.
Not to mention that he supports the death penalty…
What is it with people like Walton who can’t see their own hypocrisy? (Oh, wait! That’s on the sign, isn’t it?)
Bill Dauphinsays
For the record, I’m not particularly “pro-sex”.
For the rest of the record, the more common term for what you’re saying you’re not, particularly, is sex-positive. Just so’s you know… ;^)
BTW, a note of clarification: I wasn’t saying that people want to proactively impose pregnancy as a punishment for sex; rather, they think that disconnecting sex (e.g., through contraception and abortion) from its “natural” consequences (e.g., pregnancy and disease) makes it easier to “get away with.” That is, they see contraception and abortion (not to mention Gardasil!) as anti-deterrents to sexual sin.
This, BTW, perfectly in line with market-based economic conservativism, which claims that individuals in the marketplace always respond rationally to cost, and that the sum of those individual rational responses is, by definition, Good. This is also why they want us to be careful comparison shoppers when, for (a very personal) example, an only child has just been diagnosed with a brain tumor.
[Hmmm… I just realized that last sentence seems scary. No worries: It was years ago, and my daughter is fully recovered. But the idea that people should be responsible for making rational purchasing decisions in the middle of such a crisis just frosts me. If I ever needed it proved to me that the laissez-faire approach to healthcare policy was the bunk, that experience did the trick.]
Grammar RWAsays
Grammarboy, you don’t have very good reading comprehension despite your cognomen, do you?
I don’t even need to read between the lines, Milo. There’s no possible honest reading where your “I suppose it’s unfair to expect…” comment doesn’t mean “leave.”
If we’re going to keep this up, though, I must insist that you buy me dinner first. The dangers of promiscuity, and all that. Or is mutual mental masturbation not sex?
frogsays
Walton: If this were taken to its logical conclusion, one would have to conclude that sexually transmitted diseases are a punishment on people for having illicit sex, so we shouldn’t try to cure them – and that would plainly be a ludicrous and barbaric view.
So many conservatives in the US are barbaric. It was actually an argument here (and continues to be), whether giving teenage girls the HPV vaccine was “moral” — that protecting them from disease was a sin!
As well, your hero Ronny Ray-gun Reagan and his allies fought quite vocally against funding research into AIDS — since it was a punishment from The Big Guy for gay sex.
Really Wally, you’ve put yourself in bed with unrepentant barbarians by your own admission. This is the core of the American conservative movement. If you don’t agree with these views, you don’t agree with what American conservatism is, and has been, for the last 30 years. It’s barbarism, pure and simple.
Maybe some of your other views are just as barbaric? You have to consider that, if you agree on so many positions with barbarians.
Bachalonsays
Frog, good call. Walton, there is a sizable contingent of conservatives here that oppose the HPV vaccine because they feel it would give girls (always girls) a “license to have sex.”
For another thing, look up Dr. Reginald Finger. He was suggested as a name for the FDA by Focus on the Family. He was the only member of the review committee to oppose Gardasil. He’s on record saying he’d oppose a cure for AIDS since it would eliminate the so-called “disinhibition factor.”
He is the rep of FotF, a fairly mainstream conservative organization here in the US. These are the people you want to align yourself with?
You really do have some literacy issues, don’t you? The referenced “I suppose it’s unfair to expect…” comment clearly meant exactly what it said, that he didn’t follow through on his declared ultimatum and that it was unlikely that he would be man enough to keep his word. Nobody forced him to make that declaration and now he doesn’t want to admit ownership of it, but instead hides behind feigned hurt feelings and looks for the sympathies of others. Why don’t you let the child fight his own battles, anyway? You simply don’t have a piece of this dispute and I’ll thank you to mind your own damned business. Do I need to find smaller words or do you get it now?
Ichthyicsays
Nobody forced him to make that declaration and now he doesn’t want to admit ownership of it, but instead hides behind feigned hurt feelings and looks for the sympathies of others.
I’d have to agree with Milo here, that does appear to be what is happening.
Walton wants to play “the poisoned well” card, but repeatedly (by telling us his age, his sexual status, etc.) seems to be intentionally poisoning his own well.
can’t have it both ways:
he can either claim the ignorance of a child, and look to BE informed, instead of trying to inform the rest of us.
or he can stop whining about the fact that he intentionally poisons his own well, and we end up reacting to that.
Nick Gottssays
Why do you [Walton] believe sexual partners should not confirm that they are compatible before they sign legally binding contracts? – Grammar RWA
I’ll leave Walton to answer for why he does, but a couple of thoughts on how he can:
1) He probably thinks premarital sex is a decadent modern invention, and doesn’t know that in many very traditional societies, marriage followed pregnancy, because to remain childless was a great economic and social disadvantage, so you needed to be sure you were fertile with your chosen partner.
2) By his own account, he’s never had sex, so he doesn’t realise that for most people it takes practice. If you want to risk a disastrous wedding night, Walton (I’m assuming you’re straight), then fine, abstain from premarital sex. (I’m reminded of a cartoon I saw years ago in Private Eye, showing one man saying rather smugly to another: “I’ve been a practising homosexual for twenty years, and now I’m rather good at it.”)
I gotta ask–what IS Walton’s main area of study? ‘Cause unless it’s American Government and/or Political Science, he’s got some nerve barging in and throwing his under-fermented opinionating around like a heavyweight pundit.
And if it IS AG/PS, he needs to take a few more upper level courses before he opens his mouth on a blog full of ‘Mericans to tell us what’s what…about our own system, no less.
Unless, of course, we are free to dump on him about the various issues and failings of, say, Thatcherism. Or the humanitarian idiocy of the Commissariat during the Crimean War. Or the various excesses of Oliver Cromwell. Or the woodenheadedness of the Admiralty. Or the way the Polish Cryptographers were sidelined over the whole Enigma thing…
The MadPanda, FCD
frogsays
NG: He probably thinks premarital sex is a decadent modern invention, and doesn’t know that in many very traditional societies, marriage followed pregnancy
And by traditional you mean Western, and specifically British-derived cultures. In the 17th century, one study (read many years ago before my dementia set in) found that in Maryland, more than 50% of marriages were officialized after pregnancy. There was betrothal, and marriage only followed if the bride got pregnant.
That’s the whole point of the wedding band deposit – man gives wedding band of significant value to protect the woman in case he backs out after impregnating her, but man won’t get married until he confirms fertility of the couple. You don’t get any more Britishy and Puritan influenced than the mid-atlantic colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries, do you?
Part of the great American (and Anglophonic) self-delusion.
Sven DiMilosays
Walton’s main area of study is, clearly Walton.
Guy’s an obvious narcissist, and pompous about it ta boot.
Grammar RWAsays
You simply don’t have a piece of this dispute and I’ll thank you to mind your own damned business.
I damn well do, Milo, unless your sexual hang-ups are equally interesting and you’re volunteering for a public probing.
Ichthyicsays
Walton’s main area of study is, clearly Walton.
Guy’s an obvious narcissist, and pompous about it ta boot.
on the nosie.
Waltonsays
In response to Frog and Bachalon at #641 and #642: Yes, sometimes I’m embarrassed to be a conservative when these people make their more ludicrous comments. But as you well know, it’s an unfortunate fact that the American right relies on their support, and so their views can’t be ignored. It’s a sacrifice which, as I understand it, must be made in order to hold together the fragile conservative coalition.
I admire Reagan greatly, for his role in winning the Cold War, saving the American economy from disaster, and building a strong, united and healthy conservative movement (which sadly has fallen apart under GWB, since he’s polarised conservatives and made religion more of a divisive issue). But I don’t have time to argue all of that tonight (it’s nearly 1am where I am) and don’t want to clog up this already-immense thread with twenty more political issues. Basically, though, the point I’m trying to make is this: the two most important political issues are the economy and national security/foreign/defence policy. Those are the issues on which I typically agree with conservatives. Therefore, in order to ensure that the right things are done in these areas, it’s necessary to get conservatives into power, and in pursuance of that aim it’s necessary to ally oneself with some of these slightly bizarre people on the religious right. This is all I’ve been saying all along; I haven’t been intending to actually defend indefensible viewpoints.
Re the remarks about premarital sex, that’s a personal moral belief which I don’t think I need to justify, since (as already expressly stated) I don’t want to impose that personal belief on other people. In the interests of an efficient, harmonious and non-dictatorial society, it’s best that people’s private, consensual activities, provided they don’t hurt anyone else or infringe anyone else’s rights, should not be matters for the state to control. The state is not the arbiter of morals (and, indeed, the scariest totalitarian regimes in history have been those which have taken on that role). I doubt anyone here will significantly disagree with that. Therefore, as I’m not imposing my beliefs on anyone else, I don’t see why we need to argue the point.
Ichthyicsays
I admire Reagan greatly, for his role in winning the Cold War, saving the American economy from disaster, and building a strong, united and healthy conservative movement (which sadly has fallen apart under GWB
you REALLY need to drink less kool-aid.
I’m embarrassed to be a conservative when these people make their more ludicrous comments
Walton, my lad, Ronald Reagan did NOT win the Cold War. He was just in at the end…and ultimately his vision has lost the peace.
Or maybe you’ve forgotten where your bestest buddy, bin Laden, got some of his initial funding?
The MadPanda, FCD
Grammar RWAsays
Therefore, as I’m not imposing my beliefs on anyone else, I don’t see why we need to argue the point.
Because your attitudes contribute to a dangerous culture in which sex is something to be feared, and that hurts people, specifically, everyone who grows up in that culture. It hurt me and I can see it sure as hell hurt you.
You made a moral statement: X is wrong. Even if you aren’t planning to use the state to enforce it, you’re still responsible for backing up your reasoning. Or else morality and ethics are not serious enough for public discussion.
But as you well know, it’s an unfortunate fact that the American right relies on their support, and so their views can’t be ignored. It’s a sacrifice which, as I understand it, must be made in order to hold together the fragile conservative coalition.
Translation: it’s not that I believe women, gays and brown-skinned people don’t deserve rights. It’s just that there are other priorities more important than letting them have those rights right now. Surely they can wait until the next round of bigots dies off. And the next round, and the next round, because public discussion of personal morals is off the table so we can’t make headway on that front either.
frogsays
Walton: It’s a sacrifice which, as I understand it, must be made in order to hold together the fragile conservative coalition.
I hate that argument — to ally yourselves with the most obtuse and criminal barbarians, to lie to them (which is what that coalition does) and use them, and then risk having them take over the coalition and revert society to barbarism.
At the risk of Godwin, this was the same mistake that German center-rightists made in the 20s & 30s. “Oh we don’t believe in all that fascists crap, but they’re useful tools in a coalition against the Red Menace”. Anyone who plays that game deserves to have their ideas eliminated from society — just as the German right has been now for over half a century for that mistake. It’s also what has happened in Chile and Argentina for the right’s roles there in military dictatorships.
Ye shall be judged by your allies — your opponents will not be forgiving if you drag us into the dark ages. Allies of theocrats should be shown the same mercy that allies of bolsheviks have been shown.
Bachalonsays
Walton,
Yes, sometimes I’m embarrassed to be a conservative when these people make their more ludicrous comments. But as you well know, it’s an unfortunate fact that the American right relies on their support, and so their views can’t be ignored. It’s a sacrifice which, as I understand it, must be made in order to hold together the fragile conservative coalition.
That sounds suspiciously like you’re saying that the ends justify the means. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Poisonous views can most certainly be ignored. Who cares if they agree with you otherwise? I like the idea of socialized medicine, but I’ll be damned if I seek help from people who also think people with strong religious views should be sterilized.
Basically, though, the point I’m trying to make is this: the two most important political issues are the economy and national security/foreign/defence policy. Those are the issues on which I typically agree with conservatives. Therefore, in order to ensure that the right things are done in these areas, it’s necessary to get conservatives into power, and in pursuance of that aim it’s necessary to ally oneself with some of these slightly bizarre people on the religious right. This is all I’ve been saying all along; I haven’t been intending to actually defend indefensible viewpoints.
If they’re indefensible, why do you want to ally yourself with them? You don’t get it, do you? The moment those people are in power, they will turn on you for all the things you don’t see eye to with them on. These are not the people you want to court. If you are right, then all you need is evidence and sound reason. You don’t need to recruit lunatics who probably don’t know shit about fuck but only think that way because they’re told to.
Re the remarks about premarital sex, that’s a personal moral belief which I don’t think I need to justify, since (as already expressly stated) I don’t want to impose that personal belief on other people.
Then why the fuck are you so intent on casting your lot in with people who think that part of the state’s job is to police the bedrooms of people they hate?
In the interests of an effiient, harmonious and non-dictatorial society, it’s best that people’s private, consensual activities, provided they don’t hurt anyone else or infringe anyone else’s rights, should not be matters for the state to control. The state is not the arbiter of morals (and, indeed, the scariest totalitarian regimes in history have been those which have taken on that role).
THEN WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SO INTENT ON CASTING YOUR LOT WITH PEOPLE WHO EMPHATICALLY THINK THE STATE SHOULD ENFORCE NOT JUST MORALS, BUT THEIR PARTICULAR MORALS?
I doubt anyone here will significantly disagree with that. Therefore, as I’m not imposing my beliefs on anyone else, I don’t see why we need to argue the point.
Then I have nothing further to say to you. If you can’t understand why we disagree so vehemently, then you truly are an ignorant fucking child.
Ichthyicsays
oh, I gotta go out, but as far as Reagan’s “economic contributions”?
again, if you rely on the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh for your education, you’re going to be laughed at for being an imbecile.
there’s something I really don’t get, though.
why is an 18 year old brit stuck on coulter and Reagan?
any REAL UK’ers care to comment on whether that is common or not?
I rather suspect “Walton” is pulling our collective chains.
windysays
I admit that I read the sign somewhat incorrectly at first. It isn’t inherently inconsistent with mainstream theology. However, I do also think that this kind of condemnatory, “burn in hell” kind of Christianity is counterproductive, and contrary in spirit (if not in letter) to what Jesus taught.
Thanks for answering, but as frog said, modern Christian behaviour bears only a tenuous connection with Christ’s original teachings. You are moving the goalposts in saying that instead of criticizing prominent Christian behaviour, we should discuss some idealised version of Christianity.
Christian teaching is that everyone – everyone – is a sinner, not just certain defined groups of people. Assuming a literal “hell” is presumed to exist (which depends on how you interpret the relevant scriptural passages), every single person – regardless of their sexuality, apparent virtue, etc. – would be going there, were it not for the sacrifice of Christ. Whether or not they are homosexuals, masturbators, gamblers etc. has little to do with it.
I hope you don’t deny that actual Christians very frequently do point to some acts as more sinful or immoral than others.
You are probably referring to stuff like Matthew 5:22:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
OK, Jesus may be implying that everyone’s a sinner. But he makes this point EXACTLY the same way the sign does, by contrasting large and small sins and saying they may all condemn you to hell!
Secondly, it must be a very small minority of Christians who actually, seriously believe that insulting your brother is just as bad as murder. If Christians don’t take this shit seriously, why should we? (Actually, the “without a cause” was probably inserted in that verse by later scribes to make it seem more sensible.)
Nick Gottssays
Walton,
I have many reasons for hating Reagan, who was a liar, war criminal, mass-murderer and disgusting hypocrite, but I’ll mention just one: he nearly got me killed. OK, he nearly got everyone killed, but as Yossarian said “What difference does that make?”. Reagan’s “evil empire” rhetoric and arms build-up, particularly moving cruise and Pershing missiles to Europe, convinced the Soviet leaders of the time that a first strike nuclear attack could be imminent. In the early eighties I was shit-scared, and I was right. In November 1983, the routine NATO exercise “Able Archer” was misinterpreted by Soviet intelligence as a cover for such a strike, and for a period of days Soviet nuclear forces were on a hair-trigger, waiting for any sign of a U.S. missile launch. If any one of a considerable number of Soviet submarine commanders had lost his head (they had the power to launch), or if a computer malfunction had occurred, the holocaust would have happened. (Earlier the same year, a Soviet computer did malfunction, warning of a missile launch, and we owe our lives to a certain Comrade Petrov, who overruled the computer five times.) Incidentally, I loathe Castro and Che Guevara even more – they actively tried to kill me (and of course everyone else) during the Cuban missile crisis, urging Khrushchev to launch missiles from Cuba.
Waltonsays
Frog: you would be absolutely right if “the most obtuse and criminal barbarians” in the modern world were the American Christian right. But they’re not, not by a long shot. The most criminal barbarians in the modern world are the Islamic terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center, and everyone who supported them. We are at war with global Islamic extremism, and that war has to be the first of our priorities. And so the right needs to unite behind that one, crucial policy goal.
(And aside from the Islamists, there are plenty of groups far, far more barbaric than the American right. Communists, the Burmese military junta, the Sudanese Janjaweed militia, just to name a few.)
Arguments about gay marriage etc. are important, undoubtedly; but even from the point of view of a homosexual person, would you not say that it’s more important to protect them from being slaughtered by terrorists than to ensure that they have the right to get married? Just saying.
We don’t really have this problem in the UK, since both major parties are in favour of same-sex civil partnerships, and (apart from some Catholic opposition) it’s all relatively non-controversial. Which is better, undoubtedly. But (as you keep reminding me) the US is not the same as the UK.
Bachalonsays
Oh, Walton, shut the fuck up. Somehow, you’ll have to find the way to pardon me for thinking that, for whatever strange reason, the people here, in my home town, are more of a threat to me than a terrorist over in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Why the fuck can’t I have both? Why should I settle for second-class citizenship for the sake of safety? Oh, that’s right, because I’m not safe from the terrorists here at home.
You’re well read, right? You might recognize this quote, then.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Nick Gottssays
why is an 18 year old brit stuck on coulter and Reagan?
any REAL UK’ers care to comment on whether that is common or not? – Ichthyic
Not common, I’d say, but not that rare either. Many young rightwing Brits would admire American conservatives, often without much real idea what they are admiring, because the US crowd are far more upfront about their prejudices than the British right (even British fascists don’t tend to go in for the kind of public bigot-speak Coulter indulges in). On top of that, there’s sheer power-worship, and also anti-Europeanism (hardly noticing that the US right regard all Europeans with contempt, including Brits) and sometimes a racially-tinged attachment to the idea of an “Anglosphere” consisting of the UK, USA and white Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and in apartheid times, South Africa and Rhodesia).
Yaaaaaaawwwwwnn. Must get to bed.
Grammar RWAsays
Arguments about gay marriage etc. are important, undoubtedly; but even from the point of view of a homosexual person, would you not say that it’s more important to protect them from being slaughtered by terrorists than to ensure that they have the right to get married? Just saying.
Reagan tried to kill us. You keep ignore this when it’s brought up, but he wanted gays to die, and his AIDS research policy killed many of us.
I take this personally. I take your support of him personally. I do not care that you dishonestly pretend civil unions are equivalent to marriage and would “permit” civil unions (even though you’ve never once lifted a finger in activism for us, and you’re 100% talk). That doesn’t mean shit. You lay down with homophobes, and you are fully accountable for the results of your alliances.
Furthermore, you exaggerate the dangers of terrorism (automobiles are more dangerous). And you lie that conservatives can protect us from terrorists better than liberals can. Even while your good buddy GWB rattles his saber at Iran, providing the excuses for crackdowns by Ahmadinejad against liberals and reformers in Iranian academia and government. Fucking conservatives are creating terrorism.
But in the midst of being wrong about the facts, you tell me I’m better off cowering in fear from your handmade bogeymen instead of joyfully marrying another person I love in this brilliantly short lifetime.
Fuck you for that. Fuck you, sincerely.
Bill Hicks was right about the eyes of fear and the eyes of love.
Nick Gottssays
The most criminal barbarians in the modern world are the Islamic terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center, and everyone who supported them. We are at war with global Islamic extremism, and that war has to be the first of our priorities.
Walton, this cowering before a few handfuls of fruitcakes hiding in caves really is ridiculous. Yes they are criminals, barbarians if you want, but we are not at war with them. They are not a state, have nothing approaching the power of a state, and almost certainly never will have. They are, in relation to the unprecedented power and capabilities of western societies, a minor irritant. The main danger they pose to those societies is an indirect one – that they can be and are being used as an excuse to introduce laws and technologies that could very easily be used to destroy the freedoms we have.
Bachalonsays
Oh, Walton?
Reconcile this
…it’s best that people’s private, consensual activities, provided they don’t hurt anyone else or infringe anyone else’s rights, should not be matters for the state to control.
with this
I 100% support the War on Drugs and think that a hardline anti-drug policy is the right way to go.
Yer ass is showin’ boy.
Ichthyicsays
The most criminal barbarians in the modern world are the Islamic terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center, and everyone who supported them
what do you base that on?
body count?
novelty?
symbolism?
because, by any measure, it’s not hard to find historical precedents that outweigh it.
how far back do you want to take your “modern world”?
frogsays
Walton: The most criminal barbarians in the modern world are the Islamic terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center, and everyone who supported them. We are at war with global Islamic extremism, and that war has to be the first of our priorities. And so the right needs to unite behind that one, crucial policy goal.
So I guess you didn’t get my comment about the German center-right allying themselves with the Nazi’s to fight the communists? Or the center-right in Chile and Argentina allying themselves with the militarist fascists to fight the communists?
This is always the tactic of the business right — they’re so afraid of compromising a bit with the liberals to form a united front against the radicals on both sides, that they inevitably act to foment the radicals, since the radicals feed on each other — nobody loves the Christian right more than the Jihadis, no one loves the Jihadis more than the Christian right.
Since this pattern is so universal, one would be remiss to not consider that their true leanings, under all the oh-so-reasonable discussion, really lies with theocrats and fascists. Just search for “The Family”: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/10/112839/361
Go to bed with dogs, get up with fleas. One thing is pragmatism, but this is just plain stupidity.
Benjamin Franklinsays
Slightly OT here, but did anyone else catch George Will on the Colbert Report last night?
He told Colbert that he was a (gasp!) Agnostic!
windysays
Slightly OT here, but did anyone else catch George Will on the Colbert Report last night?
I did! As a Yuropean I don’t know anything about this dude, but props for mention of agnosticism without taking a swipe at atheism, meh for the “there are only two kinds of people” crap. Where does he classify your authoritarian republicans that are not so big on liberty?
Ichthyicsays
Where does he classify your authoritarian republicans that are not so big on liberty?
I’m no fan, but IIRC, Will does have his own column in the WaPo:
Where does he classify your authoritarian republicans that are not so big on liberty?
I think Walton answered this for us. He forgets they exist as often as he can. Peace of mind, you know.
Militant Agnosticsays
Walton – you admire Reagan and Bush’s tax cuts – Do you not realize that these cuts are illusory since the US government is running a huge deficit (which is now being financed to a great extent by China) and therefore these taxes are merely being deferred to future generations.
When did fiscal irresponsibility become conservative?
If you are worried about terrorism, why do you want to continue a war which has proven a great recruiting tool for Al Queda.
Waltonsays
Bachalon at #661.
Somehow, you’ll have to find the way to pardon me for thinking that, for whatever strange reason, the people here, in my home town, are more of a threat to me than a terrorist over in Afghanistan or Iraq. – But the terrorists aren’t just over in Afghanistan or Iraq. 9/11 was a direct attack on US soil.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Yes, it’s Thomas Jefferson. And I see his point. However, I don’t see gay marriage as an issue of fundamental basic liberty (and I’m fairly sure Jefferson wouldn’t have either). If someone were suggesting rounding up gays and incarcerating them indefinitely without trial (or indeed stoning them to death, as Fred Phelps would like to do), I would be fighting to the death to prevent it, and I would never ally myself with any administration which was trying to do that. But marriage is just a legal contract; no one is stopping gay couples living together as if they were married. Don’t get me wrong – as I’ve said, I don’t see any logical reason why a gay couple shouldn’t be entitled to the same legal rights and benefits as a straight married couple, hence why I’m in favour of civil unions. But I don’t see it as an issue of basic human rights.
And at #665, yes, I can reconcile those two statements. As I’ve said earlier, the basic principle in a free society is that we allow people to do as they wish in their private life without government intervention; however, this is tempered where there is overwhelmingly persuasive evidence that a particular practice or phenomenon is highly damaging to society as a whole and, ultimately, to the rights and freedom of others. This is the case with drugs. Drug abuse is responsible for a lot of crime, social and family breakdown, and other problems in society (both in the US and the UK), and it would be a step backwards IMO to legalise any recreational drugs. (Though I can see the argument for limited legalisation of marijuana for medical purposes, on prescription.)
Waltonsays
To Nick Gotts at #664.
They [terrorists] are, in relation to the unprecedented power and capabilities of western societies, a minor irritant.
Tell that to the 3,000 American men, women and children who were murdered on 9/11.
Tell that to the thousands murdered in the Madrid train bombings.
Tell that to the British people murdered in the 7/7 London bombings.
Tell that to the people murdered every day by suicide bombers in Iraq and elsewhere.
Tell that to the women who were oppressed under the Taliban, the apostates who were executed, etc., until we liberated Afghanistan.
This is a war against a brutal and barbaric enemy, who have shown themselves willing to kill as many of us as possible at any cost. And they’ve shown that they have the resources and strength to be able to do so.
We have to destroy them.
Waltonsays
Grammar RWA at #663.
Don’t judge Reagan too harshly. While it’s undoubtedly true that he did very little to deal with AIDS during the early years of his presidency, very few people really understood the scale and danger of the problem until the mid-1980s. In 1986, Reagan commissioned Surgeon-General C. Everett Koop to produce a report on the problem of AIDS; the conclusions reached by the report included support for a comprehensive education strategy and the distribution of condoms. So I think it’s twisting the facts somewhat to say that Reagan “wanted gays to die” and was willing to let AIDS spread. He wasn’t a monster.
Believe me, if I thought Reagan had actually been content to let AIDS kill off gays, then I would not be able to count him among my personal heroes. I sincerely ask you to believe that I’m not inhuman or evil, and I harbour no hatred or even dislike towards homosexual people. I’m sorry if I gave you the impression that I did harbour any such dislike.
JeffreyDsays
Walton, time to walk the walk not just talk the talk. Do not be like the chicken-hawks who infest and bring shame onto the Conservative movement in America. Enlist now, work hard and make it into the SAS and fight terrorism directly. My first war was Vietnam and have been in the latest two as a civilian, i.e., not military, counterterrorism officer. Once in Iraq and twice in Afghanistan and going back again. IF you honestly believe terrorism is the greatest threat we face then live up to your belief, enlist, fight, protect. You are the right age, you can do this.
The reason people like me and many of my colleagues and many soldiers have contempt for Bush and the current crop of, for want of a better word, conservatives is that she have shown themselves very willing to commit the sons and daughters of others to war. They do not expose their own families and selves to the potential horror. And do not bring up McCain, one example is not enough and while I admire him surviving imprisonment, it frankly it no more impressive than a 20 year old surviving his second tour and walking point in Iraq or a young under trained and under armed soldier trying to survive yet another IED and ambush on her supply column. I actually find them more impressive, but I have never been a POW so cannot compare what that is like.
Be a real conservative and actually show some backbone and fight for what you believe. Then, what you say might be worth a listen.
For the record, I do not see terrorism or drugs as the great challenges facing the world. I see them as just effects from what I consider the true evils, ignorance, poverty, and the desire to control others.
Ciao
Ichthyicsays
He wasn’t a monster.
nope just ignorant and a bit stupid, but a nice guy.
hmm, now I get why you like him!
and I’m fairly sure Jefferson wouldn’t have either
based on your vast knowledge of Jefferson’s writings, right?
phht.
you’re a buffoon, boy.
better grow up a little faster if you want to play the authoritarian game.
Tell that to the 3,000 American men, women and children who were murdered on 9/11.
I tell them as soon as you tell the descendants of about a million german and Japanese descendants who were firebombed by US and allied forces.
and while your at it, why don’t you tell it to the descendants (if there are any left) of the victims of the mujaahideen, that the US funded during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
while were at it, why not tell it to the hundreds of people murdered in the Oklahoma city federal building bombings.
you understand SO little of the history of the word “terrorist”.
if I thought Reagan had actually been content to let AIDS kill off gays, then I would not be able to count him among my personal heroes.
frankly, you don’t know shit about the man.
first, you need to understand why those who are gay revile the man for the AIDS issue, as some of us are actually old enough to actually remember what he really did, and don’t get our history from the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh.
The Reagan administration was criticized for its slow response to the growing HIV-AIDS epidemic.[119] As thousands became infected with the virus, President Reagan did not increase funding to try and discover cures, rather he downplayed the situation and only acknowledged that it was an issue of concern at the May 31, 1987 Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington.[119]
I lived in the state where the actor Reagan (a horrible actor too, btw), was groomed for the governorship, and then the presidency, by people who used him like a fucking puppet.
Reagan was a supporter of McCarthy (do you even know who that was?), which is what attracted those people to him to begin with, as they knew they could use anti-communism sentiment just like they use anti-gay and anti-science sentiment today to motivate their ignorant voting base. His political career was entirely a construct of the Southern California Republicans, and Reagan himself had little to do with it.
as to whether Reagan’s administration had any worthwhile policies, I already showed you the failure of supply side economics.
you can look up for yourself the long-term problems incurred with deficit spending.
as to the rest, you know so little about the man, I can’t really tell you where to start.
you could try reading the wiki article on him and following up with some of the hundreds of references there.
you can see a bit of a summary of Reagan’s real legacy here:
as to the first fall of the Soviet Union, I’m not a historian, but again there are thousands of references that will detail the relevant economics and political structures that lead to the collapse. Really, Reagan had no more to do with it himself than being a figurehead.
Moreover, I’m sure there are dozens here who would have been happy to make book recommendations to further your education on the subject, if you weren’t so convinced that at 18, you already knew everything about it.
Frankly, I find myself not interested in conversing with you further; as I feel sorry for you that you seem to find the revisionist history and lies of people like Coulter and Limbaugh appealing, and have apparently lost all interest in learning at such a young age.
I do hope you don’t represent a large segment of your current age group, or you will end up finding yourself in a brave new world, being as ignorant as you are.
Nick Gottssays
Re #674 Walton,
First, a minor point. Thousands did not die in the Madrid bombings. Get your facts right.
The Spanish people gave their verdict on their government toadying to Bush and thus putting them in the firing line, then lying about the identity of the bombers, a few days after those bombings – I suggest you listen to them.
As I said, Islamist jihadis are a minor irritant in relation to the power and capabilities of Western societies.
Just look at how few times they have been able to strike since 9/11 – the PIRA were a far greater threat to British lives, and still fell far short of the toll from road accidents. A war requires an enemy capable of commanding resources commensurate with your own.
Admittedly we are now involved in wars – because our troops are occupying other people’s countries, and many of the inhabitants resent it enough to attack them. Had 9/11 been followed by a swift and limited operation to destroy terrorist bases in Afghanistan, those wars would not be happening. The reason there are suicide bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were bombings in London and Madrid, is the illegal invasion of Iraq. Saddam Hussein, vile creature though he was, was a secular dictator, who hated the Islamists, had no link to 9/11, and posed no threat to the west. Iraq was one of the most secularised Muslim states.
Had the neocons believed their own lies about being in a war with Islamic extremism, they would have left him alone and concentrated on Afghanistan. Iraq was invaded to secure military bases and control of the oil industry. One side-effect was to give Sunni jihadis the chance to establish themselves there. Another was the creation of home-grown terrorist groups in the UK and Spain. A third was to give power to the most reactionary among the Shia clerics – essentially the deal between the occupiers and the Shia hardliners is: we get control of the oil industry and our bases, you get a share of the loot, and control over Iraqi women’s bodies. (Among the other side-effects: hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths – but what the hell, as Ann Coulter says, they’re only ragheads – four million displaced people including a large proportion of the most educated and secularised Iraqis, the creation of Sunni-Shia hatred and persecution of other religious minorities in a country where intermarriage was common, the destruction of irreplaceable cultural relics, and at least in large part, the current financial crisis.)
Waltonsays
To JeffreyD. As I’ve said earlier, I am actually in the OTC (Officers Training Corps – similar to US ROTC, except it doesn’t lead automatically to a commission). I do hope to join the Territorial Army (equivalent to your National Guard) when I leave university, and if I have the opportunity I would be proud to serve a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. So I am not a chickenhawk, or at least I don’t intend to be. (Though I’ve wasted so much time on this forum over the last couple of days when I should have been in the gym, so my fitness test result may not be as good as it could be… still, I can run a 6-minute mile, which is good enough for the Army PFT.) :-)
You’re right, I have little respect for politicians of any stripe who dodged the draft during the Vietnam years. I suspect Cheney would have been a better vice-president, and more clued-up about the strategy in Iraq, had he served in Vietnam (rather than getting a series of student deferments, as he did). Clinton, of course, was also a serial draft-dodger (he studied here at Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar, and smoked marijuana with his friends while others of his age group were fighting and dying for their country.) But as you point out, that can’t be said about McCain.
Ichthyicsays
and if I have the opportunity I would be proud to serve a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan
yes, that is a good use of your talents.
go be a soldier.
OTOH, you aren’t very good at listening, so I wouldn’t expect to rise too high in the ranks if I were you.
I picture you as the equivalent of a staff sergeant, after say 6 years commitment.
and smoked marijuana with his friends while others of his age group were fighting and dying for their country
and bush snorted coke and was an alcoholic before he became “born again”.
drug abuse seems to be a requirement of political service.
what makes you think that service in the Military leads to “clean livin'”, btw?
Oh, I think you’ve got some larnin’ to do there, too.
…and speaking of learning, as a grunt in the field, just exactly what do you expect to learn that would be of value as a politician?
things of tactical value in the field (how best to kill with a rifle) are rarely of value in the strategic sense.
However, I think you’ll make a good grunt.
I suggest you stop wasting time here and get on with it.
Waltonsays
To Nick Gotts. Apologies, I misspoke about the number killed in Madrid. But it doesn’t affect my point that it was a terrorist attack which murdered numerous civilians.
The Spanish people gave their verdict on their government toadying to Bush and thus putting them in the firing line, then lying about the identity of the bombers, a few days after those bombings – I suggest you listen to them. – I just love the way that, according to most people on this forum, the view of the majority of ordinary people matters not at all when it comes to abortion or gay marriage, but on issues of war it suddenly becomes the most important factor. IIRC, someone even tried to deploy the argument earlier that “opinion polls show that the majority of Americans want to leave Iraq, so we should withdraw.” Moral of the story: the people are always right – except when they disagree with the liberal position. (To be fair, though, conservatives are very often guilty of the exact same kind of thinking.)
Had 9/11 been followed by a swift and limited operation to destroy terrorist bases in Afghanistan, those wars would not be happening. – What kind of operation are you talking about? Yes, we could have gone in, bombed the al-Qaeda training camps and left, and it would have set the terrorists back a bit. But it would have done nothing for the long-term problems. The Taliban would still be harbouring and supporting terrorists, were they in power today. Now, on the other hand, millions of Afghans have been liberated; for the first time, Afghan women, for instance, have a chance to get an education and to enjoy basic civil rights. Don’t get me wrong; stabilising Afghanistan will not be an easy ride, and we’re a long way from achieving it yet. But that’s no reason to chicken out. In the long run, spreading education and building a stable infrastructure should help to eliminate Afghanistan as a breeding-ground for extremism. (I thought you were all in favour of the idea that better education will help to fight the causes of Islamic fundamentalism?)
Re Iraq, you are, of course, right, and it mystifies me why we had to take out Saddam at that particular point, considering that Iraq was one of the most secular states in the Middle East and had no link to al-Qaeda. But regardless of the rights and wrongs of the invasion, we’re stuck over there now, and things will only get worse if we pull out.
Darwin's Minionsays
Quoth Walton:
“We have to destroy them.”
Good luck with that. The problem is, you’re going to have to find them first.
…anyone know where Bin Laden’s at?
Waltonsays
To Ichthyic at #680: It was JeffreyD at #676 who brought up the issue of military service, and implicitly accused me of being a chickenhawk. I was answering that. I wasn’t just randomly bringing it up.
MAJeff, OMsays
Walton,
you are a contemptible little shit. Oh noes, someone smoked marijuana while opposing an unjust military action.
Vice President Cheney would have done better had he served? You forget that his entire world view is corrupt and that he’s a vile human.
What we have here is the Brit version of a YAFer. A worthless little true believer.
Waltonsays
MAJeff at #684:
What we have here is the Brit version of a YAFer. – Funny you should say that; I actually applied to attend a conference in Washington DC this summer run by the YAF. I didn’t get accepted for that one, but I’m going to a different one run by the Leadership Institute, a similar conservative organisation.
This will be my first hands-on experience with American (rather than British) conservatism. Since the consensus here seems to be that I have a naive view of American politics and that I won’t really understand it until I’ve lived it, I hope it will be an educational experience.
you are a contemptible little shit. – You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, and I’ve been called worse. For what it’s worth, the sentiments are not mutual; I’ve developed some degree of respect for most people on this forum (with the exception of Milo Johnson, perhaps). I don’t dislike or despise you personally because of your views. I wish you could extend the same tolerance to me, but I won’t expect that of you.
Ichthyicsays
To Ichthyic at #680: It was JeffreyD at #676 who brought up the issue of military service, and implicitly accused me of being a chickenhawk. I was answering that. I wasn’t just randomly bringing it up.
Is that really your conclusion as to what my post to you was about?
holy crap.
you don’t belong here.
seriously.
I can think of a hundred blogs where you would feel more at home… like this one:
yes, that’s more your speed, I think.
you’ll have fun there.
now, run along and play.
MAJeff, OMsays
I wish you could extend the same tolerance to me, but I won’t expect that of you.
Your views, when put into action, harm people. I do not respect that in the least.
You’re not as bright, informed, or moral as you think.
MAJeff, OMsays
And if you think YAFers are “moderate Republicans,” if you think you’re somehow a “middle of the road conservative” you’re wrong. YAFers are right wing. The sorts of people who think Ann Coulter is an actual intellectual. Sad and pathetic.
I love the way when you don’t have a good response, you start burbling about “liberals” – you’ve learned your neocon lessons well, I’ll give you that. For the record, I am not a liberal, but a socialist. The reason we should withdraw from Iraq is that most Iraqis want us to.
Yes, we could have gone in, bombed the al-Qaeda training camps and left, and it would have set the terrorists back a bit. But it would have done nothing for the long-term problems.
That’s because the long-term problems are not solvable by military means. The occupiers of Afghanistan are now bogged down in a war which will almost certainly continue as long as they remain in the country.
Now, on the other hand, millions of Afghans have been liberated; for the first time, Afghan women, for instance, have a chance to get an education and to enjoy basic civil rights.
You really don’t know much history, do you Walton? Afghani women were considerably more liberated than they are now, before the mujahedin gained power. I don’t deny many are better off now than under the Taliban, but most of Afghanistan is under the control either of the Taliban, or of corrupt and brutal warlords. Your faith that it can be stabilised by foreign forces is entirely unwarranted: the longer they stay, the more they interfere, the more they will be resented – as the Russians found.
Re Iraq, you are, of course, right, and it mystifies me why we had to take out Saddam at that particular point, considering that Iraq was one of the most secular states in the Middle East and had no link to al-Qaeda.
Excellent! You’re mystified. That ought to be a clue Walton: if a theory or worldview makes no sense of some of the most prominent features of the domain it attempts to explain (as your theory that we are at war with Islamist terrorists and your worldview that the neocons are the good guys make no sense of the invasion of Iraq), there’s something wrong with it.
I’ve told you why Iraq was invaded. Indeed, it’s hardly a secret. Look at the plans for permanent military bases, and the oil law the occupiers have been trying to push through the Iraqi parliament. Look at the website of the Project for the New American Century… ah, you can’t! I just tried to go there to check the name of a document, and it’s been suspended. However, you can find out about it if you want to: the basic idea is that the USA can, and should, dominate the world. Its associates include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and many other current or former members of the Bush regime as well as their academic supporters.
Ichthyicsays
I hope it will be an educational experience.
if you continue to rely on “camps” and radio talk show hosts for your information, I don’t think “educational” is the word you want to use there.
“indoctrination” is more appropriate.
I’d tell you to cultivate a more skeptical eye, but it would be wasted advice.
get ye hence to the freerepublic, and lounge with your fellow ignorant pigs.
I’m sure you will find them full of “information” that confirms your greatest hopes and dreams.
They, sadly, might be too bright for him.
one has to have goals, though, right?
besides, I think you might be overrating them a bit.
MAJeff, OMsays
‘ve told you why Iraq was invaded. Indeed, it’s hardly a secret. Look at the plans for permanent military bases, and the oil law the occupiers have been trying to push through the Iraqi parliament. Look at the website of the Project for the New American Century… ah, you can’t! I just tried to go there to check the name of a document, and it’s been suspended. However, you can find out about it if you want to: the basic idea is that the USA can, and should, dominate the world. Its associates include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and many other current or former members of the Bush regime as well as their academic supporters.
Silly Nick. Don’t you know by now that this is an “abstract” “intellectual” exercise and that actually existing conservatism is irrelevant to this conversation?
Ichthyicsays
Look at the website of the Project for the New American Century… ah, you can’t! I just tried to go there to check the name of a document, and it’s been suspended.
ROTFLMAO!!!
that is just so poetic…
THE website where the ideals of the neocon movement are identified, with signatories, and…
they forgot to pay the bill!
man, that is a funny note to end the night on.
I hope that thing is cached somewhere, as I very often link to it.
Walton #679, you stated “As I’ve said earlier, I am actually in the OTC (Officers Training Corps – similar to US ROTC, except it doesn’t lead automatically to a commission). I do hope to join the Territorial Army (equivalent to your National Guard) when I leave university, and if I have the opportunity I would be proud to serve a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. So I am not a chickenhawk, or at least I don’t intend to be.”
IF you have the opportunity, eh? You have it now. Quit college, enlist. I served in the military after two years of college then returned for BA and MA, not hard to do. Unless you are willing to serve, front line serve, stop telling me that one of the main dangers to society is terrorism. It is in your power to do something about it on a personal level. Forget about the TA, actually enlist in the active forces.
Let me be clear to the blog at large here. I do not think one has to serve in the military to have the right to talk about war, politics, terrorism or any of that. To me, citizenship and basic human rights gives anyone the right to speak out and to speak about anything that effects us all. What I cannot stomach are those who think and state that the Iraq and/or Afghanistan war is a good thing and that we should send our sons and daughters to fight it when they and their families do not bear any burden. Walton, you have stated how important the war against terrorism is, you support the wars, your country has troops in both places. Time to join and put your body where only your mouth seems to go.
I do believe we can help in Afghanistan, that is why I return. I believe Iraq is a lost cause, but would return if asked to try and help because I am good at what I do. It is not courage, it is not politics, it is the career path I chose long ago, and it is one that gets harder to defend to myself, but that is a personal issue.
Walton, you said regarding Iraq, “But regardless of the rights and wrongs of the invasion, we’re stuck over there now, and things will only get worse if we pull out.” Not sure if I believe that premise on a strategic level, tactically, yes. So, another reason for you to enlist and go, defend your views, defend your beliefs.
Walton, you are the one stating over and over again the need to defeat terrorism and the necessity to still be in these wars. Until you do something more than move your mouth, you are a chicken-hawk. You do not even have plans to serve after college, just expressed a willingness to serve, apparently if asked. Well, I am asking you.
BTW, if you do not think the above is fair, tell me to sod off, but please, spare me another round of apologetics and attempts to be rational and noncontroversial. I have no interest in hearing excuses about why you cannot enlist tomorrow.
Yes, this is a controversial issue. Some people hate me for what I do, I live with it. I do not hide or try to please them all. I am proud of me and my children are proud of me, that is enough. I am not a hero or anything of that sort, but, to quote an older line, I have served with heroes.
Interesting, I genuinely wasn’t familiar with that organisation. This is slightly worrying.
MAJeff, OMsays
Interesting, I genuinely wasn’t familiar with that organisation. This is slightly worrying.
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
Ignorance of actually existing American conservatism? Who would have ever guessed such a thing?!
Waltonsays
JeffreyD at #694: I should have made clear that I greatly respect you for your service.
And I also maybe wasn’t being totally clear. Territorial Army units in the British Army are deployable, and given the personnel shortage in the UK military, it is highly likely that if I join a TA regiment after graduation, I will be deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq. Assuming the TA will accept me (I still have to pass the selection board and the commissioning course at Sandhurst), I do wish to serve, and I will go on deployment when my country requires it. The reason I don’t want to drop out and join now is because I want to serve as an officer, not in the ranks (since I think that’s the role in which I can most usefully contribute). (Although a university degree isn’t formally required to serve as an officer in the British Army, around 80% of officers do have degrees, and in any case I don’t feel I yet have the maturity or the confidence to pass officer selection; I hopefully will have built up these qualities by the time I graduate.)
What I cannot stomach are those who think and state that the Iraq and/or Afghanistan war is a good thing and that we should send our sons and daughters to fight it when they and their families do not bear any burden. – I understand that, and I don’t want to be one of those people. And I believe wholeheartedly in supporting the troops. I donate to military charities when I can, and I believe we should spend money on higher pay and more benefits for our armed forces.
Ichthyicsays
This is slightly worrying.
LOL
just ignore the nasty intellectuals. They are only interested in all that “book larnin'” mumbo-jumbo.
now, now, no need to worry your pretty little head about it. You just get yourself right on over to the freerepublic, where they will soothe your furrowed brow with the platitudes and lies that have become familiar like a warm blanket to you.
turn on a podcast of Limbaugh before you go to sleep, and you’ll feel better in the morning.
sleep tight.
oh, and just remember:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
that’s a good lad.
Benjamin Franklinsays
Hey Walton –
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
This was not said by Jefferson, it was said by my namesake, Benjamin Franklin!!!
Ichthyicsays
hmm, some are proposing it’s a scrub job on the old PNAC site:
This is the infamous “Pearl Harbor” catastrophe memo (see page 63). Try to count the number of times the words “Iraq” or “Saddam Hussein” appear, then tell me they didn’t have this invasion/occupation planned pre-9/11…and still they manged to cock everything up.
MAJeff, OMsays
Try to count the number of times the words “Iraq” or “Saddam Hussein” appear, then tell me they didn’t have this invasion/occupation planned pre-9/11…and still they manged to cock everything up.
Please. Anyone who watched the 2000 campaign knew this was what they wanted. I remember calling my parents after one of the debates and saying, “He wants to invade Iraq.”
What I love is how people are shocked–Shocked! I say–when someone might intimate that the invasion was desired and that the “war on terror” was nothing more than a justification for something already in the works.
Amazing what you can learn and know when you pay attention to what actually happens in the world.
Ichthyicsays
-Shocked! I say
vapors and all?
Amazing what you can learn and know when you pay attention to what actually happens in the world.
sadly, I don’t think that will be the fate of poor Walton.
I think he finds himself too comforted by the right-wing freaks gently pulling at his ear.
seriously…
the Leadership Institute?
*shudder*
once he goes there, he will have swallowed the final mouthful of the koolaid.
no turning back for Walton.
He will have fully reinforced his delusional worldview, just like the PNAC guys want him too.
*shakes head sadly*
*plays taps*
SCsays
I wonder what part of “I have no interest in hearing excuses about why you cannot enlist tomorrow” he was unable to grasp.
Waltonsays
Look, guys. Seriously.
I am not some kind of brainwashed conservadrone, programmed to mindlessly repeat every Coulterism and Fox News headline. I was not brought up in a conservative household. My parents (though practising Christians) are quite politically moderate. I myself have moved further and further to the right over time, because I found my instincts leading me in that direction. I have been influenced by conservative intellectuals such as Douglas Murray (who is British, but, like me, is primarily interested in US politics).
I don’t just read Coulter and Limbaugh, believe it or not. I regularly visit liberal websites such as Media Matters for America, to see what the other side is saying. (And I also watch the Colbert Report, demonstrating that I have a sense of humour, contrary to popular belief.) I have many liberal friends in real life (and, indeed, even my conservative friends are generally well to the left of me; this is the UK, after all). I am exposed to other views regularly.
I had hoped that I could win the respect of people on this blog, by discussing issues in a rational and open-minded way, and learning from others’ ideas. And, indeed, I have learnt things. Sadly, though, many people here seem to consider me a brainwashed conservadrone of some description, and so many seem to think that “neocon” is a synonym for “lunatic”.
I’ve spent most of the last two days on this blog when I should have been working. I don’t know why I keep coming back; I’m seemingly addicted. :-) I apologise to the people I’ve inadvertently annoyed and offended, and I thank those people who’ve raised new and interesting points – particularly Bill Dauphin and Nick Gotts. I can respect people who disagree with me, and respect the validity and intellectual coherence of their opinions.
Ichthyicsays
and so many seem to think that “neocon” is a synonym for “lunatic”.
that you DON’T is why we are considering you to be a brainwashed “conservadrone”.
you say you are read, but exhibit no knowledge indicating such.
you’re lying to yourself, and as such, lying to everyone here.
and it’s pathetic.
I hope college will be good for you, but with your current attitude, I rather doubt it. I think it will chew you up and spit you out.
I apologise to the people I’ve inadvertently annoyed and offended
seriously, nobody really cares if you’ve offended someone with an insult (which you haven’t, so apologizing for that would be stupid).
what people get offended at around here the most is by those pushing ignorance as if they were knowledgeable.
…because it’s exactly how creationists operate.
seriously, I really doubt you will learn anything you WANT to know here.
go to the freerepublic and commit yourself to your ignorance already.
there is simply too much for you to learn for a blog to be of worth to you.
come back if you manage to finish college, and actually take some classes in history or politics.
MAJeff, OMsays
I had hoped that I could win the respect of people on this blog, by discussing issues in a rational and open-minded way, and learning from others’ ideas. And, indeed, I have learnt things. Sadly, though, many people here seem to consider me a brainwashed conservadrone of some description, and so many seem to think that “neocon” is a synonym for “lunatic”.
Based on actually existing neoconservatism, how could we reach any other conclusion?
Conservatism can’t fail, it can only be failed….
Ichthyicsays
I wonder what part of “I have no interest in hearing excuses about why you cannot enlist tomorrow” he was unable to grasp.
ummmm.
all of it?
He came here to preach, not to listen, though he appears somehow to have convinced himself otherwise.
strange lad.
spurgesays
“I am not some kind of brainwashed conservadrone”
That is exactly how you come off. If you don’t think you are one you really need to do some serious introspection.
You really have no idea what it was like when Reagan was president.
You just parrot the right wing that has turned him into some sort of conservative demigod.
Ichthyicsays
Conservatism can’t fail, it can only be failed….
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”
-John Stuart Mill
You’re not as bright, informed, or moral as you think.
Well, I agree with you 2/3: I think Walton is bright, based on the evidence of his writing (by which I mean the quality of the writing per se, not the ideas expressed). I agree that he’s poorly informed (but then, who among us was not at 18, eh?), and I don’t think too highly of the morality of the positions he’s espousing. But he seems to be listening, despite the snark of some here, which is the ultimate cure for being uninformed. And I think morality is at least in part the residue of information, so IMHO there’s hope for Walton’s future.
Plenty of bright young people have been taken in by the seductive wingnuttery of Limbaugh, et al. (not to mention the seductive fetish wear of Coulter); perhaps if we can get just a little information through Walton’s defenses, sow just a few seeds of doubt, then he’ll approach his Leadership Institute experience with a bit of skepticism, and his path to the Good Side of the Force will be shorter and less painful.
Oh, I can dream, can’t I?
JefferyD:
For the record, I do not see terrorism or drugs as the great challenges facing the world. I see them as just effects from what I consider the true evils, ignorance, poverty, and the desire to control others.
Bingo! Thank FSM someone with your background has said this, and so cogently. Every time I attribute social problems (whether geopolitical or domestic) to ignorance and poverty, my right-wing acquaintanes call me a goddam lily-livered socialist.
JeffreyDsays
Ichthyic, re your #713, “LOL, yeah. see ya in a few.”, not sure about that. I have allowed anger to make me far more open than I usually wish to be and beyond a level with which I am comfortable. I think I will drop back a little more into lurk mode for a while, lots of things to do and my head needs to be clear. I will continue to enjoy this blog when possible and fight the good fight with postings as the fancy seizes me, but nothing too deep for a while. (smile)
Ciao all
Waltonsays
JeffreyD at #715: I’m genuinely sorry for angering you. Let me reiterate that I respect your service in the military (it’s far, far more than I’ve done for my country so far) and I admire you for that, despite our disagreement about political issues.
Bill Dauphinsays
I have many liberal friends in real life…
I suspect you really would have to be an American to understand how eerily reminiscent this is of a middle-aged suburban white guy (ca. 1970) saying, “No, really, some of my best friends are Negroes!”
I thank those people who’ve raised new and interesting points – particularly Bill Dauphin and Nick Gotts.
De nada. But don’t for a moment read into my interchange with you even a tiny particle of agreement with your politics. I’ve been engaging you respectfully because I want to change your ideas, not defend them.
I assume you’re a sincere person dealing with us in good faith, but I agree with others here that ideas like yours, when put into practice in the world, are very destructive. I don’t discourage you from military service, but I hope by the time you finish university and become an officer, you will be doing so with a better informed, more balanced view of the world. You would do well to re-read JeffreyD’s upthread meditation on pursuing a military career/mission in this benighted world.
And if you must attend the Leadership Institute, please do so with a critical mind. Ask yourself whether these are truly principled conservatives with whom you have common intellectual ground… or just ideologues bent on enlisting you in a movement dedicated to nothing nobler than perpetuating and expanding its own power.
Famously (but apparently incorrectly) attributed to your own Winston Churchill is the observation that, “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.” For myself, I think the truth is exactly the reverse: The older I’ve gotten and the more I’ve learned, the more liberal I’ve become. When I was your age, I was a Republican… but I got better. My fondest hope is that you will, too.
Kseniyasays
Bill, the Churchill quote, which conservatives love to cite, also implies something they seem never to consider: that life-long conservatives have no heart.
You were a Republican when you were young? Ah. Interesting. My dad has spoken of the push-and-pull of being raised in a solidly Republican state (CT) by independent, left-leaning immigrant parents during the era of social revolution, rock’n’roll, and a nation divided over a foreign war. America – love it or leave it, baby!
My take on that last bit of nostalgia (LOL) is this: The government works for us, not the other way around. The nation is the child of the Enlightenment and of the genius-cluster that founded it. In that light, what possible benefit is there to cast criticism of country as treasonous? When a child brings back a lousy report card, what does a caring and responsible parent do?
I feel this is a very conservative point of view, and I just don’t get why many conservatives I know refuse to put any stock whatsoever in the annual reports which suggest that many of our peer nations in Europe and Oceania boast superior overall quality of life, much lower crime and infant mortality rates, and greater environmental sustainability than the self-described “greatest nation on earth”.
It is because I am a patriot that I care enough to mention it. What degree of arrogance is required to conclude, without analysis, that we have nothing to learn from our neighbors and cousins?
Shouldn’t the sign really read, “Hell’s Most Welcomed?”
windysays
I just love the way that, according to most people on this forum, the view of the majority of ordinary people matters not at all when it comes to abortion or gay marriage, but on issues of war it suddenly becomes the most important factor.
Well gee whiz, do you really not see why that is? When a nation is at war, that’s everyone’s business, abortion and marriage are private matters.
(Opinions differ on abortion, but it has already been explained to you why abortion in the earlier stages of the pregnancy is not “killing a human” by any reasonable definition.)
You have been getting an increasing amount of heat here, which is understandably frustrating to you, but consider that these people have been personally hurt by the policies of American conservatives. How would you feel if Americans started praising some UK politician you consider particularly odious and harmful, spoke of UK liberals as “we”, and said that you need to give up some of your political goals and be grateful that you haven’t been stoned to death?
Kseniyasays
Cheney utilized “student deferments” – but Clinton was “a serial draft-dodger”?
You’ve gotta be fucking kidding me.
Walton jumps the bluefin.
Walton, you can do better than being a dittohead. I know you can. But at present, your influences betray you.
Oh, and you DIDN’T know that regime change in Iraq was neocon policy, defined when Clinton was still President? Yikes. Well, live and learn.
Are you not aware that this policy was at the top of the Bush admin’s To-Do list after he took office in 2001? That as early as February he was pushing his advisors to give him an excuse to knock down Hussein? That memos on the topic of oil-distribution rights for western oil companies in a post-Hussein Iraq were being circulated in early 2001 as well?
How can you not know this?
The newamericancentury site is down? LOL. Oh well. Scrub scrub scrub.
Bill Dauphinsays
You were a Republican when you were young?
Yah, I thought I’d given my confession here previously: I voted for Reagan twice (including my veryfirst vote for president) and Bush 41 once. (Take note, Walton: Someone who actually voted for Reagan now hopes you and your generation will utterly turn its collective back on his legacy!) I was never a rabid right-winger by today’s standards, but… it’s been 30 years now since I became eligible to vote, and those decades have been a continuous journey from moderate conservativism to a better informed, more enlightened liberal position.
My dad has spoken of the push-and-pull of being raised in a solidly Republican state (CT)
That’s funny: These days, CT is a fairly deep-blue state. 4 of our 5 congresspersons are Democrats (that’ll be 5 of 5 by the end of this election cycle, I think, as we’ve got a strong Democratic challenger for the increasingly loopy Chris Shays); both of our senators are Dems (well, of course, we have to put an asterisk next to LIEberman, but he was a staunch D until recently, and I’m confident he’ll be replaced with a real D at the first opportunity); we have large and growing Democratic majorities in both houses of the state General Assembly; and all of the elected constitutional officers (Attorney General, Secretary of the State, Comptroller, Treasurer) are Democrats (who typically run unopposed). Perversely, we seem addicted to Republican governers, and in many towns Republicans have been able to ride anti-tax sentiment to local power (local government here is funded almost entirely by property taxes, which totally warps local politics). Generally, though, CT is a solid blue state, and relatively liberal, too (even our millionaires are often liberal, as witness Ned Lamont).
The government works for us, not the other way around. The nation is the child of the Enlightenment and of the genius-cluster that founded it. In that light, what possible benefit is there to cast criticism of country as treasonous? When a child brings back a lousy report card, what does a caring and responsible parent do?
Hear! Hear!
I’ve always insisted that the real ideological difference between left and right is that the left actually believes that government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” while the right treats government as a separate (and generally hostile) entity from “the people.” To critics who say, “yeah, well our government isn’t really all that representative, is it?” my response is that if that’s true, the proper fix is to make government more representative, not to shackle or bankrupt or shrink it.
And once you’ve come to that position, the whole big government/small government conversation becomes trvial: If government is a true reflection of the will of the people, then size doesn’t matter, except as it relates to effectiveness. A government activity is good to the extent that it effectively represents and executes the will of the people… regardless of whether doing so requires a lean, agile office or a large army of civil servants.
I just don’t get why many conservatives I know refuse to put any stock whatsoever in the annual reports which suggest that many of our peer nations in Europe and Oceania boast superior overall quality of life, much lower crime and infant mortality rates, and greater environmental sustainability than the self-described “greatest nation on earth”.
Because they’re much more committed to ideology than to results (oddly, this is exactly the claim they make about liberals, but I’m pretty sure they’ve got it backwards). And note that ideology is different than principle: Commitment to the concept of personal liberty (for instance) is a principle; commitment to the notion that unfettered free markets always maximize personal liberty (a la libertarians) is ideology. I don’t mean that ideology is a bad thing, BTW; I just mean that folks for whom ideology is far more important than either principle or pragmatism will lead us in directions that are neither just nor effective. Because American conservatives espouse (even if they don’t actually follow) the ideology that government solutions to social problems are always inferior to market solutions, we’re stuck with unjust, ineffective policies around healthcare, welfare/poverty, wages, etc. It doesn’t matter that Europe, Canada, et al., get better results; THER DOIN’ IT RONG!
(Kseniya, forgive me for being so didactic. I know you don’t need me to teach you any lessons; my longwinded answer is just another part of my quixotic attempt to lead young Walton to the light.)
Waltonsays
Kseniya at #721: Cheney utilized “student deferments” – but Clinton was “a serial draft-dodger”? – I didn’t mean it to come over like that. Both of them were draft-dodgers, and both (mis)used student deferments to escape going to Vietnam. It has nothing to do with partisanship or political ideology; it diminishes my respect for both of them.
Oh, and you DIDN’T know that regime change in Iraq was neocon policy, defined when Clinton was still President? – I was perfectly aware that getting rid of Saddam was a policy goal which many people were advocating as early as the 1991 Gulf War and its aftermath. (Understandably, since Saddam was unquestionably a bastard who killed a lot of his own citizens.) I also know that James Baker advised H.W. Bush, back in the 1991 war, not to go all the way and eliminate Saddam, knowing that Iraq would collapse into insurgency and infighting without the stability of the Baathist regime (as indeed it did). And I’m aware that at the time, some people regretted that Saddam had been left in power. I just hadn’t heard of the “Project for a New American Century”; that doesn’t mean I’m wholly ignorant of the history of American foreign policy.
MAJeff, OMsays
Posted by: Walton | June 5, 2008 11:06 AM
*whoosh*
Waltonsays
I’ve always insisted that the real ideological difference between left and right is that the left actually believes that government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” while the right treats government as a separate (and generally hostile) entity from “the people.” – That’s not quite how I see it. As a matter of practical reality, the incentive of government bureaucracy is to expand its own power, at the expense of the interests of the people. Bloated government has to be held in check. I think the economic history of my own country (which was nearly destroyed in the 70s due to over-mighty trade unions, bloated nationalised industries and high tax rates) shows that smaller government is generally better. Furthermore, we conservatives also believe that (with a few exceptions) it is better to trust people to run their own lives and make their own decisions, particularly about how to spend their money, than to let government do it for them.
A government activity is good to the extent that it effectively represents and executes the will of the people… regardless of whether doing so requires a lean, agile office or a large army of civil servants. – True in theory, but not in practice. A huge bloated government employing a “large army of civil servants” cannot be genuinely responsive to the will of the people. And because it isn’t subjected to the pressures of the free market, it has no incentive to be efficient and to avoid wasting money.
I don’t think, however, that ideological dogma of any sort should be applied to everything across the board. There are some things which government clearly should do, and generally does well. So I would agree that the “small government” principle can be taken too far.
It doesn’t matter that Europe, Canada, et al., get better results; THER DOIN’ IT RONG! – Speaking as a (reluctant) European, I would question whether we get “better results”. France and Germany, which do practise big-government solutions in general, have huge economic problems (though in Germany this is partly from the stresses of reunification with the former Communist East). I don’t think that the welfarist solutions practised in some European nations, particularly the Scandinavian countries, are actually economically sustainable (and, indeed, the new centre-right “Moderate Party” government in Sweden is starting to dismantle some of their over-mighty government).
As regards healthcare, don’t be too quick to praise our system and criticise your own. Speaking as someone whose country has a so-called “universal healthcare” system, I can testify that it has its own problems. Yes, inequities of access are remedied to some extent, and obviously we don’t have HMOs with all their attendant problems. But we do have long waiting lists, a poor quality of care in many hospitals (it’s something of a postcode lottery), and a health system which is fast becoming financially unsustainable. Our survival rates for many cancers are far lower than yours, and many cutting-edge treatments don’t become available on the NHS until too late. As for the Canadian health system, where they don’t even allow private healthcare, I am given to understand (I’m sure some Canadians will correct me if this is radically wrong) that there are massive waiting lists for state medical treatment, and that some Canadians are compelled to cross the border and pay for private treatment in the US. (Indeed, I believe there was a Canadian Supreme Court case about it.) So Michael Moore’s Sicko should be taken with a pinch of salt. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t doubt that the American healthcare system has huge problems (everyone acknowledges this). But our system shouldn’t be seen as a panacea.
Janine IDsays
Tell that to the women who were oppressed under the Taliban, the apostates who were executed, etc., until we liberated Afghanistan.
Please tell me about all of the feminist groups that were ignored by mainstream organizations when they kept reporting about the abysmal way women were treated. Please tell about people getting more upset about the blowing up of two buddhist statues. Please tell me about how life for women have not changed in most of Afghanistan. Please tell me about all of the warlords still running who are no better then the Taliban.
Oh, and please tell me about how the search for Osama bin Laden was waylaid so that the administration could do what they really wanted to do all along, bring down Hussein. And what did Hussein have to do with any of the terrorist attacks you named? Answer without using Rovian talking points.
Janine IDsays
(Understandably, since Saddam was unquestionably a bastard who killed a lot of his own citizens.)
Many of those killed were when Hussein was a US ally, meant to be a balance against post revolution Iran. Please do not use morality as a reason to get rid of Hussein when US foreign policy did not give a flying fuck he was doing this when he was an “ally”.
russellsays
Over the course of 700+ posts I’ve been variously disgusted (by pretty much all of his positions) impressed (by his ability to admit, sometimes, when he is wrong) and confused trying to figure out what ties all Walton’s thoughts together. FWIW I think he is basically a fairly bright young man who has yet to throw off the tyranny of idealistic adolescent thought processes that are primarily informed by ignorance of how the world really works. Like when you learn that your sports hero (my score is a paltry 13, BTW), while a great player, is also an asshole. Some of Walton’s positions seem to be faltering as he realizes that reality doesn’t mesh well with his idealism. But mostly not. I suspect that he knows quite a lot, but a lot less than he thinks he knows. Perhaps in time, if he manages to broaden his horizons beyond the cesspools of Coulter and her ilk, as he is doing here.
There have been many excellent posts helping Walton to see where his idealism, in the light of the real world, is self contradictory or runs on the rocks, but I’d just like to throw in one that stuck out to me: Walton admits that he doesn’t think he has the maturity to pass the officer screening, but seems to feel that he has the maturity to pass judgement on great swathes of social, moral and political thought. Hmm… Interesting.
Nick Gottssays
Walton,
With regard to health care systems, take a look at comparative statistics for life expectancy and infant mortality.
Kseniyasays
Bill, no worries – my knowledge store is limited. I can learn things from just about anybody. Maybe even Kenny!
Walton:
I didn’t mean it to come over like that.
Well, fair enough – but it did, and you can’t take it back. That kind of slant reeks of Limbaugh. Cheney “deferred” his service, while Clinton “dodged” his – and smoked pot while his countrymen died.
Oh, yeah. That’s balanced.
As I said, your influences betray you.
What do you think party-hardy fratboy Dubya was doing during those years, during and after his curtailed stint in the reserves?
By the way – how do you feel about the shameless GOP attacks against decorated war vet John Kerry during the 2004 campaign? Have you ever heard of Max Cleland? Are you aware of the disgraceful, libelous attacks he was subjected to at the hands of the contemptible Ann Coulter?
It’s not Coulter’s bizarre views on science that turn “us” off to her, as you’ve speculated. It’s that she’s a mean-spirited wretch who holds nothing sacred beyond her own extended ambitions.
I just hadn’t heard of the “Project for a New American Century”; that doesn’t mean I’m wholly ignorant of the history of American foreign policy.
Of course not. Did I say that? No. It did seem, however, that you were saying that you just couldn’t imagine why Bush & Co decided to invade Iraq after bin Laden became (in)conveniently elusive. Apologies if I misread that.
Hey, Walton, I’m still on your side. If I’m being too edgy, well, sorry. In my defense, I’m sick as a dog and my head is pounding like a bass drum; there are weasels fighting in my sinuses and I’m very cranky – so things that might normally irritate me have become magnified.
I think this is my cue to crawl back into bed for a while…
windysays
I don’t think that the welfarist solutions practised in some European nations, particularly the Scandinavian countries, are actually economically sustainable (and, indeed, the new centre-right “Moderate Party” government in Sweden is starting to dismantle some of their over-mighty government).
Modernization of the welfare system started long before the current Swedish government and the changes brought by the present government have been minor. Sweden’s economy continues to grow.
And if you are worried about sustainability, how can you support “taking the fight to the terrorists”? Is that economically sustainable to the present US government? Bringing up Sweden’s hypothetical unsustainability in the long run and forgetting the real cost of the war on terror is ridiculous.
Bill Dauphinsays
Walton:
You say…
I don’t think, however, that ideological dogma of any sort should be applied to everything across the board.
…but your very language…
Bloated government has to be held in check. …
A huge bloated government employing a “large army of civil servants” cannot be genuinely responsive to the will of the people. [my emphasis]
…presupposes the dogmatic view big government activities are by definition “bloated.” I would say that a government activity was bloated if it were bigger than it needed to be to be effective, regardless of how big or small it was; my sense is that conservatives say (and I gather you agree) that any “big” government activity was “bloated,” regardless of how effective it was. You also…
And because it isn’t subjected to the pressures of the free market, it has no incentive to be efficient and to avoid wasting money.
…presuppose that your political/economic theories (i.e., that “market pressures” are required to produce efficiency… and that efficiency is the sole proper metric of government effectiveness) represents axiomatic truth, regardless of either results or the concerns of the rest of the people. This sort of elevation of theory over either principle or practicality is precisely what I was talking about in my note to Kseniya.
And what about “the people”? When you say…
Furthermore, we conservatives also believe that (with a few exceptions) it is better to trust people to run their own lives and make their own decisions, particularly about how to spend their money, than to let government do it for them.
…you’re perfectly fulfilling my earlier description of a key distinction between right and left: You say “people,” not “the people,” clearly referring to individuals rather than a synthetic whole, and your syntax clearly places “government” in opposition to “people.”
Margaret Thatcher famously said “there’s no such thing as society,” and while I know she repudiated that line as having been taking out of context, I think it says something very true about conservativism, whether she meant it that way or not: Conservatives focus exclusively on individuals (and pseudo-individuals like family units and corporations) and think of society (if at all) as an aggregation of individuals rather than any synthetic whole that might be more than the simple sum of its parts.
That sounds OK in theory, I suppose, but in practical terms it leads to the people in my town who annually vote against the budget because they don’t want to pay for town services they don’t personally use… like public schools, services for the elderly and disabled, relief for the poor, public transportation infrastructure…. As a bleeding-heart, commie-symp liberal, I have this crazy notion that those services benefit the whole community, not just their direct “customers,” and so it’s reasonable that we all share the responsibility for paying for them. So while you might be able to construct a plausible theoretical defense of your ideas about government and taxes, in practice people who think like you are destroying my town. Do you now see why some folks here have been unwilling to just agree to disagree in this thread?
Whether you believe me or not, I’m really not an ideologue. I don’t (nor do I believe liberals generally do) advocate for government solutions for their own sake; I advocate for solutions that work to advance principles I support. Because many of the things I care about — social, civil, and criminal justice systems; public education; human and civil rights (in which category I include universal access to healthcare); etc. — are unlikely to be profitableinherently good; I’m willing to listen to any solutions that produce good results in line with the principles I’ve described. But your “better idea” needs to work better; don’t tell me it’s “better” based on some abstract notion of philosophical purity.
If you listen to the healthcare debate in this country, though, you’ll hear conservatives say “You don’t want the government running your healthcare system, do you?” Full stop. As if it were intuitively obvious that government systems are bad. When I hear talk like that, expressing absolutes without any reference to analysis or evidence regarding actual effectiveness, I know I’m listening to an ideologue.
I’m sure I’m not totally objective on the point, but my observation is that I hear that sort of ideological cant vastly more often from conservatives than from liberals. YMMV.
jane haysays
Looks like Hell will be REALLY REALLY crowded – I guess the Bible’s right about only 100,000 of the Elect being saved in the Last Times. Let’s see…. hypocrites – most every rightwing Republican Xtian; sports fans – everyone in the Red States; porn lovers, fornicators, gamblers – ditto; money-lovers – all the bankers, corporate CEOs and Wall Street tycoons; people who are rational and science-minded; etc.etc.
OK, just who IS going to be raptured?
BlueIndependentsays
“Many of those killed were when Hussein was a US ally, meant to be a balance against post revolution Iran. Please do not use morality as a reason to get rid of Hussein when US foreign policy did not give a flying fuck he was doing this when he was an “ally”.”
This point cannot be said enough. When we put Hussein in place, it was to stem the supposed rise of communism in Iraq. Surely when we deposed the former elected leader-with-communist-intentions conservatives here praised Hussein for being a strong law-n-order type leading his people away from the clutches of communistic squalor. How convenient that he kept Iran in check, partly by oppressing the Shiite majority in his own country. How convenient then that we supposedly go to liberate them, and in turn liberate the very people most closely related to those we speak so vituperatively about now.
Using the supposedly moral argument that going into Iraq was a means of liberating the oppressed is wildly dishonest, wildly disingenuous, ignorant in the extreme, convenient to the level of gross opportunism, and 100% wrong in every logical sense.
Kseniyasays
Furthermore, we conservatives also believe that (with a few exceptions) it is better to trust people to run their own lives and make their own decisions, particularly about how to spend their money, than to let government do it for them.
This leads to a paradox, by the way, when “[the] people” decide that the best way to run their own lives, make their own decisions, and manage their spending, is to offload some of those tasks and responsibilities to the government the people have put in place themselves.
So, Walton – you conservatives trust [the] people to make their own decisions only as far as those decisions agree with your own?
“You don’t want the government running your healthcare system, do you?” Full stop. As if it were intuitively obvious that government systems are bad.
Play MadLib with that one:
“You don’t want the government running your revenue collection system, do you?”
“You don’t want the government running your election system, do you?”
“You don’t want the government running your food and drug safety regulation system, do you?”
“You don’t want the government running your securities and exchange oversight and regulation system, do you?”
“You don’t want the government running your judicial system, do you?”
“You don’t want the government running your military system, do you?”
And so on. Of course, there’s no reason why one cannot shout “Hell, no!” or “Hell, yes!” to any one or all of these, but playing this game yields some absurdities, not the least of which is the conclusion that we’d be better off with no government at all. Because, you know, we know what’s best and because unfettered free-market capitalism invariably produces the best quality of life for the greatest number of people.
Errr… right?
Kseniyasays
When we put Hussein in place, it was to stem the supposed rise of communism in Iraq
How ironic, given the identity of Saddam’s #1 role model.
Bachalonsays
Walton, a few things.
I apologize for taking the tone I did with you earlier, but it’s frustrating to listen to someone with know experience speak like that. I stand by what I said, though with substantially less “fucks.”
Second, if you want to hit me up personally, my e-mail is [email protected], and I can be reached via AIM as “detrs is my name.” I’d be delighted to get some one on one with you outside of here. I’m not looking to debate or argue, though I can’t promise that won’t happen.
Last, and this is the most important part.
While you’re attending your leadership institute thing, I want you to do me a favor (which is part of the reason why I want to hit you up in private): I want you to try and find a graceful way to bring up all the positions you are moderate about. I want you to look at the reaction you get. If you are unable to find a good way to bring those up, do it anyway.
I want you to pay attention to the reasoning why they will almost surely disagree with you. I want you pay attention to how they treat you from then on.
Even more important still, I want you to remember this: if you do not bring that up, if you hear something with which you not only disagree but strongly disagree with and you say nothing, you are complicit for helping to promote something you oppose.
There was a slogan used by many gay and lesbian people in the 80s.
That slogan is “silence = death.” You may not understand that now, but I want you to do this for me.
And I want you to remember that when you’re being attacked for your moderate views by people you consider to be your brethren.
Waltonsays
(To Bachalon) What, so you’re suggesting that, at the LI conference, in discussing issues with American Republicans, I purposefully try to bring up the few narrow areas in which I disagree with them (such as gay marriage or creationism in schools)?
The problem with this plan is that those kind of moral issues mostly boil down to religious beliefs. My religious beliefs are nowhere near as strong as those of the average US Republican, and I’m not keen on the idea of imposing them on others through governmental action. But someone who fervently believes in an evangelical Protestant position, who believes young-earth creationism to be the scientific truth, and who thinks homosexuality is a sin (all of which will doubtless be the beliefs of some attenders at the conference), is not going to be able to debate those issues with me in a constructive way, because there isn’t any common ground from which to debate. Ultimately, it isn’t really possible to have a secular argument about gay civil partnerships, for instance. There are no good secular reasons for opposing same-sex civil partnerships; only religious reasons. Either one shares the religious beliefs which lead to such opposition, or one doesn’t; and I personally don’t. So I don’t see what good that kind of argument would do.
Surely the Republican party is a broad church (so to speak) with room for all kinds of different views? (As I recall, ex-Senator Lincoln Chafee didn’t even support Bush’s re-election in 2004.)
Sven DiMilosays
Such freakin tedium.
If you want to know where Walton is coming from, count the number of first-person pronouns in #706. Or in pretty much any of his comments, for that matter.
A more self-absorbed, narcissistic commenter I hope never to virtually meet.
I’m curious as to why folks choose to interact with this guy. At least Kenny was fun to tease. For a little while.
(But why should I care? A: I shouldn’t. Probabaly shouldn’t even post this one, but just once more and then no more commenting about other commenters. Hold me to it!)
BlueIndependentsays
“Surely the Republican party is a broad church (so to speak) with room for all kinds of different views?”
That would be mostly incorrect, at the very least from a national standpoint. Maybe in smaller places it’s a bigger tent, but that is not the case nationally, and they sure don’t let on that they are a particularly big tent. The current republican party consists of three groups: rabid capitalists, neo-cons (what people in Europe and Australia call neo-liberals), and religious conservatives. These three groups have allied to control economic, social and foreign policy, to deleterious ends I might add. Rarely has a republican been forward-thinking in his/her stances (Teddy, Eisenhower, even Nixon to a degree), and they have quite nearly fully divested themselves from any sort of policy stance that is remotely mainstream. Party loyalty is prized first above pretty much anything, and being a party member while not towing a particular policy line is practically heresy, punishable by their form of excommunication. Many current republicans are perfectly happy thinning the party’s ranks of anyone that even voices dissention from major stances, such as pro-choice sympathies. And I am not making these things up; I have heard these things from republicans.
It is quite rare to find an atheist republican, and if you do, he/she is a libertarian moonlighting with a party that actually wins elections. It is also quite rare to find a pro-choice republican, for nearly the same reasons.
The Democratic party on the other hand has always had a bigger tent politically speaking, and has nearly always been more diverse ethnically and politically.
Waltonsays
To BlueIndependent at #742: So, in your opinion as an American voter, and taking into account the statement which I’ve already made of my own views and principles, do you think I’d be better off (in a US context) identifying as a conservative Democrat than as a moderate Republican?
Ichthyicsays
I think I will drop back a little more into lurk mode for a while, lots of things to do and my head needs to be clear.
oh, no worries, I completely understand, and I think you would find all the regulars understand that as well.
In fact, I would suggest avoiding even lurking here; the temptation of SIWOTI is just too strong if you have other things you need to be doing.
just put it away for a while and come back in a couple weeks.
you WILL feel better about it.
seriously, this place is like a good pub, and the “alcohol” is good conversation, and throwing darts.
I’ve heard it compared to smoking crack.
:P
Bachalonsays
Fuck it.
Walton, I’m not going to lead your hand to the point I’m trying to make.
Here’s the deal: if you’re not going to make some attempt to engage your allies about things upon which you disagree, if you keep your mouth shut, then you are complicit in anything they do.
If you’re not going to try and convince people otherwise then you have no right to say “not all conservatives believe this.”
If you’re not going to try, then anything they do in the name of conservatism, in your name, can be laid as much on your feet as theirs. If you keep quiet, you are passively supporting things you claim you disagree with.
If you’re not going to try, then you have forfeited any right to complain that I am now telling you that you have just become my enemy.
Forrestsays
And as for the question on “sports fans”…I think all commenters on that so far have misunderstand this just a bit…surely they only mean to condemn those who participate in fantasy sports activities, not “real” sports. (Umm, maybe I do agree with this part, then? Ha ha(?))
Grammar RWAsays
Maybe in smaller places it’s a bigger tent, but that is not the case nationally, and they sure don’t let on that they are a particularly big tent.
Those “smaller places” were exclusively in the Northeast. I don’t know if they exist anymore, anyway. Frustration with this situation is what made Christie Todd Whitman form the My Party Too PAC, and what made ex-Senator Lincoln Chafee into an ex-Republican who said “it’s not my party anymore” and apparently voted for Obama in the primaries. These are Northeasterners giving up, and on the verge of giving up.
There’s just no room for moderates in the Republican party anymore. This has been the refrain of many Bush appointees who’ve resigned in protest. This is essentially the theme of Scott McClellan’s complaints about the “permanent campaign.”
This was the theme of John Dean’s book, “Conservatives Without Conscience”, which if I recall was subtitled “What the Fuck has Happened to My Party? Is Anybody Else Frightened and Disgusted?”
do you think I’d be better off (in a US context) identifying as a conservative Democrat than as a moderate Republican?
You didn’t ask me, but I’ll say this: there are conservative Democrats who sound like you. I don’t personally know what moderate Republicans sound like, because they don’t exist in my part of the country (and that’s not even the South).
MAJeff, OMsays
You didn’t ask me, but I’ll say this: there are conservative Democrats who sound like you. I don’t personally know what moderate Republicans sound like, because they don’t exist in my part of the country (and that’s not even the South).
Joe Lieberman morphed with John McCain and a dose of Phil Gramm is not a Democrat.
Grammar RWAsays
Not a democrat, certainly. But a Democrat? I can’t define what that is, if calling one’s self a Democrat and voting for Democrats doesn’t cover it. Walton’s “everyone is equal, but straights are more equal” attitude about our civil rights would fit comfortably in my area.
I’m not saying that’s a good thing.
Waltonsays
To Bachalon at #745: OK, I will try and dispute those points with them. Honestly. I promise. You are right that I should stand up for my conscience.
And I hope I haven’t become your enemy. I didn’t intend to.
brokenSoldier, OMsays
Walton,
We on the right are willing to fight and die to protect your freedom of expression, including your freedom to attack us and to get things wrong.
Your characterization of the “right” as a unified group willing to sacrifice for the greater good is quite the best way you can show your inexperience and immaturity in political discourse. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are two very good examples of people who are all too willing to send other people’s children off to war to die while they stay safe in their million-dollar book deals and radio shows. The fact that you buy into their bulls**t (hook, line, and sinker, no less) is a testament to the fact that you’re barely an adult, and you’re extremely gullible to political deception.
Case in point, the fact the Reagan got elected was definitely not a positive overall. Reagan’s policies were solely responsible for decreasing medical benefits for soldiers (with the dental coverage plans being completely gutted). Reagan was responsible for the decline of the National Guard and Reserves, in that he – along with Weinberger – tried to remove all combat arms from the reserves and Guard, and he succeeded with the reserves before Sonny Montgomery stopped him from doing the same to the National Guard. Reagan and his agents were responsible for selling arms to Iran (and this is the same Iran that is such a pariah in today’s conservative ideology) in order to fund their undeclared war in Nicaragua – and this was after Congress had discovered their actions and cut the funding off. Reagan’s economic policies were responsible for the Savings & Loan crisis, much like the policies of the current administration encouraged white-collar felons at places like Enron in their greed and ambition, along with the current sub-prime mortgage crisis that is dragging the country further and further down into recession. I could go on for quite a while, but I don’t expect you to get it anyway – I’ll just patiently wait until you’ve lived a bit and seen the way the world actually works.
But before you so arrogantly lump yourself in as one “willing to fight and die” to protect freedom, know that you are not even remotely akin to the actual brave souls who place their signature on the dotted line – along with possibly their lives – in order to serve the greater good. You do not sacrifice. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh do not sacrifice. They merely profit from stirring the nationalistic emotions that breed unnecessary contempt for outsiders and cause the purpose of the military to be perverted into fighting unjust wars. They avoid actual sacrifice and instead enjoy obscenely wealthy lifestyles paid for on the backs of those who are making the real sacrifices. The fact that you do not recognize this is a testament to your ignorance. The fact that you criticize Obama for a supposed lack of experience with the very same mouth that makes the above statements is a testament to your arrogance.
It is quite rare to find an atheist republican, and if you do, he/she is a libertarian moonlighting with a party that actually wins elections.
You, my friend, need to step away from the keyboard and spend a little time in the real world before you come back. Statements like this one are utterly incorrect, and the last part of it again shows how ignorant you truly are concerning the political history of the USA. Only someone with such an effective mix of youth and ignorance as you display would even come close to seriously insinuating that the GOP is the party that “actually wins elections.” If you had any knowledge about politics (in any country), you’d realize that the only political parties that so dominate the political landscape in their countries are the ones that do so by force. The Republicans that you so ridiculously believe to be the superior party actually find themselves in the minority as we speak – or perhaps you missed the 2006 Congressional elections… I suggest you give yourself a little time to get to know the real world, rather than swallowing the conservative party line whole and regurgitating it here.
And I hope I haven’t become your enemy. I didn’t intend to.
I don’t speak for anyone else here, but as for me, until you decide to join the discussion as an informed participant – rather than simply reading and spouting talking points straight from mouths such as Coulter’s and Limbaugh’s – you fit quite perfectly the definition of an enemy, at least in the political sense, solely because there is nothing worse than an individual who allows themselves to be intellectually manipulated by an outsider. It is your duty to educate yourself and form your own opinions, especially if you’re going to subject us to those opinions in your posts. (Don’t bother claiming that you already have – if you do, you obviously can’t tell the difference between a genuine opinion and a party-line talking point.) And if you continue to refer to yourself in the same vein as those individuals who actually have given up life or limb in service to their nation, you’ll most certainly be an enemy in the intellectual sense.
P.S. – If you have to keep calling yourself an honest seeker of truth, you’re more than likely quite far from it.
SCsays
brokenSoldier,
Glad to see you back!
Walton,
If you’re still around: I disagree with brokenSoldier on a number of subjects (or perhaps just one big one), but I respect and take him seriously and read his comments with care. You should aspire to be more like him. You could start by searching for his name here and reading through his previous posts. (Apologies for the unsolicited advice.)
Waltonsays
To BrokenSoldier at #751.
Firstly, I don’t compare myself to those who have already fought and sacrificed for their country. As explained above, I hope to do so later in life, but that isn’t the same thing. I respect all war veterans – regardless of their personal views – for their dedication to their country. So I apologise if I came over as arrogant in this regard. I am a member of the British Army OTC and hoping to serve in the Territorial Army, in a deployable capacity, after graduation, but I haven’t done it yet – and I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have done so. My sincere apologies if I gave any other impression.
As to the remark “It is quite rare to find an atheist republican, and if you do, he/she is a libertarian moonlighting with a party that actually wins elections” – I didn’t say this. It was said by BlueIndependent at #742, and for the record I don’t agree with it.
brokenSoldier, OMsays
Walton:
Firstly, I don’t compare myself to those who have already fought and sacrificed for their country.
You most certainly did, as evidenced by your use of the pronoun “we” in the below statement.
We on the right are willing to fight and die to protect your freedom of expression, including your freedom to attack us and to get things wrong.
If you wish to retract that statement, that’s one thing. But you definitely did characterize yourself in that manner, and quite erroneously. And that statement was not the only example of your willingness to include yourself in a group to which you do not belong. There is no harm in presenting opinions, but when you do so without the base of knowledge or experience that is required for such statements to be credible, that is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
As for the statement I mis-attributed, I take back the comments I made. You’d be a lot better off if you did the same in examining the statements and claims you’ve made on this thread. In my own life, I was quite the conservative about 10 years ago, but my experiences since then have radically altered my worldview, and I’d be very surprised if you hold these same ideals after enduring some of the hardships inherent in the kind of sacrifice you’ve yet to experience. This all goes back to the truism that reading about something and actually going through it are two very different things. You can read all you want about war, but until you have been there and lost a friend in combat, you have no real understanding of the kind of sacrifice you have been talking about on this thread.
No one will fault you for lacking such knowledge, but the moment you presume to speak about it without truly understanding what you’re talking about, you invite the criticism upon yourself.
Waltonsays
Fair enough, I retract that statement, or at least the impression it evidently gave (which was not what I intended at all). I am wholeheartedly pro-military and pro-troops, and I really didn’t mean to cause any offence. I apologise for the misleading impression it may have given.
…when you do so without the base of knowledge or experience that is required for such statements to be credible, that is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. – I have knowledge, but lack experience (by virtue of being only 19). You are, of course, absolutely right that there’s only so much one can learn from reading. And I am entirely willing to defer to your experience as regards the military, and to learn from it. I’m not trying to be arrogant, and I apologise insofar as I’ve evidently come over that way.
…my experiences since then have radically altered my worldview, and I’d be very surprised if you hold these same ideals after enduring some of the hardships inherent in the kind of sacrifice you’ve yet to experience. – Possibly. As I’ve said, I do intend to have that experience, if the British Army will allow me to do so. Maybe in ten years’ time I will have a different outlook, but it’s hard to tell.
JeffreyDsays
brokenSoldier, nice to see you back. Been reading your comments re ASL on another thread with interest.
Ciao
SCsays
I have knowledge,
No, you do not. I don’t know at what point in your life you’ll recognize the absurdity of that claim and laugh at the fact that you were foolish enough to make it, but I do hope that day comes.
Walton, here you have access to someone who used to share some of your views, but has moved away from them over the years in light of new knowledge and experience. If you are truly a “seeker of truth,” you should begin by asking him some questions about his experiences and what in particular has led him to change his views. Questions, Walton. Questions.
(More unsolicited advice, I know, but for some reason I’m still not giving up on you.)
“(More unsolicited advice, I know, but for some reason I’m still not giving up on you.)”
Good for you, SC. (Smile) I have given up, but then, I am not that nice of a person. I will note that at 16 I knew everything, at 18 I was sure of everything. Now? Well, the world continues to surprise me with what I do not know, but I find I enjoy the learning.
Ciao
Waltonsays
To SC at #757. You may note that 90% of my post was given over to an apology for my previous statement, so I was under the impression that I wasn’t being too arrogant. Again, though, I sincerely apologise if I gave that impression. I’m happy to learn from other people.
If you are truly a “seeker of truth,” you should begin by asking him some questions about his experiences and what in particular has led him to change his views. – Yes, I was about to do that. I just felt it was first important to apologise for the fact that I inadvertently caused offence, and to correct a misleading impression which I gave from my earlier statements.
So I will ask an open question to BrokenSoldier, and to JeffreyD if he’s interested in answering. Insofar as you’re comfortable talking about it, what happened in your personal experience which caused you to change your views? What perspective do you now have on military and foreign policy?
I am, genuinely, interested in learning. I’m sorry that I evidently didn’t give that impression.
brokenSoldier, OMsays
Insofar as you’re comfortable talking about it, what happened in your personal experience which caused you to change your views? What perspective do you now have on military and foreign policy?
Posted by: Walton | June 7, 2008 12:10 PM
My objections and departure from the political right had everything to do with the things I saw while in combat, and the way that I have seen the conservative politicians handle the war and its veterans and victims.
Every time I hear the President or one of his party members talk about fighting terrorists in Iraq, I know enough to realize that they hardly know what they are talking about. The great majority of individuals who take up arms against us in Iraq are definitely not terrorists. If they were, I’d have few misgivings about the war. As it stands, most of them are simply Iraqis who have been lied to by the religious leaders that dominate their area. For example, one day we were moving along the main highway conducting what we called a ‘doorbell patrol.’ We were going to certain houses in the area, knocking on the door, and either checking up on individuals who had been threatened by insurgents or looking for wanted individuals. On this kind of mission, we’d go all day without so much as thinking about firing a shot, because that simply was not our mission. But on this day, the local mullah decided he wanted to foment a little violence, so he gathered a group of adult males from his village and tell them that the Americans were on their way to attack their village, and that if they let us, then we would pillage their houses, rape their wives and daughters, and hang them from the canal bridges. (Remember that these people had no reason to disbelieve their mullah, but even if they did, they did not have the freedom to contradict him.) These are people that are by no means unintelligent, but rather they are grossly uninformed. They are utterly ignorant – and they are kept that way by those individuals that enjoy the immense power and respect that comes along with being a religious leader in that society, and such men have no qualms about lying to their followers and sending them to their death for their own personal gain. (In this case, the mullah wanted to halt the American patrols through his village so he could resume his dealings in the black market trade that we had curbed the year before.) So he fed these men a story that he knew would make them take up arms to ‘protect’ their village. We entered the village to check on three families that had been threatened by one of the Sunni brigades, and walked straight into a hornet’s nest. At the end of the fight, we started to tend to the wounded, both theirs and ours, when I came across a man that I had fired at and hit. Keep in mind that at this point, I was still under the impression that if I ran into a fire fight, I was fighting enemies that had set out to kill me for the very narrow reasons constantly parroted by the Republicans. This man was talking, so i got my interpreter over to translate. As my medic treated him, he told us why he had taken to the streets against us. (Ironically, his family was one of the three that we were in the village to check on.) Here I was, face to face with “the enemy,” and I find that he’s just a regular guy, trying to protect his family and home from a threat that had been placed quite deliberately in his head by an opportunistic mullah – not unlike my situation, in that I believed I was over there to fight terrorism and its adherents, when such individuals are actually a very small minority. You’ll never know the guilt (at least, I sincerely hope you never do) that comes with knowing that orders from your mouth caused unnecessary harm to come to someone who truly did not deserve it.
When I hear conservative politicians rail on about Al Qaeda and how we need to defeat them “over there,” I know from personal experience that they are willfully distorting the truth. You don’t need to spend much time in Iraq before you realize that before our invasion, Al Qaeda had little to no interest in Iraq. They are there now precisely because we are there – it is their best chance to kill Americans, and they flock to Iraq to avail themselves of that opportunity. And that is beside the fact that these ppoliticians know full well that were we to leave Iraq, those terrorists who would attack the US would have a much harder time doing so in the post-9/11 world. They caught us by surprise on that day, but I find it hard to believe they could do it as easily the next time. We were on the right track with Afghanistan, but the war in Iraq was truly a step in the opposite direction that is costing us very dearly. Don’t get me wrong, I myself parroted the Saddam Hussein line (“We got him out of power – that’s all that matters”), but when you take a step back and judge the situation from the outside, you begin to realize that our invasion had less to do with 9/11, and more to do with Saddam himself. And the line that they spout that says the world is better off without him may very well be true, but it by no means gave us any justifiable reason to invade a sovereign nation. The world would definitely be better off without many of the tyrants that currently lead nations, but the mere possibility of aggression is not justification for war.
The great majority of my changes in opinion come from the fact that war, as horrible as it sounded before I experienced it, was infinitely more jarring and horrible once I saw it with my own eyes. I have disagreed with a couple of very astute commenters here in the past on the fact that I believe armed forces to be a necessary entity, I think we would all agree that nations should exhaust every single one of their options before they even consider the option of going to war. This is the point upon which my entire viewpoint now lies. The politicians who fanned the flames of war in Iraq did so obscenely prematurely, and had this nation opened the kind of discourse that should have been opened prior to commencing hostilities, we would never have crossed the line into war in the first place.
When I see politicians like McCain and his buddy from Indiana, Mike Pence, making absurd statements about the security situation in Baghdad (the now infamous “just like a summer market in Indiana” remark), I know from ppersonal expperience that they are intentionally distorting the truth – and just flat-out lying. No Senator or other elected official who visits that country will be able to get a true reading on the security situation ppersonally, because under no circumstances are they allowed to walk anywhere without an obscene amount of security. As the Executive Officer of my cavalry troop, I coordinated exactly 52 VIP escort patrols, and not one of them left the wire without a ridiculous amount of protection. What makes McCain’s position worse is that he said he took that trip because “Americans are not getting the whole picture” and that the media had been deliberately exaggerating the dangers and lack of security. McCain, being a military man, knows a security detail when he sees one. So his statements about the safety of the areas were not simply misconceptions – they are blatant lies. He knew full well that he was being escorted by one hundred soldiers, three attack helicopters, and countless crew served automatic weapons, yet he still had the gall to suggest that the area he was walking through was safe. As far as I’m concerned, in making that statement, he committed the worst sin an elected official can commit – he willfully deceived the citizens who pay his salary in order to create a completely false impression in the minds of Americans about our progress in Iraq.
And when I hear conservative politicians state that the Republican party is the party that takes care of the military, I know from personal experience that they are simply glossing over the truth with a bold-faced lie. It was not Bill Clinton who dismantled the military after the first Gulf War, it was George Bush Sr. It was not the Democratic party that attempted to remove the combat capability of the National Guard in favor of having a huge standing army, it was Reagan in the 80’s and Colin Powell in the 90’s. It was not liberals who raped the Army disability rating system to ensure that the military saved money, it was Reagan. To elaborate on that one, I’ll give you a couple of specific examples:
1 – The Veterans Administration rates a soldier by compiling their different problems and adding the ratings together, ujp to a poissible 100%. The Army used to do this very same thing until Casper Weinberger in the 80’s. To save money, they began only rating those injuries that would preclude service, drastically cutting down on the money the Army spent in disability payments.
2 – In addition, the army will only rate a soldier up to 75% disability – they leave of the top 25% for no other reason than to cut costs. As if that wasn’t bad enough, they do not rate equally, as the VA does. Instead, they use the ridiculous “whole man” concept, which says the following: If you receive ratings for three different injuries from the Army, all at 10%, you will not receive 30% disability, as common sense suggests – and as the rest of the service branches actually practice – but rather they take the first rating and subtract it from 100%, leaving you with 90%. Then, they take another 10% off of that remaining 90%, leaving you with 80%, and a disability rating of 19%. Finally, they take the last 10% off of the 80%, leaving you with a total disability rating of 27%. This sounds trivial, but when you realize that the threshold for medical retirement is 30% disability, you find that this “whole man” policy is designed for one thing – saving money by taking it away from people who have been promised that the Army would take care of them. In the days we live in, with the Army holding soldiers to the most ridiculous of stringent contracts because it is a “soldier’s obligation” to “follow their contract to the letter” (all words I have heard out of officers’ mouths time and time again), once the soldier gets wounded, the Army feels no obligation to honor theirend of the contract, and shows no remorse about changing the rules after the fact to get out of their own obligations to that same soldier. And these changes were the work of conservative politicians in an attempt to save money to cover up the hole in the budget left by their ridiculous policy of cutting taxes while increasing military spending.
I could go on and on about this, but I’ll spare you the rest of my ramblings. I hope I’ve made my points well enough, and I hope that you never have to go through the things that some people have been put through in the name of nationalism – but I’d caution you against accepting someone else’s interpretation – Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative – of things without going out of your way a little to check into them. If there is one pervading truth in politics, it is that there is always an ulterior motive behind anything a politician does. The minute you accept them at face value, you’re effectively handing over what power you have as a citizen.
I don’t mean to be patronizing in saying this at all, but you really do remind me of myself when I was 19. I was ready and raring to go fight to protect my country, and I let my intellect be hijacked by those who would use me to achieve their own ends. At the heart of it, that is the main reason for my disillusionment. We are raised to think that the government exists to take care of us, only to grow up and find out that the government is no different than the basest of human nature – its main concern is looking out for itself, and it will use any and all means of false justification to make sure it can reach that goal.
Waltonsays
To BrokenSoldier at #760: Thank you for your detailed response. And I respect and admire you for your service.
I don’t mean to be patronizing in saying this at all, but you really do remind me of myself when I was 19. – It’s not patronising, indeed I take it as a compliment.
Thank you for the detailed account of the situation on the ground in Iraq. I wasn’t aware of the phenomenon you describe regarding the manipulation of ordinary Iraqis by religious leaders. I do realise it’s too simplistic to simply refer to our enemies over there as if they were a monolithic army of “terrorists”, and I recognise that I do not fully understand the complexity of the civil and military situation in Iraqi society (and won’t have that level of understanding unless and until I serve in Iraq).
We were on the right track with Afghanistan, but the war in Iraq was truly a step in the opposite direction that is costing us very dearly. – I don’t disagree with this at all, and I haven’t actually been defending the decision to invade Iraq. For the record, I agree with you 100% (as, as far as I know, do most military strategists of all persuasion) that it was a huge strategic error, and have believed so for some time (considering the fact that Saddam’s Iraq had no links to fundamentalism or al-Qaeda – being one of the most secular regimes in the Middle East – and that the Bush administration had no coherent plan for nation-building after overthrowing Saddam). To the best of my knowledge, this is now widely recognised. So I’m not defending Rumsfeld by any means, or trying to argue that the Bush administration has been consistently brilliant in its geopolitical-military strategy.
However, let me ask you this, with reference to your experience of the situation on the ground in Iraq: regardless of the rights and wrongs of the original invasion, what do you think would happen, at this stage, if the US and UK were to withdraw all substantial combat forces from Iraq? If Obama is elected, and fulfils his promise to begin a phased withdrawal over the next few years, how will this affect the situation on the ground? Since you have the benefit of first-hand experience, I’m interested in your view on this. I have supported McCain and strongly opposed Obama, up to this point, principally because I presumed that a withdrawal of troops would lead to more chaos and insurgency, or to an Iranian takeover; but your response above suggests otherwise.
As regards past US governments’ abuse of the disability rating system and cuts in spending for disabled veterans, I didn’t know about that; I find it disgraceful, but I’m not entirely surprised. In the UK (with whose military history I am more familiar), governments of both parties (Labour and Conservative) short-sightedly slashed military spending at various times since the war, and neither party has a stellar record on taking care of disabled and vulnerable ex-service personnel. So I wouldn’t make the rose-tinted claim that all conservative governments have a fantastic record on supporting the troops.
Once again, thank you for your response, and I’ve learnt a lot from it. I will, of course, rethink my perspective on this issue (as everyone should, when confronted with the testimony of someone who has greater expertise and experience).
brokenSoldier, OMsays
However, let me ask you this, with reference to your experience of the situation on the ground in Iraq: regardless of the rights and wrongs of the original invasion, what do you think would happen, at this stage, if the US and UK were to withdraw all substantial combat forces from Iraq? If Obama is elected, and fulfils his promise to begin a phased withdrawal over the next few years, how will this affect the situation on the ground? Since you have the benefit of first-hand experience, I’m interested in your view on this. I have supported McCain and strongly opposed Obama, up to this point, principally because I presumed that a withdrawal of troops would lead to more chaos and insurgency, or to an Iranian takeover; but your response above suggests otherwise.
Posted by: Walton | June 7, 2008 2:57 PM
I make this reply knowing that I am not an expert on foreign policy, but I do not believe that my assessment is either irresponsible or improbable, and I base that analysis on the different situations I encountered while overseas. During my eleven months there (due to my typical unfortunate luck, I only had a month left on my tour when my number came up!), I saw more than a few areas of the country go through a transition from American control to either control by Iraqi forces or simply no military presence at all, save for the occasional long-range patrol. These transitions were due to force consolidation and/ or hand-over of territory to Iraqi units.
The one thing I noticed most of all was that when it came time for our troops to leave an area, the first reaction we encountered from the locals was one of muted disappointment. This was not because they were afraid of terrorist retaliation, but rather it meant that the economic benefits that came along with a large force being there would necessarily dry up. (Things such as jobs on the American base, field ordering money no longer being spent on the local economy, etc…) After a few weeks, we would notice that the spot reports (reports concerning attacks or other violence) would decrease – this happened precipitously in the good areas, and a little more slowly in the areas that had been rife with violence, and in only a select few, it took a couple of months. But invariably, once American troops were out of the area, attacks did drop, due to the fact that the insurgents’ main objective – fighting an attrition war with the US forces – could be accomplished only where there were soldiers present. This is not to say that attacks completely ceased, but when compared to areas that still housed soldiers, the difference was immense. Once we were out of an area, the Iraqi Security forces did an admirable job of handling the attacks that did occur.
As for Iranian influence, our removal of Saddam Hussein did all that Iran wanted as far as expanding their influence over the country as a whole. During my time there, I never once encountered active Iranian influence at the street level, aside from finding caches of Iranian weapons – and even these could not be attributed to recent aid, because Iranian weapons have been flowing in to Shia insurgents from as far back as 1980, when they were fighting their war with Iraq. By removing Saddam Hussein, we removed Iran’s major obstacle to exerting significant influence over Iraq on a national level – the Sunni majority in the nation’s government. Once the majority in the government was no longer Sunni, Iran found that they could slow their aid to the fighter on the street and ramp up their pressure on the politicians and clerics that controlled the new national army, therefore exerting far greater influence over the country than could be done with shipments of grenades and rifles.
So in answer to your question, if we were to conduct a protracted withdrawal – which is necessary simply for the security of our withdrawing forces and civilian support system, I believe that while violence may still occur, it would be at a far lesser rate than is going on with our soldiers in the middle. I don’t mean that there would be no problems at all – but I do believe that the assumption that the nation would immediately collapse into civil war is deceptively simplistic at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.
As for the idea of Iran trying to take over the country, I don’t believe that is in the cards, either. Iran will certainly keep up their efforts in exerting influence over Iraq, but open armed conflict is not – as they well know – in their best interests. While the march to war this last time in Iraq was contrived at best, an Iranian invasion of Iraq would necessarily galvanize the international community against them and draw a military response from the United Nations. Iran seems to be entirely content with doing what they can politically to manipulate the direction of Iraq, and that is a problem that the Iraqi government should be handling themselves, which they are fully capable of doing.
As a matter of fact, it is my opinion that the situation in Iraq will not normalize until the armed forces of all foreign countries are safely outside their borders. Once they are in full possession of their country, they’ll be free to deal with the problems that they will inevitably have to face, whether we leave next year or in ten years. The difference will be that once we are gone, they will have no choice but to deal with those problems.
Nick Gottssays
If there is one pervading truth in politics, it is that there is always an ulterior motive behind anything a politician does. – brokenSoldier
The British journalist (and communist) Claud Cockburn said that whenever you hear a politician say anything you should ask yourself: “Why is this bastard lying to me?”!
Nick Gottssays
Correction to #763 – I just googled the phrase (should have done so before posting) and it wasn’t Cockburn, but Harold Evans, another British journalist (and a non-communist); and he said it to the staff of the paper he was editor of at the time, the Sunday Times – which was a very fine paper when he edited it, but is now owned by Murdoch.
Matt Penfoldsays
Nick,
I thought it was “Why is this lying bastard lying to me”.
brokenSoldier, OMsays
Nick,
I hadn’t heard of that quote, but it’s a sentiment I agree with completely – I think I’ll have to print that one out and frame it.
…which was a very fine paper when he edited it, but is now owned by Murdoch.
Indeed – the death knell of objectivity for many of our formerly respectable media outlets…
Nick Gottssays
Matt,
Apparently that was Jeremy Paxman (note for non-Brits: British TV political interviewer, famous for being stroppy with politicians, e.g. he once asked the same question 15(?) times running, because his interviewee (Michael Howard) wasn’t answering it).
SCsays
brokenSoldier,
Wonderful of you to take the time to respond so thoughtfully to Walton’s questions. Sorry for volunteering you for the job, but I was confident that, if asked, you would come through. I’m going to spin it and declare myself Facilitator of Truth-Seeking.
Nick Gotts,
note for non-Brits:…famous for being stroppy
Hmmm…:)
Waltonsays
I, also, extend my thanks to brokenSoldier for a detailed and interesting reply, which has certainly been more thought-provoking than anything else I’ve read recently. I’ll have to think about it.
SC, I hope I’ve proved to you that I am willing to listen and to learn. The more I learn, the more I realise how little I know about so many things outside my own specialised area of knowledge – and until I’ve experienced Afghanistan or Iraq (which I hope to do, should the British Army accept my service) I won’t really fully understand it.
brokenSoldier, OMsays
Walton:
until I’ve experienced Afghanistan or Iraq (which I hope to do, should the British Army accept my service)
Walton, statements like that betray your youthful ignorance. It is a sad mind indeed that hopes to experience war. My position in the discussions between myself and others on this post concerning the choice to serve in the military in no way espouse a desire for war, but rather a choice for service. The fact that you hope to experience Iraq or Afghanistan simply shows that you have no idea what you are wishing upon yourself. You need to grow up, or you very well may get yourself killed through your own ignorance.
Bachalonsays
Walton, no you are not my enemy. Not yet. I do have another question for you, though.
You say you support civil unions, but would you be willing to fight for them? It’s one thing to say you support them, another to actually put your money where your mouth is. I’ve found a lot of people who say one thing but aren’t willing to do any real work towards a goal.
I can add nothing to what brokenSoldier said about the situation in Iraq and generally agree with his analysis of what will happen if foreign troops leave. The situation will deteriorate to some extent when foreign money leaves, but the violence should decline dramatically.
I do not feel like talking about my experiences as such, in moving from callow youth to surprisingly still optimistic middle age – I have mentioned some of them in previous postings. I was always a liberal and a democrat, small “d”, and this did not really change. Rather, my contempt for those who push for war as any other than a last resort has grown. I do still think war must at time be a resort, last, but a resort and that a trained and equipped military is very necessary.
I do wish to point out one item which tends to bug me. Commentators always point out the invasion of Iraq was a failure. Yes and no. It WAS/IS a hideous mistake, but the invasion was well handled by the various military forces. However, no one in BushVille had any idea to do once Saddam was gone. The CIA, US Mil, State Dept all recognized no plan was in place for the “peace”, but no one at the White House wanted to hear any complaints on that score. Bush and company truly seemed to believe the “invaders” would be treated as liberators. The US military, civilian agencies, and support personnel are now left holding the bag because the, for want of a better word, leadership of the US was/is not willing to accept advice or criticism that does not fit with preconceived notions.
On other point. The longer troops stay in Iraq the higher the potential for war crimes. Combat troops do not make good occupiers. After the second or third time you see your brothers and sisters die in an ambush, the natural response is to shoot first the next time. This becomes difficult to control, especially when units are broken up in to small units for patrols or to occupy strong points, road blocks. The damage to our men and women is cumulative and horrendous. Keeping them in Iraq without a purpose and without a goal will eventually tell on them. I am of Vietnam, the generation and the army. I do not wish to see this happen again, but Iraq does make my bones and scars twinge with remembered pain.
Waltonsays
BrokenSoldier at #770: Once again I apologise; “hope” wasn’t the right word. But you know what I mean. It is something which I intend to do, if I can.
Bachalon at #771:
You say you support civil unions, but would you be willing to fight for them? – No, in all honesty. Because I think, harsh as it sounds, that there are more important things to fight for.
Don’t get me wrong. If we lived under governments which were rounding up homosexuals and imprisoning them without trial, or encouraging vicious physical attacks on them – all of which does, of course, happen in many countries in the world – then I would fight against this with every fibre of my being. Because I believe that all persons, heterosexual or homosexual, need and deserve protection of their basic physical security and integrity.
But as it is, the question is not even comparable to that; it’s simply an issue of whether homosexual couples can enjoy certain legal benefits which accrue from being in a legally recognised relationship. I understand 100% that this is very important to many homosexual couples (particularly with things like hospital visitation rights) and I don’t wish to downplay the significance of the issue. But compared to the most important priority of our time – fighting terrorism and Islamic extremism – it is a secondary issue. (And, as regards hospital visitation etc., bear in mind that many of the same legal hurdles are faced by cohabiting siblings and other persons in non-sexual relationships. So it isn’t exclusively an issue of homosexual rights.)
As long as homosexuals are being imprisoned and attacked in many countries around the world, I don’t think that the focus of the gay rights lobby – or indeed of anyone who cares about human rights – should be on achieving the right to civil unions. It should be on fighting the brutal régimes around the world – especially Islamic extremism – who desire to do much worse things to homosexuals than deny them their civil unions.
As I’ve said, given a simple two-way choice, I would probably vote in favour of same-sex civil unions. If it were a two-way choice (yes or no), I might well even vote in favour of same-sex marriage. But I simply don’t think it’s the most important issue, and hence why I am not willing to devote energy to fighting for it to the exclusion of other issues.
MAJeff, OMsays
Walton,
go to hell.
Waltonsays
To MAJeff: The hell which you don’t believe in?
In seriousness, I would like to apologise for the fact that I’ve evidently offended you time and time again. But since you’ve more or less given up responding to my posts with anything but insults, I can’t do much about it. I am only stating honestly what I believe. I’m sorry if you hate me for it. But I can’t lie, and diplomacy can only stretch so far.
I can only ask you to ignore my remarks if you find them so offensive. I’ve given my reasons elsewhere for continuing to participate in this forum.
MAJeff, OMsays
It’ll be a proverbial cold day before some bitch-ass heterosexual supremacist punk tells me what my focus should be as a gay activist. You’ve got some gall, and the fact that you are so goddamned clueless about it is sad and pathetic. Get out of yourself.
And yes, burn in that hell that doesn’t exist. It’s where you belong.
FOAD.
MAJeff, OMsays
How DARE you, you arrogant little fuck? How dare you tell me that I should forget about my own life, my own oppression in this very society. I put my money where my mouth is. I contribute and teach. And you little fuckwitted ass have the gall to tell me that you know better where my efforts should be, when you admit you’re not willing to contribute any energy.
I can only ask you to ignore my remarks if you find them so offensive. I’ve given my reasons elsewhere for continuing to participate in this forum.
I’ve been trying to ignore this intensely odious homosocial homophobe for a long time. It is a shame that there is no hell waiting for the likes of you, no N.D.E. moment of “oops, I sure got that wrong, I suppose it really is oblivion for me after all.” At the risk of godwinning this thread, Walton’s (is that you, Johnboy?) willingness to countenance discrimination against his GLBT brothers and/or sisters makes him no different from one who is careful not to wear a brownshirt on Crystallnacht, but who is equally careful to go out of his way to obsequiously say, “No, thank you,” knowing that “the right thing” is being done.
Walton’s spinelessness in defense of discrimination is uglier than my analogy. It would be even uglier to ignore such offensiveness, because it only gets stronger, and never really goes away.
Waltonsays
bitch-ass heterosexual supremacist punk – Call me what you will, but I take issue with the suggestion that I am a “heterosexual supremacist”.
I am no bigot. I have never knowingly belittled or attacked a homosexual person for their orientation. It’s their business, not mine. I can’t prove this, obviously, since you don’t know me in real life; but, for what it’s worth, I give you my word of honour that I do not have any prejudice against homosexuals and I do not desire to deprive them of their rights and liberties as citizens under the law. I would ask you to assume good faith.
I don’t know what you would ask of me. I won’t reply to you again (unless you ask me to), since it obviously causes you so much anger. I really don’t dislike you, and it saddens me that I provoke so much hatred. It wasn’t my intention.
Waltonsays
Note: my post immediately above was in reply to MAJeff, though I hope it also addresses Ken Cope’s reply.
MAJeff, OMsays
I don’t know what you would ask of me. I won’t reply to you again (unless you ask me to), since it obviously causes you so much anger. I really don’t dislike you, and it saddens me that I provoke so much hatred. It wasn’t my intention.
Whoooooosh!
MAJeff, OMsays
I am no bigot. I have never knowingly belittled or attacked a homosexual person for their orientation. It’s their business, not mine. I can’t prove this, obviously, since you don’t know me in real life; but, for what it’s worth, I give you my word of honour that I do not have any prejudice against homosexuals and I do not desire to deprive them of their rights and liberties as citizens under the law. I would ask you to assume good faith.
Clueless.
Owlmirrorsays
Easy there, Jeff. Don’t give yourself a stroke, now.
Walton… If you were genuinely concerned about the way Islamic and other repressive nations treat their own citizens (both homosexuals and straights, women and men)…
Wouldn’t you be thinking more about joining Amnesty International, or the International Human Rights Watch, or similar?
Speaking of focus, after all.
MAJeff, OMsays
And don’t flatter yourself. You’re merely a diversion during the NBA finals.
MAJeff, OMsays
C’mon, Owlmirror, these are merely abstract issues, politics. We’re not talking about real people.
I mean, why would Walton even consider that gay folks are working on issues that affect their lives while simultaneously working on issues affecting people around the world? I wonder where he even heard about gay folks being executed in Iran. Could it be gay groups like ILGA or ILGHRC bringing the issues forward to media outlets like the BBC? Noooo…that would mean we selfish western queers wouldn’t be doing anything.
And, of course, we’re the radicals insisting on full equality. And someone who admits that he refuses to stand up for queers–only to say that he harbors no ill will–who is willing to stand aside as the institutions of heterosexual domination remain intact, who criticizes queer activists for not doing work they are actually doing, wonders why someone might call him a heterosexual supremacist and take issue with his ignorant critique.
And then gets all narcissistic and shit.
Worthless little fuck.
Waltonsays
In response to Owlmirror at #783: I have several friends who are deeply involved in Amnesty (they have a strong presence at my university), so I certainly did think about it. Although I applaud some of Amnesty’s goals, I have the following problems with them:
1) There really isn’t much point in holding solidarity marches, writing strongly-worded letters to foreign leaders, etc., in opposition to human rights abuses around the world. The leaders of those régimes have shown that they are not sensitive to world opinion. Is Ahmadinejad going to cave in and release thousands of innocent prisoners, after ignoring the geopolitical clout of the US and the UN, simply because he receives angry letters from student activists? Is it really going to make any difference? There are better ways to spend one’s time.
2) Amnesty is also increasingly partisan in the way it attacks the US government. I find it downright offensive that, on one poster in my college, they listed “closing Guantanamo Bay” and “ending the death penalty in Texas” as policy priorities in the same list as “stopping human rights abuses in Burma” and the like. I’m sorry, but no sensible person can argue that the US government’s transgressions are as bad as the brutality inflicted by the regimes in Burma, Iran, China, etc. And the US criminal justice system – which, flawed though it undoubtedly is, at least executes people only when they are convicted of murder – cannot be compared to the mass government-sponsored killings taking place every day in dictatorial nations around the world.
Ultimately, principled student activism, protests, vigils etc., solve very little. It makes the participants feel good about themselves, but it doesn’t do anything to defeat evil. It usually, regrettably, takes naked force to do that.
Waltonsays
To MAJeff at #785.
I’m sorry. I conveyed the wrong impression in my original post.
I did not mean to suggest that gay rights activists were “selfish” and didn’t care about abuses in Iran and other repressive regimes. It was poor self-expression on my part, but that genuinely isn’t what I meant.
I was only explaining why I, personally, do not get very worked up about the issues of same-sex marriage and civil unions. It just isn’t one of my major personal fields of concern – yet I find here that I’ve been quizzed about it, and pressured to come down on one side of the fence or the other. Which is fair enough.
MAJeff, OMsays
As long as homosexuals are being imprisoned and attacked in many countries around the world, I don’t think that the focus of the gay rights lobby – or indeed of anyone who cares about human rights – should be on achieving the right to civil unions. It should be on fighting the brutal régimes around the world – especially Islamic extremism – who desire to do much worse things to homosexuals than deny them their civil unions.
Ultimately, principled student activism, protests, vigils etc., solve very little. It makes the participants feel good about themselves, but it doesn’t do anything to defeat evil. It usually, regrettably, takes naked force to do that.
Principled homophobes have gotten their proposition on the California ballot to enshrine discrimination against teh gay into the state’s Constitution, as part of a GOP GOTV to pry the party hateful out of their troglodyte lairs to vote their homophobia, and while they’re at it, cast a vote for Walton’s man-crush, McCain, who has sold out to the Biblical end-timers. I won’t feel particularly good about having to make sure I vote against such idiocy, it’s my duty to do such a thing.
I’ll tell you what’s evil, Walton, you odious little shit. It’s your smug ignorance and sheep-like devotion to those who live to fleece you and your fellow clueless dupes, eager to vote against your own self-interest. Speaking of naked force (ever watch a gladiator movie?), it might feel good to rearrange your face, but that won’t make you any less stupid. There is at least a chance that you can be made a little less ignorant.
Owlmirrorsays
Ultimately, principled student activism, protests, vigils etc., solve very little. It makes the participants feel good about themselves, but it doesn’t do anything to defeat evil. It usually, regrettably, takes naked force to do that.
No….
Changing behaviors in others requires punishment and/or reward. “Punishment” may mean force, but not necessarily. Sometimes the threat of force is necessary, but even then, not always.
The major punishment involved in most of the major social advances of the 19th and 20th centuries was not force, not violence, but shame.
The women’s rights movements, the Indian independence movements, the black civil rights movements, the gay civil rights movements — all were predicated on the basis of mass demonstrations precisely so as to instill shame in those who opposed them; to emphatically remind them that they were people too. They were also rewarding themselves, in a way: given the social nature of humanity, reminding each other that they are not alone in their desire for change is itself a reward. The whole point was not to threaten the keepers of the status quo with force directly, (although a mass of people united does have an implicit threat all by itself, which is why repressive tactics were used against them).
(Even the anti-slavery movements were mostly based on using shame; the U.S. Civil War broke out because the South preferred to directly use violence rather than be shamed.)
Even if actual military force is necessary for whatever reason, that force must be carefully restrained and very narrowly targeted. If it is not, then the whole enterprise changes to an actual battle, or even a war.
Once the force goes from potential to actual, the conflict goes from being idealistic to cynically pragmatic: Dead people don’t misbehave.
And of course, from the point of view of the other side, when they see that there’s no benefit in changing their behavior, every death on their own side becomes a motivation for more primal behavior: fight or flight.
And of course, if you go in with naked force applied haphazardly, and no particular plan to guarantee the opportunity for peaceful behavior change, the end result is a mess such as Iraq: the only change of behavior is that the people have learned to change only the appearance of their behavior, and when unobserved, or after finding a way to make themselves unpunishable, do whatever they want.
So it’s important to keep in mind, as you put on your battle dress and lead your platoon into a foreign country where there is some behavior that you think needs to be changed with bullets and rocket shells and bombs and mortars and grenades:
What behaviors are being punished?
What behaviors are being rewarded?
brokenSoldier, OMsays
Walton:
Once again I apologise; “hope” wasn’t the right word. But you know what I mean. It is something which I intend to do, if I can.
I knew what you meant when I made the comment. I joined the military because I thought I should, in order to provide the right to not join it to those who want to make that choice. Never did I – and never would I – want to go to war. It’s certainly not an uncommon sentiment, but it exists almost exclusively among those who have never been to war. I can guarantee you that if you do have to fight in open combat, you’ll realize that wanting to go to war is a foolish, youthful wish that romanticizes war while being completely ignorant of its horrors. You’ll realize that you simply did not know what you were getting yourself into – that is, if you make it out of it in the first place. I know more than a few individuals who shipped to Iraq with me that had the same view you’re putting forth. The only difference is that they didn’t live long enough to realize that they were horribly wrong in wishing for such a horrible thing.
I’d offer the advice that there are far better ways for you to show your love of country than anxiously waiting to run off to willingly participate war, especially the one in Iraq, but I’m not naive enough to believe that such advice would sway your desire. If you truly have taken anything away from the posts I’ve offered on this thread, you’d realize that this war in Iraq is a fire that does not deserve to be stoked with the blood of fresh soldiers. I had been in the army well over six years when it started – and as such, I had no choice in the matter. You, however, most certainly do have a choice. (My only consolation as far as Iraq is concerned is that your country is sending far less young people to that godforsaken war than mine is, so you’ll probably never see it.)
Be anxious to join the military if you choose, for that is a personal choice that I believe is defensible – though that is certainly a matter of opinion. But wanting to go to combat is not – under any circumstances – even remotely defensible.
Waltonsays
To BrokenSoldier: Once again I think you’ve misunderstood me, though that’s my own fault for using ambiguous language. I don’t “want” to go to war, in the sense of looking forward to it; that would probably make me either an idiot or a psychopath. But I believe that our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is necessary and, at present, morally justified; and seeing as I support the war, I would feel like a hypocrite if I were not willing to put my own life on the line and serve. Since I am medically and physically fit for service, am in the OTC (similar to US ROTC, but it doesn’t automatically lead to a commission), and hopefully will have developed the maturity and confidence to be an officer by the time I graduate in two years’ time, I feel a moral obligation to serve in the military. That’s all I meant.
When I said “hope”, I was simply acknowledging the uncertainty of my position, since I haven’t passed officer selection yet and there’s no guarantee that I will be able to serve. But if I can, I will, for the reasons I have outlined.
Nick Gottssays
Well Walton, if you’re really willing to put your life on the line for your absurd beliefs, I respect that – to exactly the same extent that I respect an Islamist jihadi who goes to fight for the other side.
brokenSoldier, OMsays
Walton:
…I feel a moral obligation to serve in the military. That’s all I meant.
I didn’t misunderstand you at all – I was talking about my experience when you made the comment that you haven’t experienced Iraq or Afghanistan, though you hope to do so. You have constantly suggested that you are open to debate and reason, but you seem to be little more than a very polite concern-troll now. You clearly stated that you wanted to experience (specifically) Iraq or Afghanistan – you did not express a general moral obligation for service in our conversation until that last comment. You used the word hope in direct reference to wanting to experience one of those two specific wars as a combatant, which makes the above statement quite a transparent evasion.
Your motivation to serve – from what I have read from you on this site – seems to me to be mere submission to the idiocy of the conservative idea that the military is the most respectable and desirable form of service to the nation, and definitely does not sound like it is rooted in a sense of moral obligation, as you try to suggest. (Even mine was not rooted in a moral obligation, but rather a personal conviction – my realization that a certain number of citizens must serve in the armed forces, since we have a volunteer army, and my voluntary service allows someone else to make the opposite choice. This is the point on which Nick and I have disagreed, but we do not disagree on the fact that service in the military is certainly not deserving of some elite, noble characterization on purely moral grounds.
It doesn’t surprise me to learn that you don’t see through this suggestion that moral obligation is a valid motivation for military service – it is a tool that is quite effectively wielded by politicians to get more citizens to join, and while politicians on both sides of the aisle use it, it has been – in recent history – touted more by the conservative hawks in our government, most of which belong to the Republican party. When contemplating a course of action that may very well put you in a body bag, you should be able to explain your reasons behind such a decision with a better explanation than having a ‘moral obligation.’
And when Nick says that he respects that kind of decision about as much as he respects the decision of a jihadist to take up arms, you need to realize that he is not talking in general about your choice – he is (from my point of view, and he can correct me if I’m misrepresenting him here) very specifically addressing the fact that your choice is based in specious reasoning and upon beliefs and a perspective on the world that you clearly haven’t thought all the way through. Instead, you’ve allowed your beliefs to be guided by the likes of the crew at Fox News. If you can’t see through that rhetoric, then you’re allowing yourself to be manipulated along a path that will end lives, whether it be yours or someone else’s by your hand.
Nick Gottssays
brokenSoldier@794. Yes, that’s what I meant, with the addition that I genuinely do respect physical courage as such, particularly as I suspect I don’t have a lot of it myself (something that has never really been put to the test in my very fortunate life) – and it takes considerable physical courage to blow yourself up.
Waltonsays
When contemplating a course of action that may very well put you in a body bag, you should be able to explain your reasons behind such a decision with a better explanation than having a ‘moral obligation.’ Why? Is there really any higher calling than fulfilling one’s moral obligations, and sacrificing oneself for them?
And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods?
I’ll expand on this later, I’m not having a good day (for various reasons which have nothing to do with this forum).
MAJeff, OMsays
Is there really any higher calling than fulfilling one’s moral obligations, and sacrificing oneself for them?
I think a Mr. Owen had some kind of answer to that:
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Waltonsays
No, in fact, I’ll expand on my response now.
This is going to sound bizarre and perhaps slightly insane, but when I think about it rationally, I don’t value my own life very much. Since coming into this world, I have contributed precisely nothing of any value to it. My life is not functionally important to anyone except my immediate family and friends.
I have a lot of personal problems which I won’t go into on this forum (discussing things here is meant to be a distraction from them, largely). I’ve achieved nothing useful or impressive in my life.
I don’t deny that there are many civilian careers which are highly worthwhile. But I don’t have what it takes to be a doctor, an engineer, a scientist, or anything else that genuinely involves productive achievement and service to others. I can be a half-decent lawyer, probably – but it really doesn’t interest me, and does the world really need more lawyers? And if I were to become a politician or a pundit (which I don’t have the ability for anyway), without having served in the military, you yourself would deride me as a “chickenhawk” for my pro-war views, as you do to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly.
But I do, I hope, have what it takes to serve in the military. And I’d rather risk losing my life doing something useful, than live a long, safe and unremarkable life.
As you can tell, I do have self-esteem and personality issues, and for the first time on this forum I am genuinely being 100% candid about the way I think, rather than trying to be detached. I’m sure you probably think I’m an idiot or a raving lunatic after reading this post, and I don’t blame you. But rather than going round in circles, I’ve decided I have nothing to lose from telling you the truth.
Waltonsays
MAJeff at #797:
Yes, and the men who died in the First World War, in horrific conditions, were heroes. They suffered in a way which has never been equalled in a conflict before or since, and I have the utmost respect and admiration for that generation. We can never repay their sacrifice.
Waltonsays
Reading through my post at #798, I apologise for it – it was inappropriately personal, and I don’t think it adds to the discussion. I would ask Prof Myers, if he’s around, to delete the post.
MAJeff, OMsays
Their lives were wasted.
Nick Gottssays
For heaven’s sakes Walton, you’re 19. I was bloody miserable at 19. Give yourself time to grow up. Try to have some fun. Most people, inevitably, are only ever functionally important to their immediate family and friends. At 54, I can’t produce much more than you in the way of real achievement, but I’m keen to stick around as long as possible to see what happens next! Don’t you want to be there if/when life is discovered beyond Earth? When the Higgs particle and gravitational waves are found, or found not to exist? When your favourite living novelist/director/band comes out with their next book/film/CD? I’m not in any way qualified to say so, but from what you’ve said on here, I would guess your childhood was in some way seriously unhappy, and/or that you have problems with the way you look, and/or that you have doubts about your sexuality. Whether any of these guesses are right or not, go to your GP and find out if you fit the criteria for clinical depression – and if you do, get it treated. You’ve sure chosen a weird place to come for counselling!
brokenSoldier, OMsays
Posted by: Walton | June 9, 2008 7:40 AM
Why? Is there really any higher calling than fulfilling one’s moral obligations, and sacrificing oneself for them?
The point that I made – and you either missed or ignored – is that no citizen has a moral obligation to serve, and any elected official that suggests otherwise is disingenuous and manipulative. The choice to serve in the military – while in my opinion not inherently immoral – is not morally obligatory. When you use words and phrases like ‘noble,’ ‘higher calling,’ and ‘sacrificing oneself,’ you again betray the fact that the great majority of what you have posted on this site is little more than parroted talking points fed to you by others.
The highest calling for anyone is to do something they truly believe in – not something they’ve been told they should believe in. If you truly believed in serving, you’d be able to enumerate practical reasons for it instead of resorting solely to the ‘moral obligation’ line. Some join because it is their only way out of their situation. Others join because it is their only option for getting the money they need to get their education. Still others join because they are raised in the military and want to follow in the footsteps of their family. And you do have those who join because they actually want to experience combat. Though I find that last one deplorable, what little respect I do have for them lies only with the fact that they are honest about their motivations. In your case, you have displayed a youthful ignorance about military service that shows your naivety and your susceptibility to intellectual manipulation. You – as you have admitted – do not have a very good grasp on what you are getting yourself into. And since the profession you’re talking about directly involves the possibility that you will be an officer in charge of soldiers in armed conflict, that ignorance and your failure to rectify it is especially heinous. You don’t seem to realize that if you do lead soldiers in combat, you might lose one or more of them. And when you have to come back home and look those soldiers’ families in the eye, they are going to want to hear from someone that can give them more than talking-point style explanations as to why they don’t have a son or daughter anymore. They’re going to resent the hell out of you if you try to equivocate their husband or wife’s death with simple patriotism and the nobility of service. When learning that their brother or sister is gone, they are going to want you to be able to rationally console them, rather than waxing poetic about the virtues of sacrifice. I can tell you from personal experience that such nonsense offers NO comfort whatsoever to people whose family will never be whole again.
And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods?
I’ll expand on this later, I’m not having a good day (for various reasons which have nothing to do with this forum).
You don’t need to expand on this. You can recite all the poetry you want – such art is not even remotely effective at teaching you about war or the motivations for service. It is merely book knowledge, and offers no true insight into the real nature of the beast. You can think that lines such as the ones you quoted offer valuable justification for the ultimate sacrifice, but what you do not understand is that while this may be fine for you, you’re talking about leading other humans into the teeth of armed conflict – and words on a page are worthless in providing what you need to do such a thing effectively. You can recite all you want about dying well, but I can assure you that there is no such thing. The fact that you think such poetry offers a valid insight into the explanation of the merits of sacrifice is evidence enough for me that you have no idea what you’re talking about. And when you presume to speak about something as grave as leading men and women to combat without having the slightest idea what you’re actually talking about, you prove yourself unworthy of the task.
Nick Gottssays
p.s. And be thankful you didn’t post #798 under your real name!
brokenSoldier, OMsays
Walton:
This is going to sound bizarre and perhaps slightly insane, but when I think about it rationally, I don’t value my own life very much.
What you need to understand is that you are a largely normal young adult, in that we were all similarly confused or disillusioned at one point in youth. There is nothing abnormal or wrong about such views, but the minute you place others’ lives in your hands by accepting a commission in an armed force, you obligate yourself to ensuring their welfare. And that is no job for someone who admittedly doesn’t value their own life very much. Everyone deals with ideas such as those, but it is patently irresponsible – and in my opinion, criminal – to take the responsibility for another human’s life into your hands until you have successfully dealt with and discarded such notions.
Waltonsays
I would really appreciate if #798 could be deleted. It wasn’t appropriate, and you’re quite right that Pharyngula isn’t the place to come for counselling.
Indeed, I’m now very embarrassed about what I’ve said. I’m also rather concerned, because although I have not been using my real name, I have been using the name I use on Wikipedia – and there are plenty of people who know me in real life who are familiar with my work on Wikipedia. So I would really like that post to be removed.
For future discussions, it might be best if I withdraw for now and return at a later time under a different name. I know this is frowned upon, but I’m not trying to be dishonest; I just don’t think people will take me or my ideas seriously now that I’ve told you all about my personal insecurities.
JeffreyDsays
Walton – Once again I come in late and can only suggest you read brokenSoldier, Nick and MAJeff well. I have seen what is called courage and what is called cowardice and there is damn little between them. No one dies well, some die in saving others and this can be a slight comfort to their friends and family, but no one really dies well. Further to what brokenSoldier said, if one of your reasons to serve is your zeal to “prove” yourself, do not seek the job of leading people in combat. Save them the difficult job of killing one on their own side.
This is not the great crusade for the future of the world. International terrorism is a problem and a serious one, but I truly do not see it as a threat to the world on the level that Nazi Germany was. Terrorism is a threat that should have been dealt with earlier and must be dealt with now, but it has little chance to cripple the world unless you let it so do, unless you become complicit in erasing freedom in the name of security as so many of your conservative heroes want to do.
Nick in #802 is worth rereading. I agree that you might want to see someone to see if you have any health, identity or depression issues. These are common at your current age and nothing of which you should be ashamed.
Nick Gottssays
Walton. Get some help. Really. Today if you can. If you think I can be of assistance, my email address is easy to find.
Waltonsays
To brokenSoldier: I should clarify that I have no intention of applying for (nor would I, at present, succeed in receiving) an officer’s commission for at least a couple of years, until after I graduate. I have nowhere near enough maturity, personal self-confidence and balance to lead men in combat now. I acknowledge this. And I agree that it would be criminally irresponsible if I were to be allowed to do so right now; I’m assessing my own abilities realistically, I hope. But hopefully I will have matured to the point where I can deal with it in a couple of years’ time.
And I can’t win, seemingly; you seem to be telling me that my motivations for wanting to serve are all wrong, and that I should stop thinking of it as the only worthwhile career path I can take, or as a path which I am morally obliged to follow. Yet, at the same time, you accuse those conservative politicians and pundits who haven’t experienced war, yet happen to have pro-war views, of being “chickenhawks”. So what can I do? You’re evidently telling me I shouldn’t serve, at least not with my present motivation; but if I don’t, you will tell me (correctly, of course) that I don’t understand the reality of war, and call me a chickenhawk.
SCsays
And I can’t win, seemingly
Sure you can. Just change your views on war :).
brokenSoldier, OMsays
Posted by: Walton | June 9, 2008 9:15 AM
Yet, at the same time, you accuse those conservative politicians and pundits who haven’t experienced war, yet happen to have pro-war views, of being “chickenhawks”.
Either cite where I have said this, or refrain from putting words in my mouth. And regardless of someone’s military record – or lack thereof – I have plenty of other reasons to oppose someone who advocates war as anything other than the absolute last resort when nothing else works.
You’re evidently telling me I shouldn’t serve, at least not with my present motivation…
I’m not telling you not to serve at all – I simply told you that from what I’ve read, you need to take a hard look at why you want to, and that if it is truly something you think you want or need to do then you should be able to come up with more than just the moral obligation explanation.
As for it being the only worthwhile career path to take, I’d offer that if you do think it is the sole worthwhile profession for you, then you probably need to take some time and really look into your options as far as career path goes. I find it hard to believe that there is only one career path you find that fits your abilities and strengths – an assertion like that points instead toward the likelihood that it is the only one you’re seriously considering.
Look man, aside from all the barbs we may pass back and forth on this site, when it comes to war – knowing what I know now – I’d never wish it upon anyone. If it seems like I’m being relentless on this, it is because no one, regardless of the conversations that transpire here, should go into that kind of a situation without some serious and stark self-examination. If you honestly have already done that and really, honestly think you have a moral obligation to go off to war, then tell me to piss off. But short of that, I’ll keep trying to deter you from going into that situation without the clearest and most resonant warnings and advice I can give.
David Marjanović, OMsays
you seem to be telling me that my motivations for wanting to serve are all wrong, and that I should stop thinking of it as the only worthwhile career path I can take, or as a path which I am morally obliged to follow. Yet, at the same time, you accuse those conservative politicians and pundits who haven’t experienced war, yet happen to have pro-war views, of being “chickenhawks”.
What’s bad about a chickenhawk is the hypocrisy. By definition, a chickenhawk is someone who wants to send other people to die.
Kseniyasays
Walton, I admire your candor far more than I would admire any steadfast attempt to present yourself as anyone or anything other than who or what you are. There’s as much, or more, courage in that as there is in standing up for a minority view on a blog. From another point of view: There’s no shame in being human, in being young and unsure of yourself, nor in being honest and open about it. I doubt that anybody here would accuse you of indulging in compulsive disclosure.
As for taking you seriously, I find that I understand people’s comments better when I have a sense of where they’re coming from. The more Walton I see in your comments, the more seriously I take them as being your thoughts and opinions, as opposed to having the sense that you’re keeping yourself hidden, to some extent, behind the voices of American conservative icons.
You’re exactly the same age as my next-youngest sibling, my brother J., who turned 19 in the past week and who has just graduated high school. He’s an essentially normal 19 year old – armed with some nascent talents, some lofty dreams and ambitions, and very few tangible accomplishments beyond his hard-won diploma.
In other words, he’s exactly where he ought to be.
I don’t know what you expect of yourself. Very few people, and I do mean out of the billions who populate this earth, “contribute” anything to society (in the sense you mean) by their 19th birthday. As a matter of fact, however, you have contributed just what has been asked of you – to dedicate yourself to your education, with an eye to the future. On that score, you’re ahead of many of your peers. I believe you already know this, just as I now believe that you have undervalued this important contribution.
You’re obviously brighter than the average bear, and you strive for goodness but are still searching for a path that feels right to you. No passion for law? Dump it. Silence the voices that are telling you what you “should” be doing, and listen to the voice that tells you what you want out of life. And I do mean life.
Of course you feel powerless. Welcome to the world of the nineteen-year-old western male. However, this notion that you must “sacrifice” yourself to prove your self-worth is deeply, deeply flawed. You speak like a person who believes they can only be of worth if they go out in a blaze of glory. Frankly, it does sound like suicide-bomber mentality. No good can come of it.
Nick Gottssays
Frankly, it does sound like suicide-bomber mentality. No good can come of it.
Just what I thought. Let’s be glad Walton wasn’t brought up a Muslim!
Kseniyasays
And I’d rather risk losing my life doing something useful, than live a long, safe and unremarkable life.
Feh.
Define “useful”.
I believe that most people underestimate the value of the ordinary. Very few people leave a lasting, positive mark on world history. There’s more than one way to change a world, however. One of the most important jobs we young adults face today, anywhere in the world, is to raise our own children to be as free from the fear and hatred of xenophobic bigotry as possible and to understand the imporatance of environmental sustainability. If you ask me, that’s a far more useful approach to life than, for example, dedicating yourself to leaving a Walton-shaped hole in the lives of the people who know and love you now in a misguided attempt to create value for your existence.
Consider for a moment the possibility that the “blaze of glory” approach may, in fact, be both cowardly and lazy, when compared to dedicating a lifetime to the ideal of making the world a more livable place than it was on the day you were born. Such dedication requires persistent hard work and a non-trivial degree of self-sacrifice.
I’ve noticed that you seem to relish protestations of your martyrdom — someone calls you an idiot and we immediately get several paragraphs of your hurt feelings and insincere apologies, oh woe is you.
Listen. I’m in Minnesota. We know passive-aggressive out here, the repressed resentment buried under layers of niceness and polite talk. I can spot it across transcontinental distances, and hoo boy, have you got it bad.
Here’s a hint. This is what grown-ups do: when they get called an idiot, instead of obsessing over it and turning it into pages and pages of breast-beating argle-bargle where their wounded feelings are made the center of all attention, they fucking ignore it and move on to address the substantive points.
I know, it’s hard to do when you have nothing of substance to say, but try. These long-winded whine-fests about how everyone is picking on you are extraordinarily tiresome.
Walton, just to be clear, the line “you accuse those conservative politicians and pundits who haven’t experienced war, yet happen to have pro-war views, of being “chickenhawks””, should be attributed to me, not brokenSoldier. I am not sure if anyone else mentioned it, but believe I was the first to so do. Easy to get confused with long threads.
Sorry, that should have been “your description of your experience”, to be pedantic. And I’m referring to note 760.
Waltonsays
Thank you to Kseniya for a great response, which did make me feel a little better.
Prof Myers, I’m honestly sorry for filling up your blog with my personal problems. I do suffer from low self-esteem and various other issues, and so I take it personally when someone calls me an idiot. I realise I’ve inadvertently made this one of the longest threads on the site, and a lot of it is about me rather than about the substantive issues. So I can see why you’re annoyed.
I really need to seek counselling in RL, I think. Some of my friends have been telling me to do so for some months. Or maybe religious instruction (much as most of you doubtless hate the idea); having a strong faith, which I don’t have at the moment, might help me to deal with some of my issues.
But I’ll stop hijacking this thread now, and once again, thank you to everyone who’s responded to me. If anyone wants to get in touch with me for any reason, my email address is walton_m AT hotmail.co.uk.
Or maybe religious instruction (much as most of you doubtless hate the idea); having a strong faith, which I don’t have at the moment, might help me to deal with some of my issues.
Walton, you are an absolute fucking genius! I’ve honestly never seen such fantastically clever trolling since long before adequacy.org shut down. Fabulously well-played and utterly brilliant: you are truly a prodigy and a master of this under-appreciated fine art. Wow. Just. Wow! Truly awesome.
Waltonsays
I am not a troll. I can’t, of course, prove that to you.
But I suppose I should take it as a compliment that you think I’m a clever and subtle troll, rather than (as I actually am) a confused teenager with mental and emotional problems. Believe me, I would be much better off if you were right.
negentropyeatersays
Walton,
I believe you, that you are a confused teenager with mental and emotional problems. You’re not the first, that’s just very normal. You’re also not the first who uses the internet to let go, not extraordinary. If you want to do like the other sheep and join a faith club to talk about nothingness, it’s up to you, but it will lead you nowhere.
I know that when I was your age, I found great comfort in reading books. Do you read a lot of books ?
windysays
I don’t deny that there are many civilian careers which are highly worthwhile. But I don’t have what it takes to be a doctor, an engineer, a scientist, or anything else that genuinely involves productive achievement and service to others.
Worthwhile careers? How about nurse or garbage truck driver? I am not being sarcastic: if you want to ‘make a difference’ that will be visible in your lifetime, something like that is a much safer bet than basic science.
Owlmirrorsays
Just out of curiosity Walton, have you read Jingo, by Terry Pratchett?
World War I was not about heroism, it was about failure: A failure of diplomacy; a failure of self-control on a national level; a failure of reason; a failure of ethics; a failure of sanity.
A failure of imagination.
And the same can be said about any war.
You feel the need to do something self-sacrificing? How about Doctors Without Borders? How about being a journalist, going to the countries that you are certain are so horrific and bringing back the stories of horror, and sometimes, of redemption and hope?
And human rights groups don’t just do letter writing campaigns and such. Someone has to go to these countries and find out the actual occurrences of abuse, and report them. That could be you.
Or how about volunteering locally? I’m sure that there are groups trying to mediate between your local secular society at large and the more insular and fundamentalist immigrant groups. How about trying to understand and change the potential for violence there? For that matter, I understand that fundamentalists are often very conservative. Maybe they’ll appreciate your perspective, eh?
You have lots of options besides the military.
Kseniyasays
… a strong faith, which I don’t have at the moment, might help me to deal with some of my issues.
Noooo. No. No. I disagree. You need to unravel the threads, not coat them with a patina of “meaning”. Would you try to untie a knot by dipping it in laquer, and then waiting a week?
I don’t mean to say that one cannot possibly have a useful chat with a member of the clergy (my personal experience says otherwise). What I mean to say is, I doubt lack of faith is a problem, and I doubt even more sincerely that pumping up your faith to a size at which it begins to occlude your problems will solve a darn thing. Doing so will either bind you for life, or simply delay – perhaps with significantly deleterious effect – the inevitable and necessary processing of those underlying issues and the untangling of those threads.
There’s no benefit in pathologizing a relatively normal reaction to the difficult and sometimes painful transitions that life demands. Everyone has issues. Go talk to someone. Talking won’t kill you. :-)
MAJeff, OMsays
I’ve been thinking about this for a while today. Yeah, I’ve been poking Walton–and hard.
BrokenSoldier can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there’s a common thread to both of our approaches to Walton on this war issue: he’s romanticizing war and fetishizing the hero-warrior myth.
This isn’t some bloody grail quest.
And, yes, there is a higher calling than dying for your country. It’s helping other people live. I’ve worked in domestic violence and gay anti-violence programs. I’ve taught students from the high school to graduate level. Apparently, this work hasn’t been productive. {cue for, “I didn’t mean that….” which has been far too common, especially when Walton’s words keep giving him away.)
Productive labor can take on any number of forms. My sister is a hospital chaplain. I’m not fond of the god-woo, but I respect her work. She spends every day working with sick and dying people, sitting and talking with them about whatever it is they want to talk about in their last hours. I couldn’t do that. She’s not going to have some bloody hero-story told about her, but she’s there providing comfort to the ill and dying. That’s not valuable or productive?
Walton, step back. You completely missed the point of the Owen post. His last lines, regarding the lie of how sweet it is to die for one’s country, flew over your head. Instead, some parroted line about honoring valour and bravery, all of which was wasted. That war was such a colossal waste of life, and you came away fetishizing a myth and romanticizing war yet again. It’s horror. It’s a waste of humanity. It is not to be looked forward to, hoped for, romanticized, desired. And for any protestation, again, your language gives you away again and again.
A world in which fewer people were willing to kill or die for an idea is something to work for. Fantasies about martyrdom are worthless; they’re anti-human and reject life. That’s nothing worth praising. And, your fantasies of martyrdom aren’t that different than fantasies of martyrdom inspired by an afterlife. Better to improve life, to help others live, to help them experience the wonder of living, than to die.
I marched so BrokenSoldier would stay here, so she wouldn’t lose her friends and have her body damaged. She chose to serve, to take certain risks. I would be remiss in my duties as a citizen, my obligations as a human, were I to not fight to keep her out of harms way and to push my government to exhaust every option before sending her into battle. Wet dreams about war, especially when proffered as serious public discourse, are an affront to that moral duty and are all that your preferred candidates have been offering.
Living a long, routine life…how awful. What misery to have good friends. How terrible to go to work everyday at a job that is both fulfilling and makes a difference. Not being recorded in history–and instead making a child’s life better or providing pleasure to a lover or a shoulder to a friend–must be the worst fate to befall a human. On second thought, that amazing conversation and dinner with a friend, weeping at beautiful music or an awe-inspiring photo, playing peek-a-boo with a toddler on public transport, taking a bite of food and having your body melt, kissing…..those are life, and they are so amazingly worth it.
(My apologies to BrokenSoldier for any speaking out of turn.)
Kseniyasays
Jeff… Yeah.
Yeah.
I hardly know what else to say.
brokenSoldier, OMsays
Brokensoldier:
Do you mind if I copy over your experience into my own diary? It really does put everything into perspective, from my point of view.
Posted by: Notkieran | June 9, 2008 10:21 AM
No, I don’t mind at all.
brokenSoldier, OMsays
MAJeff, OM:
A world in which fewer people were willing to kill or die for an idea is something to work for. Fantasies about martyrdom are worthless; they’re anti-human and reject life. That’s nothing worth praising. And, your fantasies of martyrdom aren’t that different than fantasies of martyrdom inspired by an afterlife. Better to improve life, to help others live, to help them experience the wonder of living, than to die.
(bold mine emphasis)
Very well said, and I agree 100%. I served because of the reasons that I elaborated on earlier, but that isn’t to say that I haven’t learned a few things since then. (Walton, what follows is a perfect example of the reason that I don’t think any citizen is morally beholden to do a damn thing for their government.) I have often been asked whether or not – knowing what I know now – I would sign up all over again. I gave the question some thought, and finally decided that I would not. This is not due to any misgivings I had about the choice to serve, but rather because I believe that the government is just as obligated to the soldier as the soldier is obligated to follow the tenets of their contract. After all, a contract is binding in both directions. In light of the fact that I have had to fight so hard to get the care I need, I came to the conclusion that the Army I grew up in is one that simply doesn’t deserve the level of sacrifice it is being given by the citizens that do make the choice to serve. If they mend their ways and begin upholding their end of the bargain by actually taking care of their veterans, then I might change my mind.
But as it stands now, (and I’m definitely not trying to be self-righteous here, but rather I’m trying to give an idea of why I feel so betrayed by the military) I have to wake up every morning, at 28 years old, and know that I’ll never take another step in my life without at least leaning on a cane. I’ll never again know what it feels like to be pain-free, as the damage done to my nerves ensures. And I’ll never go another 24 hours in my life without taking an obscene amount of prescription drugs. And while there are individuals in the Army system that truly care and show compassion, as a whole the system has given me nothing but transparent equivocations and half-ass excuses as to why I’m not as disabled as the ratings say I should be. But I’m past anger now, and I’ve long since decided that I’m not letting them ruin one more day of the rest of my life.
I marched so BrokenSoldier would stay here, so she wouldn’t lose her friends and have her body damaged. She chose to serve, to take certain risks. I would be remiss in my duties as a citizen, my obligations as a human, were I to not fight to keep her out of harms way and to push my government to exhaust every option before sending her into battle. Wet dreams about war, especially when proffered as serious public discourse, are an affront to that moral duty and are all that your preferred candidates have been offering.
Walton, if you feel any moral obligation at all, it should not be to any government, but as MAJeff explains here, it should instead be toward your fellow citizens. I joined the military so my fellow citizen could choose not to if that is their desire. MAJeff showed his moral dedication to his fellow citizen by using his voice to try to keep my choice from being perverted through misuse of military force. It is only through mutual cooperation and humanistic dedication like this that we will ever improve our world and make it a better place tha it is today. Remember, we support each other, while it is the government’s job top serve us, NOT the other way around.
*Just a little side note, this brokenSoldier is a he — thought there is a family story that says my aunt just couldn’t believe it when I was born, and made the nurse pull my diaper down just to make sure… :-P
(My apologies to BrokenSoldier for any speaking out of turn.)
No apologies needed at all. It was a very astute post, indeed. When it comes out like that, I never mind someone speaking on my behalf.
Waltonsays
I’ve done a lot of apologising lately, but this particular apology is going to be sincere and much-needed: I profoundly apologise to everyone for my posts yesterday. I was feeling depressed (mainly due to real-life factors which I haven’t shared with people here) and I said things which were not entirely appropriate for this forum. I do realise that I came over as borderline mentally unstable/suicidal, but I’d like to reassure everyone that this isn’t the case.
Thank you to the several people who’ve sent me concerned e-mails.
MAJeff, OMsays
Just a little side note, this brokenSoldier is a he
Oopsie. I thought I remembered you stating being a she on another thread. Sorry for the mixup.
MAJeff and brokenSoldier, excellent posts which I am glad I read.
Walton, I would like to take back my chicken-hawk comment to some extent. I still have contempt for those who willingly send others to fight for them, for those who have contempt for my brothers and sisters, but that is the leaders and you are not one. You may be one day and I do want you to think before you get to that point. I would suggest you not serve in an active duty position until you get over the idea that war will add meaning to your life. Warfare changes you, some good, mostly bad. If you are lucky, you will experience a love for your fellow soldiers that can hardly be duplicated elsewhere, but the horrors will stay with you as well, there are still several faces that I can never forget and I hate those particular memories. Modern warfare is a lot of randomness, very little in the way of courage or a chance to prove yourself. Modern insurgent warfare in a place like Iraq or Afghanistan is tedium spiked with terror for most troops.
Walton, one other thing, stop apologizing, please. I had my therapy session yesterday and talked some about you, she suggested you might like to see someone. Being 19 can suck, why make it harder than you must? Besides, coming over as “borderline mentally unstable” does not really preclude you from posting here. (smile) Just quite apologizing and quit letting your feelings get hurt. Your political views are far enough away from most people on this blog, and I think that of most thinking Americans, that they will always draw fire. You need to let you skin harden a bit.
Ciao y’all – almost gone now, everyone play nice and let me know via email if someone actually proves gawd exists via some overly complicated logical puzzle. I am not holding my breath.
Nick Gottssays
everyone play nice – JeffreyD
Um, I think you must have forgotten which blog you’re posting to ;-)
JeffreyDsays
Nick, I forgot to put the smiley by that phrase. (laughing)
Ciao
Kseniyasays
Walton, please quit apologizing for being honest – particularly when your candor harmed no one. :-)
I do realise that I came over as borderline mentally unstable/suicidal, but I’d like to reassure everyone that this isn’t the case.
Did you? I didn’t think so. (Others may disagree.) It’s important (to me) for you to realize that my responses were not prompted by that sort of assessment of your disclosures. As I said, there’s nothing to be gained by pathologizing what is almost certainly a normal reaction to the various stresses imposed by a complex, demanding, and sometimes frightening world on the psyche of a very young man still a year shy of twenty. Please note my use of the word “man”, and not “child” or “boy”.
Sometimes I think intelligence can be a curse. As is empathy. Thinking and feeling too much, without a complementary ability to adequately self-regulate ones reactions, can be hazardous. Back in college, a friend of mine tried to slit her wrists one night – not due to any terrible circumstances of her own, but because she couldn’t handle all the pain and suffering out there in the world, and couldn’t do anything to alleviate any of it.
Or so she thought at the time. And yes, it was a terribly selfish and myopic act regardless of what prompted it. I’m glad to say she survived and is fine. She’s a kind and beautiful person, a gifted artist, who has learned not to take on the troubles of the world as if they were her own.
Anyways………
JeffreyD, please take care; you will be missed. Check in when you have a chance.
I’ve discovered that picture in another blog. This is a reprint of my response with a few edits.
Drunkard – I’ve been tipsy a few times, but never drunk.
Liar – My nose has grown a bit.
Thief – Did Napster count?
Sports fan – Go Cubs! Go Bears! Go Penguins! Go…
Blasphemer – Jesus Christ, yes!
Money Lover – I like to smooch Ben Franklin.
Pagan – Paganism is misunderstood. I’m not a Pagan anyway.
Homosexual – I’m not homosexual–not that there’s anything wrong with it.
Prostitute – I don’t think I’d be very successful in that line of work.
Witch – No, I don’t even like Harry Potter books that much.
Atheist – Agnostic, I fear commitment.
Gambler – I’d wager that nearly everyone has gambled.
Porn Lover – Can’t get enough!
Whoremonger – Nope. I don’t like diseases.
Child Molester – Hmmm…which item on this list is not like the others…
Evolutionist – Yes, I believe in DNA.
Pot Smoker – Never tried it, never had the opportunity.
Lesbian – If I were a lipstick lesbian, how hard would it be to find other lipstick lesbians?
Fornicator – Not too much action here.
Masturbator – Too much action here.
Hypocrite – I practice what I preach…if I preached.
Psychic – My guesses are usually educated.
Actually, referring to Scalia or Thomas as strict constructionists is just more buying into the hype. They are only constructionists when it suits their political agenda. There is no ‘strict’ about it.
I forgive you (Walton) for making this mistake, given your apparent choice of news sources.
As for good sources for conservative thought? That’s a tough one. George Will is one of the better (at least, more consistent), but that’s not saying much. He still tends to be highly partisan (party over policy).
I’ve always considered myself a conservative, but I haven’t voted for a republican (with very few exceptions) in at least the last decade (I’m 40 now). So very few republicans (or self labelled conservatives) actually want smaller government, which used to be the cornerstone of the conservative ideology.
Socially, I’m a liberal (very), but when it comes to the government spending my money, I want them to be more responsible than my broker, not less, because I don’t have a direct choice over where it goes.
As for conservatives only politicizing the judiciary as a reaction to the liberals doing so, I call bullshit..major bullshit.
And yes, the popular use of ‘judicial activism’ is simply decisions that conservatives don’t agree with (since it was the conservative spin machine that coined the term).
BlueIndependent
There’s actually a study that claims to show that. It was mentioned on the WSJ editorial page, and by Rush Limbaugh, so if you find your brow furrowing in skepticism, you’re not alone.
The study contained some assumptions that bordered on the surreal. Of the few I remember:
The R&D costs of the Hummer were minimized by claiming that it used many components already used in other GM vehicles, so development of those shouldn’t be charged against the Hummer.
The per-vehicle R&D costs were determined at a time when almost no Priuses (Priui?) had been sold, artificially inflating the cost of the Prius.
The estimated lifetimes of the various Hummer models were assumed to be 200K-400K miles, but only 110K for the Prius. (I especially like this one. What can you do to get a Toyota do die in only 110K miles, that doesn’t involve an IED?)
There were other equally silly assumptions. The organization performing the study consistently refused to reveal who funded it.
The whole thing was pretty clearly an attempt to manufacture a squawking point for halfwits.
On it? I thought it was a check list. Save me a seat by the fire please.
@ #503:
I figured the claim was fallacious, but wasn’t sure and didn’t want to blurt out a dumb response and look like an idiot. Fact is, I should’ve known the real story, being a car guy, and I had actually heard the argument before. I just wasn’t prepared to rebut right away. WIRED debunked that myth though, and the entire anti-Prius argument rests on the factory providing the nickel for the batteries. But then you find out that so little nickel is required for the batteries, the impact is no more than any other car realistically speaking, and the Prius still gets better MPG.
But just looking at a Hummer and a Prius side by side explains the true answer. The unfortunate thing is this garbage circulates via email, and people believe it because they feel all “M’urcan” about their rolling ego boosters.
BlueInd-
If you look real close on the sign, #23 is tit-for-tat
Blueindependent @495:
I see that my blockquote was closed incorrectly. That first line after the quote, ‘So no, “judicial activism” is not a synonym of “decisions we don’t like”‘ was supposed to be inside the blockquote as it was Walton’s statement. I do think that the vast majority of the time the term is used, it is code for “opinions I dont like” and was trying to show that to him with the case he had already admitted was legitimate. Sorry for any confusion. On the other hand, to the extent that the term has any real meaning, judicial activism has had a long history in the US. See 5 US 137.
The proliferation of Hummers across the highways of America serves as an apt metaphor for the imposition of Neoconservative foreign policy initiatives upon the face of the world.
This is actually a reasonable point, as both the H2 and H3 are just ugly boxy bodies bolted onto standard-issue GM truck chassis/drivetrains.
Which just makes Hummers even more stupid.
Late to the party, lot of posts… but has anyone yet pointed out to Walton that he is the perfect age to sign up to defend us from the civilization-threatening Islamofascists? At this point, there are a lot of foreign nationals in the U.S. Army, so he can join up, work toward U.S. citizenship, and move to Florida.
I think Walton is a sockpuppet for Jonah Goldberg.
P.S. Only seven…
Ichthyic,please post the link to THAT Coulter piece,I cant find it lol,it would seem the right time for it lol…..
see #367
have no fear, any thread I see that has at least 3 mentions of the word “Coulter” will find me posting that link.
think: “beetlegeuse”
@ Epikt:
“…The R&D costs of the Hummer were minimized by claiming that it used many components already used in other GM vehicles, so development of those shouldn’t be charged against the Hummer…”
@ #509:
“This is actually a reasonable point, as both the H2 and H3 are just ugly boxy bodies bolted onto standard-issue GM truck chassis/drivetrains. Which just makes Hummers even more stupid.”
Ehh, maybe *TECHNICALLY*. But it can be argued that while component development can’t be tied directly to Hummer models versus others, the Hummer brand exists expressly to push a big tough SUV/truck image that is loosely related to the actual military-use Hummer. Ergo, fewer trucks would be marketed and sold (possibly) if Hummers didn’t exist. Knowing GM and the amount of part sharing that takes place, you can make a case for any truck being a drag on the environment.
From my perspective, you can still blame Hummers in that they use bigger engines, are large, very heavy, are significantly less fuel efficient compared to cars, and generally require more materials to build than most cars. Am I going to push legislation that will keep people from buying Hummers? No. I think the $100+ gas prices will do that, and that is what’s being seen now, as GM’s truck sales have slumped big time, and as GM even contemplates selling the Hummmer brand off.
I honestly do not see how a Prius materially will cost the environment more than a Hummer. Look at the amount of metal used to make either. Look at the size, the weight, the aerodynamics. The Hummer is also likely to consume nearly 3 times as much gas on average. Hummers force the drilling of more wells. I can keep going, but…
windy
I’ve been trying to address a concept for a while now. Brenda, since Walton seems to be a bit overwhelmed right now, would you like to defend the claim that the sign is logically inconsistent with mainstream Christianity?
Over 500 comments! I can’t possibly address them or even read them, I do have a life. Ok… what is “mainstream Christianity”? I don’t know of any modern theologians who take the Bible as the literal, inerrant word of God as presented in the sign. Yes, the fundamentalists do and yes, they constitute a political force that is frightening. I’m not sure they represent a true statistical majority. Even if they do they do not represent modern theology. Fundamentalists are throwbacks to the 19th century.
Theology as it is taught in reputable seminaries, and no that does not include Oral Roberts U, bears no resemblance to Fred Phelps, which is most likely where that sign came from.
Would you also care to tell me how #152, #290, and #437 are the equivalent of “poo”? Otherwise, I’ll be forced to conclude that you are full of …poo.
PZ Meyers claims above that he reserves the right to judge Christianity by it’s worst examples, as do many others here. Therefore I have the right to judge you by that same measure. Is there a problem with that? If you want to be treated like an adult then act like one. Besides, if you are an evolutionist as I am then I would think you would take it as a compliment.
I think Walton is a sockpuppet for Jonah Goldberg.
sound-a-likes aren’t always clones.
He has indeed apparently drunk the same conservative kool-aid, though.
among the many mistaken notions Walton has, the notion that conservatives are fighting against “judicial activism” might be one of the worst.
In fact, if he would take the time to really examine the situation, he would find most conservative-described “judicial activism” has actually been on the part of self-identified “conservative” judges to begin with.
It’s a standard tactic of the rethuglicans in the US to accuse their opponents of the very things they themselves are most guilty of.
They’ve been doing it successfully for over 30 years now.
I’ll give Walton 2 points of leniency:
1. he’s only 18 (hell, even I voted for Reagan when I was 18)
2. He has no practical experience with American conservatism.
both things combined kinda poison the well he speaks from, but it’s really up to Walton to either drink that well water or not.
seriously, Walton, if you want to understand American conservatism as it has been practiced over the last 30 plus years, you have your work cut out for you.
…I would highly suggest NOT listening to mouthpieces for ultra-right talking points, as these folks (like Limbaugh and Coulter), are merely trying to attract your attention away from the real political issues. They’re nothing but burned out noisemakers, intended to whip up a frenzy in the nonthinking ignorant horde that the rethuglicans use as a voting block.
there’s MASSIVE amounts of information on actual politics out there, you really have no need to comb through the feces of Limbaugh and Coulter (or any other talking head) to find out what’s going on.
However, if you CHOOSE to remain ignorant; lapping up the spew put forth by these people, you will of course find people who have real experience and know better laughing at you.
up to you.
another science blogger has actually written a pretty decent book you might want to peruse:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7utk9yd_NZYC&dq=republican+war+on+science&pg=PP1&ots=6irqEbtUr-&sig=2FJizc76pLggg8czLx0D0LFAdNA&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Drepublican%2Bwar%2Bon%2Bscience%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail
We often chastise Mooney for his “special” relationship with Matt Nisbet, but really, he’s an excellent writer, and that book is a great read, and good place to start your explorations of modern conservatism in America.
Therefore I have the right to judge you by that same measure. Is there a problem with that?
not at all, so long as you don’t continue to get childishly defensive when you get corrected on your mistaken notions.
…like thinking that somehow evangelical xianity in the US is some sort of “fringe sect”.
Even if they do they do not represent modern theology
what does that even mean?
do YOU represent “modern theology”?
PZ Meyers claims…
Posted by: Brenda von Ahsen
BBZZZZZZZZZZ! You have already lost the IDiot test!
Yes, Brenda, I am laughing at you. Perhaps one of the regulars here will be kind enough to explain the joke. I am not feeling so generous.
Then how did you decide that Walton was the only one with integrity, if you didn’t even read most of the comments?
The reason I asked you to defend Walton’s claim, is that several people patiently pointed out that Walton is factually wrong: the sign does not claim that all those sinners are doomed to hell. Yet you barged in here and accused all these patient and articulate people of being poo-flinging monkeys. I hope you are a little ashamed.
A sign that mentions sports fans and pot smokers? Those aren’t in the bible at all, so your argument makes no sense. Try a little, at least.
No, PZ said that he judges Christianity by what the majority of Christians does. “Judge” me all you want, but don’t be dishonest. And your poo-flinging accusation came before you decided on this pitiful “but atheists do it too” ploy, so it’s nothing but intellectual laziness on your part.
Walton,
IMO, Ichthyic has offered some good advice.
Didn’t notice this at first. PZ claims he judges a belief system by its worst adherents, you judge people based on what other atheists do (and unlike PZ, you claim that this is a get-out-of-argument-free card). Yes there is a problem!
Hummers suck:
That’s probably the least-insane of the three points I mentioned. On the other hand, I do wonder whether the study included the cost of all the advertising designed to convince the typical American male that he’ll begin suffering from testosterone deprivation if he doesn’t buy a Hummer right this minute. Or the cost of hospitalization incurred when he decides that he’s a red-blooded American rebel who’s immune to the consequences of a shoulder-height center of mass on offramps.
Well, give them credit for fighting the Republican establishment by putting “Money-lovers” up there.
Epikt: Or the cost of hospitalization incurred when he decides that he’s a red-blooded American rebel who’s immune to the consequences of a shoulder-height center of mass on offramps.
Ain’t that the problem of almost all economics? Full accounting is tremendously difficult — both explicit accounting systems and market based systems have a tendency to fail miserably with distributed costs.
Just look at any IT department — they probably cost more in time-wastage than they save in centralization.
It’s why I lost respect for most of economics as a science years ago — the costs they account for are usually just a function of what policies they want to push.
Is it weird that I want to jerk off into the Stanley Cup?
A bit later than I’d like, but it looks like the party’s still going on here, so I tossed together a site to help collect some statistics on people’s responses at http://pnakotic.com/22sins/
It’s very bare bones, but might provide some interesting information.
#524
Is it weird that I want to jerk off into the Stanley Cup?
Weird.
…and fill it up?
Awesome.
…from here?
Walton:
I suspect that a lot of the animosity to you is based on your fanboi admiration of Anne Coulter. Her writings and comments on evolution are pig ignorant. Such promotion of ignorance to the detriment of our society is disgusting, and I don’t see how any rational person can feel anything but contempt for such a person. Therefore, I can’t help thinking that you’re an idiot. Sorry.
Incidentally, I feel the same way about Bill Maher and his anti-vaccination propaganda. He may be witty and progressive, but in the end he is contemptible.
Walton@472:
In other words, despite your feeble claim to the contrary, you DO think “judicial activism” is synonymous with “decisions I don’t like”. You really need to get your story straight!
Somehow, I doubt that.
We expect you (and by “you”, I mean actual U.S. residents) to respect and obey those rulings. They were made by people with far more experience, education, and wisdom than you. There are very good reasons we have a system of government that limits the tyranny of the majority in order to protect the rights of the less powerful. Perhaps you should reflect on that before blathering on about “unpopular policy agendas”.
You know, it’s rather funny to see someone so young, who is not an American (or even living in the U.S.) parroting nonsense like “…WE have done so in response to liberal judicial activism”, or “…what do you expect US to do?”. Where do you come off thinking there is any “us” that includes you, child? Just because you think Ann Coulter is hot doesn’t make you an honorary American
neocon fascist, er,fundamentalist whackjob, er, Republican. Quite frankly, we have far more than we need already…God! ‘SportsFan’ beat out Beastiality Again!!!!
When do we get some respect!
dabeast
I’m no biblical scholar, but I don’t recall any mention of pot smokers in the bible at all, let alone them going to hell.
Actually as I recall the bible says we’re given dominion over all flora and fauna. So how is smoking pot a hell worthy offense?
So how is smoking pot a hell worthy offense?
It’s a gateway drug to liberalism, which leads to atheism.
Isn’t it obvious?
*rolleyes*
Hey! I became an atheist about two years before I smoked pot.
Oh! Wait! Sarcasm! You could have warned me.
windy
Didn’t notice this at first. PZ claims he judges a belief system by its worst adherents, you judge people based on what other atheists do (and unlike PZ, you claim that this is a get-out-of-argument-free card). Yes there is a problem!
Here is what Mr. Myers actually said:
I judge Christianity on the basis of the stupidity and smallmindedness of the majority of its followers, and on the wretched quality of its fundamental doctrines.
Therefore, I judge Pharyngula on the basis of the rudeness and childishness of the majority of it’s commenters, and on the wretched quality of it’s fanboi discussions.
Is that better?
Re: Judicial Activism
The concept of originalism’s ladder is a useful way to understand what’s going on with the whole “strict construction”/”originalism” line of legal reasoning. [BTW, you can find the original SL post linked to in the above article here (search for “originalism”), courtesy of the WayBackMachine.]
Granted, these posts are a couple year’s old, but they are still the best articulations I’ve found on how unprincipled that theory is as currently practiced.
Walton:
“…So no, “judicial activism” is not a synonym of “decisions we don’t like”. Roe was judicial activism not because its outcome was undesirable, but because it invented a wholly new right which is not in the Constitution, using flimsy pseudo-legal argument, and thereby deprived the American people of the right to determine the laws which govern them. I would feel equally outraged if the same technique were used to produce a conservative social outcome…”
Well, African Americans didn’t exactly get their human rights in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, so your argument is flimsy at best. If we follow a 240 year-old document to the letter (btw, a letter-of-the-law strategy has never worked nor created freedom), the great majority of progress this country has made would never have happened, and indeed would be turned backward if put in place now.
Face it: Society changes, and so do legal documents. The Constitution was never meant to remain static, and the writings of the forefathers (as mythical as that sounds) explicitly show this. We were doing a fine job judicially until we started getting people on the court that wanted to turn back the clock to a time that never existed. Now those people are trying to do the very thing they accuse others of, changing the Constitution, and even expressing the want to change it to expressly exclude people. I note that the right to exclude others (gays, lesbians, etc.) is not guaranteed by the Constitution. In what way would you argue you or anyone else has the right to do so? Majority rule isn’t sufficient argument by the way…
And as far as your claim that the outcome of Roe v. Wade was not the main firepoint of criticism, um, you might want to talk to every anti-choicer out there. I guarantee they will not cite that as their first concern. No, the problem 100% absolutely was the anti-choice intentions of those that lost, and continue to lose on the issue. I have never heard a single anti-choice supporter cite the Constitutional aspect as the primary criticism, and further still, few of them ever make that claim. It’s about their moralizing over womens’ vaginas, sex, and about the goalpost shifting nature of their argument that “abortion is murder”.
Flimsy pseudo-legal arguments? Conservatives really don’t have the credibility to make this argument…in my oh so humble opinion. I’ll see your Warren Court, and raise you Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and even Bork for even attempting to get him on there.
Therefore, I judge Pharyngula on the basis of the rudeness and childishness of the majority of it’s commenters, and on the wretched quality of it’s fanboi discussions.
Is that better?
Posted by: Brenda von Ahsen
Please keep in mind that Brenda von Ahsen is a delicate little flower who gets the vapors when she reads nasty words. We all must be proper ladies and gentlemen or else she will let Seed know about all the naughtiness going on here.
Gahhh! Should be “years” not “year’s”, above.
[And I’m usually one of the Unnecessary Apostrophe Police — sigh!]
“Therefore, I judge Pharyngula on the basis of the rudeness and childishness of the majority of it’s commenters, and on the wretched quality of it’s fanboi discussions.
Is that better?”
Well, you can certainly do that. But the problem is Christians keep coming here with the same tired arguments, and we have to keep pointing them toward real evidence why their arguments are, well, wrong. Then they shuffle their feet, start stretching for hidden meanings, and ultimately end up in a dishonest mess.
Vox Day, Walton, Starbuck, Egnor, it matters not.
Fanboi discussions? If dicussing cephalopod species, the latest papers, religion in politics, and the random story about Morris, MN equate to “fanboi discussions”, well, frankly I’ll take that over all the roundabout talk of “heart”, transubstantiation, “hope” vis a vis death, etcetera ad nauseum.
Science contributes. Science gives us discovery and understanding. Science moves us forward.
Signed,
A former Christian
“Is that better?”
Yes. You get a cookie now.
Brenda wrote: Therefore, I judge Pharyngula on the basis of the rudeness and childishness of the majority of it’s commenters, and on the wretched quality of it’s fanboi discussions.
If you’re so damned smart, why are you unable to understand the difference between “its” and “it’s”?
Brenda, you may actually be a well-intentioned person, but you really are a dumbass. What you so conveniently overlook is that we supporters of science have EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE on our side, ton after ton after ton of evidence that anyone who takes the time to do some real learning so that they can understand it is able examine for their own satisfaction. We don’t have to believe anything because we simply let the universe tell us about itself by observing it. What do you superstitious trolls have? Not a shred of evidence to support your claim of a realm beyond the tangible universe. Yours is a chosen belief system built around a cobbled-together late Stone Age mythology with serious self-contradictions and massive credibility problems. You can choose to dismiss the scientific evidence as you undoubtedly will, but you do not have the credibility necessary for us to believe your claims until you can demonstrate that our evidence is scientifically invalid and you are able to likewise support your own case with verifiable, quantifiable, repeatable data that we can examine. Until you actually “get” the meaning of that and provide us with something we can observe, measure, make predictions about and repeat as many times as we wish, you are wasting your time and ours. How fervently you believe has no bearing on the reality of your belief. We don’t have to believe anything, we can see for ourselves the evidence that supports our system of understanding the universe. You have no choice but to believe, as you have no evidence. I know you haven’t understood a word of this so I await your illogical and non sequitur rebuttals with the anticipation of laughing at your thick-wittedness until my sides hurt.
Doe it really say “hypocrites”?
*irony gland asplodes*
Fuck this. I’m fed up with being called “child” and patronised because I admitted my age. As Kseniya conceded, my age was not obvious until I told everyone what it was. But now my age and nationality are used as an excuse for ad hominem attacks.
I have done nothing except put forward arguments civilly and courteously, addressing substantive points. In return, I have received uncalled-for insults from many people, impugning my intelligence, age, maturity and nationality, among other things. I’m not putting up with that.
Some of you are frighteningly hostile, personally hostile, to ideas and opinions which disagree with your own, whether political or religious. Speaking for myself, I am not capable of being offended by any idea, only by insults or hate speech. But some of you seem personally offended by the fact that not everyone in the world is a liberal atheist, and that some people who are theists and/or conservatives might dare to advance their views.
I am not going to insult atheists by suggesting that this is a characteristic of atheism. Trite as it sounds, I have plenty of atheist friends and acquaintances in real life, and most of them do not behave like this. I don’t know whether the problem is that people are more aggressive on the Internet – where they aren’t accountable for their behaviour – or whether it’s simply that this blog has a higher proportion of unpleasant people.
Thanks to Nick Gotts, Kseniya and a few others who have engaged constructively and respectfully with my arguments. But they are in the minority.
I will concede that there are some points on which I have been defeated. For instance, I can’t defend orthodox Christian teaching on theodicy, because it seems to me nonsensical that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and yet that evil persists in the world and that Christ, allegedly, had to die to save us from the consequences of sin – if God is truly omnipotent, why was that necessary? Religion isn’t really my field. But I can argue conservative politics all day, and would continue doing so; but since I’m evidently going to be insulted, attacked and
patronised at every turn, I have better things to do.
Hence I will not be posting here again except to clear up any misunderstandings and misconceptions.
To those of you who have been constructive in argument – Kseniya, Nick Gotts, Dave, frog, etc. – thank you. I hope you don’t consider me idiotic or ill-informed, and that we can disagree respectfully.
Walton, I encourage you to stay and I will continue to read your posts. I do not like or agree with much, if any, of what you say. In fact, I took an instant dislike to you with your first postings and nothing has changed. Still, I do encourage postings that challenge the majority view in any venue. If you do continue to post along the lines of what you have to date, you will be savaged periodically. It is good for you as you are still forming your opinions and ideas and defending them will help sharpen your insights.
Your age is immaterial to me and I always dislike someone making age a point of contention. I know a lot of people my age, late 50’s, who I would not allow to run a snow cone stand, much less make decisions on my rights.
One point, which others have made, if you want to be taken seriously in any group of people who can tie their shoes without assistance you probably have to drop your fondness for Ann Coulter. Calling her a conservative should be something at which conservatives take offense. She is just a demagogue with a good gig. I truly believe she would be a flaming liberal if there was more money in that.
If you would like to read a conservative who does think and writes very well, explore Florence King. Until recently, she was a columnist for the National Review and has many books and columns still available. She is a gun toting, cigarette smoking, lesbian Republican. I would suggest reading Molly Ivins and Florence King in turn to obtain a somewhat balanced view of American thought.
Ciao
Shorter Walton:
Blah fucking blah blah, waaaaah.
You obviously didn’t read my immediately previous post. It equally applies to you. You have no arguments based upon tangible evidence, you have uninformed opinions and unfounded assertions many of which are largely attributable to the folly of an easily-led youth. That is not ad hominem, any more than is pointing out your monumental ignorance. Come back when you have more and better evidence than assertions with no foundation. I don’t give a flying fuck if you respect me or like me, you are irrelevant to the issue, as am I. The evidence is all that counts and you have none. Buh-bye.
Can I double up on these by being a “lesbian porn-lover”?
Spencer-
Can I double up on these by being a “lesbian porn-lover”?
NO. But if you ever have a buddy over to watch the lesporn together, that would probably qualify you for homosexual.
Add 1 hellpoint for creative, salacious thinking.
.
.
Really, Brenda, come on! You just admitted that you didn’t read all the comments. How do you judge a majority of commenters by a minority of them?
And reading all of the comments, by the way, would not be evidence enough to judge Pharyngula on. Confirmation bias, and all.
Fuck this. I’m fed up with being called “child” and patronised because I admitted my age. As Kseniya conceded, my age was not obvious until I told everyone what it was. But now my age and nationality are used as an excuse for ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: Walton
First, I will call your bullshit about being patronised because of your age. There are commentators who are also open about their age, the same age as you. There is no problem.
The problem is the nature of your argument, they are weird. You are an eighteen your old brit, yet you use “we” when you talk about what american conservatives do. You express disagreement with some core populist conservative talking points, i.e. homosexuality is evil; so much so that it appears you do not know the realities of the situation. And on top of it all, you moan about ad hominem attacks. This after you express admiration for two people who made their respective careers on ad hominem attacks.
I told you this before, place your lot with the indefensible and you will get grief for your efforts.
As for your claim that *nn C**lt*r was taken out of context of a legitimate point, I also call bullshit. She speaks in sound bites. There is no context to be had except for the surface.
Walton, stop identifying with modern american conservatism, develop your own identity and stop your sobbing.
So Brenda, you cling to your misrepresentation of PZ but can’t defend your assertion that the sign represents the the Bible “as the literal, inerrant word of God”! Where are pot smokers in the bible?
Bwaaak bwak bwak bwak bwaaaak!
To Janine ID at #551.
First, I will call your bullshit about being patronised because of your age. – People have been calling me “child” in a patronising manner, often prefixed with “ignorant”. (See Fergy, supra #529, and MAJeff in various posts.) This did not happen until I disclosed my age.
You are an eighteen your old brit, yet you use “we” when you talk about what american conservatives do. – And where is the problem with me choosing to do so? My age and nationality should be completely irrelevant to the validity of my argument. Just forget I told you anything about myself, and think of me as a 30-year-old American small-town conservative if it makes things easier.
You express disagreement with some core populist conservative talking points, i.e. homosexuality is evil; so much so that it appears you do not know the realities of the situation. – Plenty of conservatives do not believe that homosexuality is evil. Don’t lump all conservatives into one homogeneous box; it’s as empirically inaccurate as asserting that all Democrats are flaming socialists. Even Bill O’Reilly, a hate figure for the left, has dissented somewhat from the Catholic Church’s line (he’s a practising Catholic) in expressing support for gay rights (though not gay marriage). Some self-identified strong conservatives, such as Grover Norquist, don’t disclose their religious or moral views at all, and have no recorded viewpoint on homosexuality. And even as early as the 60s, Barry Goldwater was in favour of allowing gays in the military; are you saying he wasn’t a real conservative? Furthermore, even those conservative figures more hostile towards homosexuality (Jerry Falwell, for instance) have consistently condemned the clownish stupidity of Fred Phelps and his ilk.
As to Ann Coulter, I wish I’d never mentioned her. Since I brought up her name in a single throwaway remark, every other post directed at me seems to be about Ann and how much you all hate her. I am not Ann Coulter, nor am I responsible for her public relations. So it would be nice if we could talk about something else for a change.
I am guessing that the main reason you object to Ann is her bizarre viewpoint about evolution and intelligent design. For the record, I do not agree with her on that. She’s a political pundit, not a scientist, and I always get the impression that she’s out of her depth when talking about science (as indeed am I, but I recognise my own failings in this regard). I don’t turn to her as a source of scientific information.
Hope that clears things up.
I am guessing that the main reason you object to Ann is her bizarre viewpoint about evolution and intelligent design.
Wrong, at least so far as I’m concerned: I hate her because she’s a lying scumbag who justifies wars of aggression.
“Roe was judicial activism not because its outcome was undesirable, but because it invented a wholly new right which is not in the Constitution”
Actually, there are countless rights that are not in the Constitution. For example, the Constitution does not say that I have the right to stand in my driveway on one leg during a rainstorm singing Judy Collins songs. Yet, if my local city council tried to pass a law saying I couldn’t do it (provided I was not “Disturbing the Peace”) it would never survive a challenge. Why? Because the constitution does not give government the authority to govern such things.
This is the point to remember about the Constitution: the constitution is a directive for the GOVERNMENT, not for the citizens. It tells the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do.
The USSC, in Roe vs Wade, ruled that the Constitution does not allow the government to create laws restricting access to an abortion.
The question answered in that case was not, “Is there a right to an abortion in the constitution” but “Is there something in the Constitution that allows government to makes laws against abortion?”
Failing to find the latter, they ruled the law to be unconstitutional.
The Ninth Amendment makes it very clear that it doesn’t have to be stated as a right in the constitution to actually be a right:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
So even if the USSC did “invent a wholly new right” then they were allowed to do it.
I actually, seriously hit 16 out of 22 here. I’ve been a bad, bad boy. See you in Hell!
Walton: And where is the problem with me choosing to do so? My age and nationality should be completely irrelevant to the validity of my argument. Just forget I told you anything about myself, and think of me as a 30-year-old American small-town conservative if it makes things easier.
In an extended conversation, which this is, the “agenda” and internal coherency of the players becomes important. Where in the case of a single-round game, the ad-hominem and related attacks are illegitimate, when the conversation becomes a multi-round, global argument (which it has clearly has become: conservatism vs. the world), the rules change. We long ago left arguing the original post (where you would have a point), and entered the continuing cross-thread conversation.
It does appear “weird” that you identify so closely with American conservatism. It is fair to wonder where your argument is going — is it authentic (ie, are you make identity claims that aren’t true)? is it sincere (are you just bullshitting)? are you arguing in good-faith (I think you have shown that — very few trolls ever agree that they’ve lost a round)? Is your position across conversations coherent (are you just arguing conclusions and not process)? Is your judgement sound enough to make continuing the conversation worthwhile (are you some crazy fascist or Maoist under it all)?
You have to recognize that most arguers who take your position on this blog fail at most if not all those points. It honestly is difficult to give credibility to the judgement of someone who takes pure propagandists like Rush or Coulter seriously. And there is an underlying difference in logic between the scientific, materialist, empirical mindset of most of the readers here, and your movement’s scholastic, idealist, legalist system of interpretation; misunderstandings will be rife, and actual understanding will be worse (I think many people would actually be more aggressive if they fully understood the underlying assumptions of your viewpoint!)
The flames just reflect that. If you want to keep on playing, don’t take the flames too seriously — sometimes hyperbole is wonderfully clear, even if it is impolite. It’s part of the rhetorical space you have chosen to enter.
Walton, go look at the rest of the comment where I called you a little boy. Go look at what else I said.
Now, you can come up with individual examples of conservatives who aren’t anti-gay. Whoop-dee-doo. What you seem to be intent on denying–and what I as a participant in and student of these political battles, along with plenty of the rest of us are pointing out–is that the conservative movement, despite isolated individuals, is deeply anti-gay.
It isn’t only the religious right, either. McCain himself supports an amendment stripping all recognition of gay couples as families. No rights, no protections, no benefits. Not families. That’s “moderate” conservatism for you. We’ve gone around about Lawrence. You keep up with the silly “original intent” and “strict constructionist” without paying any attention to the fact that McCain wants to appoint justices who agreed not only with the right of the state to break down doors and arrest people for having private sex, but supported the existence of the law. But of course, we can’t also mention conservative lawmakers in North Carolina blocking the repeal of that state’s sodomy laws (even though unconstitutional), resulting in two men being charged with sodomy lately. Because, after all, no one supports sodomy laws anymore, and there isn’t an entire conservative legal infrastructure trying to undo not only Roe, but also Lawrence and Griswold. And of course, we should avoid any conversations about conservatives refusing to support hate crimes inclusions or non-discrimination policies regarding gay men and lesbians, nor should we mention the ways that the Bush administration removed job protections for gay and lesbian federal employees, blocked any pursuit of sexual orientation discrimination claims, and targeted gay-specific HIV prevention and treatment programs for audits.
Nope, nothing anti-gay about the movement whatsoever. Nothing. Those isolated individuals are the reality of conservatism. That must be why we have no DOMA, why those men weren’t arrested, why McCain has decried attempts to limit the rights available to gay men and lesbians, and why we’re protected from discrimination in federal law. You’re right. Conservatives rawk!
Pablo #555 – While your analysis makes sense in itself, this isn’t how the Supreme Court actually justified Roe. The District Court invoked the Ninth Amendment, but the majority in the Supreme Court expressly rejected this argument and instead relied on an implied “right to privacy” in the Fourteenth Amendment, basing this on earlier cases such as Griswold v Connecticut. Justice Douglas, in his concurring opinion, even went so far as to say “The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.” I think it’s pretty clear, as I’ve said on another thread, that the framers did not intend the Ninth Amendment to be used by the judges to invent new rights. Rather, they meant that the enumeration of specific rights in the Bill of Rights did not exclude or eliminate the traditional rights of citizens conferred by (English) common law, or by state law, or other sources.
For example, the Constitution does not say that I have the right to stand in my driveway on one leg during a rainstorm singing Judy Collins songs. Yet, if my local city council tried to pass a law saying I couldn’t do it (provided I was not “Disturbing the Peace”) it would never survive a challenge. Why? Because the constitution does not give government the authority to govern such things. – I agree that such a law could be struck down, but it might well fall under various enumerated rights, including the First Amendment right to freedom of expression, and the rights to property and privacy conferred under most state constitutions. I find it incredibly implausible to suggest that if such a law were enacted and then challenged in court, the court would strike it down without referring to any specific enumerated right in either the US Constitution or a state constitution. Can you name me a case where such a rationale has been used?
And where is the problem with me choosing to do so? My age and nationality should be completely irrelevant to the validity of my argument. Just forget I told you anything about myself, and think of me as a 30-year-old American small-town conservative if it makes things easier.
Sorry, I have the same reaction to anyone who expresses themselves in the royal “we”. And the simple fact you do this at a remove makes it more of a problem. Imagine if I were to use “we” when talking about what the military junta in Myanmar.
Plenty of conservatives do not believe that homosexuality is evil. Don’t lump all conservatives into one homogeneous box; it’s as empirically inaccurate as asserting that all Democrats are flaming socialists.
How very disingenuious. Many of the most prominent american conservatives do just that. The most prominent american conservative who decried homophobia was Barry Goldwater and he was well out of step with modern conservatism the last few decades of his life.
Furthermore, even those conservative figures more hostile towards homosexuality (Jerry Falwell, for instance) have consistently condemned the clownish stupidity of Fred Phelps and his ilk.
Sorry to point this out but Jerry Falwell was a greater threat to my existence then Fred Phelps could ever hope to be. Jerry Falwell was better able to influence the enacting of anti-GLBT laws. Just because one crazed asshole thought that an even more crazed asshole was clownish does not absolve Falwell of all the harm he has done. And Falwell creating more misery then Phelps.
As to Ann Coulter, I wish I’d never mentioned her. Since I brought up her name in a single throwaway remark, every other post directed at me seems to be about Ann and how much you all hate her. I am not Ann Coulter, nor am I responsible for her public relations. So it would be nice if we could talk about something else for a change.
What? So you can better cloak what you find admirable? If I were to say in a throw away line that I admire Che (WHICH I DO NOT!), would you let that slide. Or would you see that as one more sign about how I think?
I am guessing that the main reason you object to Ann is her bizarre viewpoint about evolution and intelligent design.
No! I hated that person years before her stupid advocacy of ID. In the context of everything she has spewed out over the years, it came as no surprise that she supports ID. I object to *nn C**lt*r because she is a child of privilege who espouses a sheer contempt for everything that does not fit in her fantasy world. Her ideal world would be a nightmare for 99.99 percent of humanity. She is a worthless waste of time.
Hope that clears things up.
I am guessing that the main reason you object to Ann is her bizarre viewpoint about evolution and intelligent design. For the record, I do not agree with her on that. She’s a political pundit, not a scientist, and I always get the impression that she’s out of her depth when talking about science (as indeed am I, but I recognise my own failings in this regard). I don’t turn to her as a source of scientific information.
Wrong. She’s a provocateur and radical propagandist, not a serious commentator. That you turn to her as a source for anything is troubling.
Evolutionists? Is that along with Gravitionists or Einsteinists? What next, musicians? Elvis fans?
Must be running out of real estate in Hell, now that just about ever male on the planet is destined to go there. Heaven must be intolerably dull. Maybe God slips down and wears a fake beard (aka Life of Brian) to watch a game or two.
I have noted that for a number of people here, gay rights seems to be the most important issue, or among the most important issues. That’s fair enough. I sympathise.
And like I said, I am not in any sense anti-gay or homophobic. Homosexuality is not illegal, and homosexuals, like all other law-abiding citizens, deserve the equal protection of the law. I am also, as I have clearly said, in favour of same-sex civil partnerships, which should confer all the same financial benefits, inheritance rights etc., as a marriage. (Indeed, I’d extend the same concept to non-sexual partnerships, such as cohabiting siblings. Any two people who live together legitimately, in a relationship of mutual trust, should be entitled to legal recognition of that relationship and to all corresponding rights and privileges.)
Where I, and many other conservatives, do draw the line is at the enactment of certain anti-discrimination laws regarding private organisations. If a church or other private religious organisation does not wish to recognise the legitimacy of a same-sex partnership, then they should not be forced to. In a secular country with freedom of religion, you’re under no obligation to support that church or religious organisation in any way; and they should have the right to enact whatever internal rules they see fit.
To address one topical issue which perfectly illustrates this: I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to exclude homosexual members and scoutmasters. However, I also believe that public funding and support (where they receive it) should be withdrawn from the BSA, since an organisation which discriminates in this way between one law-abiding citizen and another should not receive state funding.
In short: the government, and all institutions thereof, should be required to extend equal rights and protections to LGBT citizens, just as it does for any other citizen. However, private citizens and organisations should be free to act on their own moral conscience as regards their own private property. This, I think, strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of homosexual people to equal protection and the need to preserve freedom of religion and conscience.
Sorry for this rambling. I’m just clarifying what I, personally, believe, and doing my best to dispel any suggestion that I’m hostile towards homosexuals. I don’t speak for the conservative movement as a whole, just for myself.
“The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.”
No, it does not CREATE those rights, because those rights already exist!
Rights exist regardless of whether the are enumerated or previously delineated.
BTW, if “rights to privacy” exist in common law (you’ve said it’s in state constitutions), then how is invoking a right to privacy “inventing a new right”?
The question is, where does the constitution allow the government to restrict abortion?
Walton-
Glad you decided to jump back into the fray- Good on ya mate!
This, like most active blogs has a wide mix of contributors. There are great wits, nitwits, prols, drolles, and trolls. But there are nuggets of incisive truth, so act like a gold miner, keep sifting through the tons of mud and cherish and keep the occassional valuable booty.
Walton: I find it incredibly implausible to suggest that if such a law were enacted and then challenged in court, the court would strike it down without referring to any specific enumerated right in either the US Constitution or a state constitution. Can you name me a case where such a rationale has been used?
Thank you for proving that originalism never existed, except as a political dodge for covering up naked power plays. If originalism had existed, then the “unenumerated rights” argument would clearly be a major player — it’s one of the original 10 amendments, for chrissakes!
But it has been loudly ignored for two centuries — because it clearly makes the US government, as it has been practiced from it’s inception in 1789, impossible. It makes the entire governmental system of the US static, if read plainly. Every power that is not explicitly given to the federal government, as understood in 1789, is forbidden to the federal government.
That’s not a conservative agenda — that’s an impossible utopia, given that the US constitution is explicitly designed to be unamendable except in the most extreme case — 100 year old concensus or martial law.
Once again, sit down with the Articles of Confederation and the 1789 constitution, and read them side by side. It is trivial to show that any modern understanding of the constitution — conservative, liberal, fascist or marxist! — is incompatible with the cultural and historical context of its original implementation. It’s the reason why eternal contracts are nonsense — meaning is never stable enough to outlast 3 generations.
Strawman alert!
I guarantee you, those gay people fighting to get married aren’t insisting on doing it in a Southern Baptist church.
The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize civil marriages right now (gay or not). Why would anyone think they will be forced to in the future?
Religions can allow whoever they want to marry. Who cares? We are talking about the Government.
Sheesh.
9 or 11, depending on definitions.
I don’t think you will find any “Evolutionists” here, whatever that means. If by “Evolutionist” you mean “people who acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for evolution”, then yes you will find us here.
That’s not a hard concession to make, since no one has successfully solved the problem of theodicy. But you couldn’t even defend your original claim in this thread, that the sign is “completely divergent from mainstream Christian teaching in its ideas about sin, salvation and redemption”. (Other than that all Christians would not agree on the list of sins, which is a red herring since there is not a consensus mainstream Christian list of sins.)
As I said before, you might be a bit overwhelmed being in the minority here and I don’t blame you for turning to discussing something more “fun”, like politics. But as a poo-flinging monkey who lacks integrity (interestingly your sensitive insult radar had no problems when Brenda said that), I think it’s interesting to note this.
To address one topical issue which perfectly illustrates this: I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to exclude homosexual members and scoutmasters. However, I also believe that public funding and support (where they receive it) should be withdrawn from the BSA, since an organisation which discriminates in this way between one law-abiding citizen and another should not receive state funding.
Posted by: Walton
So, are you saying that you disagree with dubya’s “Faith Based Operation”?
You know what? If you were to try to have a discussion with those you admire about some of these issues, you would be dismissed as a socialistic liberal. Once more, I implore you, rethink what you are defending. You have no ground to stand on.
Windy at #569: I admit that I read the sign somewhat incorrectly at first. It isn’t inherently inconsistent with mainstream theology. However, I do also think that this kind of condemnatory, “burn in hell” kind of Christianity is counterproductive, and contrary in spirit (if not in letter) to what Jesus taught.
Christian teaching is that everyone – everyone – is a sinner, not just certain defined groups of people. Assuming a literal “hell” is presumed to exist (which depends on how you interpret the relevant scriptural passages), every single person – regardless of their sexuality, apparent virtue, etc. – would be going there, were it not for the sacrifice of Christ. Whether or not they are homosexuals, masturbators, gamblers etc. has little to do with it.
Christianity is not supposed to be an excuse to hate, or to feel superior to people who live a “less moral” lifestyle. That was the attitude of the Pharisees in Jesus’ time, and you may note that, according to the Gospels, he was extremely critical of their teaching – and he chose to spend time with prostitutes (Mary Magdalen), tax collectors, Samaritans (who were viewed as heretics), and other people who were condemned on moral grounds by Jewish religious society. So this is why I feel that this sign, if not fundamentally contradictory to Christian doctrine, is at the same time not commensurate with the original spirit of Christ’s teaching.
Don’t get me wrong, I find some Christian teaching bizarre myself, which is why I’ve moved away from trying to defend it head-on. But this is why I was not keen on the idea that “this sign represents the way Christians think”. It doesn’t – or, at least, it shouldn’t. If it does, then American Christianity is in a rather poor state, morally and spiritually.
It’s already been explained to you many times that this No True Scotsman approach doesn’t really work.
Janine ID at #570: Yes, I know some American conservatives would view me as a borderline liberal. I was treated with great suspicion on Conservapedia (where I used to be an editor) because I don’t subscribe to young-earth creationism, among other things.
But I agree essentially with most of the goals and principles of the conservative movement. I agree with reducing the size of government; less taxation; judicial strict constructionism; a strong military; and an interventionist foreign policy which involves taking the war to the terrorists. All of these things are very important in choosing which candidate to support. I might be more liberal than McCain on gay rights etc., but because I agree with his stance on foreign policy, the economy and other key matters, I prefer him to Obama or to any other possible candidate.
In the end, isn’t partisan politics always like that? Does anyone agree with every single viewpoint of their chosen party or candidate? Ultimately, it’s just “best fit”. One picks the candidate who is closest to one’s own views.
…American Christianity is in a rather poor state, morally…
I know, I am cherry picking here. But Walton, you are so close to the truth. Believe it or not, I am rooting for you to understand this and move on from honoring bad personalities.
To Pablo at #572 – Would you not acknowledge that it is possible to have respect for the teachings of Jesus and for Christian doctrine, without defending every single person (or even the majority of people) who term themselves Christian?
Indeed, it would be logically impossible to defend everyone in history who has called themselves a Christian. From Oscar Romero, to General Franco, to Martin Luther King, to George W. Bush, to Oliver Cromwell, to Jeremiah Wright, to Barry Lynn, to Jerry Falwell… all these people had completely different political ideologies and philosophical outlooks, but all were devout Christians of one kind or another.
So is it so wrong for me to argue that the purveyors of sectarian hatred, and those who have a Pharisee-like “I’m better than you” moralising condemnatory attitude, are not representative of the spirit of Christian teaching? And am I so wrong in the theological argument I made at #571 above?
Sheesh! Avert your eyes from this blog for a day or two and suddenly there’s 550+ comment threads! Being a regular Pharyngulite is starting to look like a full-time job! Has anyone figured out how many more words per day that PZ the average regular commenter writes?
Anyway, I’m so thoroughly hellbound that it’s easier to note the exceptions:
In the “not habitually, but I can’t claim never” category…
In the “not me, but I don’t object” category…
Finally, in the “Hell, no, not me! These people really are going to Hell!” category…
BTW…
Sounds fascinating. I’ll have to check her out.
The very idea gets me hot. Not that getting hot will do me — a cranky old married straight male nonsmoker — any good in this instance. ;^)
Walton, please, show me where those people legitimately fighting for legal recognition of same sex marriage are simultaneously demanding that all religious institutions perform said marriages?
Right. You can’t. Because that’s a strawman at best.
If the Catholic church wants to say that two women can’t be sacramentally married, that’s an issue for the members of that church to deal with – not anyone outside of it. Just as it’s an internal matter for them to say that a Catholic can’t marry a Jew or a Buddhist sacramentally.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what a religion says about who can or cannot be married – it’s the LAW that I’m concerned with. Hell, I think it’s ridiculous that civil marriage and religious marriage have become so co-mingled.
Oh, and if you count everything I’ve done in my past, consider occasional tipsiness to make me a drunkard, and count agreeing to have sex because it was just easier after a dinner date than actually having to make conversation as prostitution then I score 14. I’ve never smoked pot. You can raise it to 15 if you add “whore-monger”, since if solicitation and running a whore house were legal, I’d happily be a madam.
You’re cracking me up, dude! A teenaged “editor” at Conservapedia – that explains a lot. You keep explaining what you think christianity is “supposed to be” while conveniently overlooking what it actually demonstrates itself to be. By your logic, we should love communism because it claimed to be a movement of the people. Perhaps if you started to define things by what they present themselves as rather than what they purport to be you would end up with a more realistic appraisal.
Walton: However, I do also think that this kind of condemnatory, “burn in hell” kind of Christianity is counterproductive, and contrary in spirit (if not in letter) to what Jesus taught.
This is almost hopeless. Have you read the material like the dead sea scrolls from Israel in the first century? The spirit that would be consistent with the historical context is what these fools are selling — it is inconsistent with mainstream christianity, which fits with the “spirit” of many centuries later.
There is no “authentic” Christianity — primitive Christianity was likely much more similar to these fundamentalist than orthodox teaching.
It’s always the problem with the scholastic attitude — consistency with dogma is the core of that kind of analysis.
Is it wrong for you to argue that? Of course not. You can believe whatever you want. What is wrong is for you to think that what you believe constitutes “true” Christianity is a compelling argument. That’s the No True Scotsman fallacy.
But I agree essentially with most of the goals and principles of the conservative movement. I agree with reducing the size of government; less taxation; judicial strict constructionism; a strong military; and an interventionist foreign policy which involves taking the war to the terrorists.
I cannot help that this is all a bait and switch action from “conservative” leaders. Under Reagan and the Bushes, the government grew and it’s operations became more cloudy. Also, how can a strong military be grown and maintained with low taxes. The current tax rebates while military spending keeps going up is going to be a heavy burden for decades to come.
As for McCain, he was smeared by dubya and the religious right back in 2000. Now he is whoring himself to those nutcases. How will this effect his administration if he is elected.
If you are looking for a conservative voice that has a great grasp of what the current crop of “consevatives” are doing, I suggest Kevin Phillips. Try reading American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush and American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century.
And keep in mind, Barry Goldwater style conservatism has been ignored by the american right since the days of Nixon. By this point, I am badly repeating myself, but you show admiration for the most vile people. But you also seem to be too thoughtful to be a part of that. The simple fact that you left the insanity that is Conservapedia is a point for you. Now keep thinking.
Walton (@571):
Not for nothin’, but hasn’t the notion of Magdalene as a prostitute been pretty much abanoned these days?
Walton#563:
Um, no…
If you thought about this for a split second, you would realize the sheer idiocy of your comment. Religious organizations have no such “right to enact whatever internal rules they see fit”–just ask the Catholic Church how their “internal rules” regarding pedophile priests worked out…
I did ten of those last weekend. Hooray for me!
Walton, not to jump back so far in the conversation, but I want to address a point. Your age and nationality specifically. This has become an issue because it clarified some naivety on your part. You don’t seem to really understand what conservatism in America actually is or what the majority of conservatives actually believe.
I’ll say this: if more conservatives thought like you, I don’t think we’d have a lot of the problems we do now.
However, they don’t. I live in Texas, they don’t think like you. Not by a long shot. You would be a liberal to them. Are you beginning to understand?
If we modified Walton’s formulation a bit, so that it was that religious organizations have a “right to enact whatever internal rules they see fit, as long as those rules don’t violate the laws of the larger society,” we might have something. But even then, the interaction between religious self-governance and secular law is complex: What about a practice that is technically illegal (e.g., ingesting psychoactive drugs or giving wine to minors), but which is [a] a key element of religious practice and [b] arguably harmless to anyone other than consenting participants?
While I haven’t read the whole thread, it seems to me that Walton is seeing a world with stark, bright-line disntinctions between public and private, religious and secular, etc. In my experience, the truth is more that there are complex, nuanced, and somewhat hidden interactions between those aspects of life, requiring a subtler, more situationally relative approach. While I generally uphold the principle of treating all commenters the same regardless of age, perhaps this sort of nuanced worldview is an attribute of maturity.
To Bachalon at #585.
I don’t think I’d necessarily be viewed as a liberal overall. But yes, I will concede that my views on matters such as gay rights and the role of religion in society, while perfectly centrist and mainstream in the UK, might be considered mildly liberal in the US. However, my views on the economy, foreign policy, the role of government, law and order, and immigration are all unapologetically right-wing.
To put it another way. I have “conservative” positions on the following issues:
1) Taxes – I support reducing levels of direct taxation; we have far too much in the UK. In a US context, I admire Bush’s tax cuts and the abolition of estate (inheritance) tax, and I think we should do the same thing over here.
2) Foreign policy – I support keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I support a “hardline” stance against terrorism, and taking the war to the enemy.
3) Law and order – I endorse the death penalty in a limited subset of circumstances (though I think the current “Death Row” system in many states is needlessly barbaric). I am undecided on whether we should reintroduce it in the UK.
4) Drugs – I 100% support the War on Drugs and think that a hardline anti-drug policy is the right way to go.
5) Immigration – needs to be tightly controlled. In a US context, I would support tightening border controls and strongly oppose amnesty for illegals.
6) Education – I support school choice. I think a partnership between the public and private sector is the way forward.
7) Strict constructionism (obviously this is a US issue only, since we don’t have a codified constitution in the UK). I have already elucidated my position on this at length.
8) I am sceptical of anthropogenic global warming and of the environmentalist movement.
9) I am pro-life and would generally prohibit abortion, except where the woman’s life is threatened by childbirth.
In contrast, my “liberal” (well, moderate) positions are as follows:
1) I support same-sex civil partnerships (though not marriage).
2) I support the separation of church and state, broadly speaking. I don’t think public funds should be spent directly on religious institutions, or in a manner which overtly favours a specific religious denomination or sect. In the US, I recognise that the First Amendment mandates an even stronger line than this (whereas in the UK we technically have an Established Church).
3) I don’t support the teaching of creationism (or intelligent design) in schools. It seems unconvincing to me in light of the scientific evidence, and I am willing to defer to the findings of the vast majority of the scientific community (being acutely aware of my own ignorance so far as science is concerned). The evidence raised in Kitzmiller v Dover further convinced me that it isn’t really science.
4) I recognise the need for some state regulation of civilian gun ownership; in particular, no civilians should possess automatic weapons (since they have no legitimate purpose for sporting or self-defence). I don’t oppose the gun control laws we have here in the UK. However, I would also acknowledge that in the US, the Second Amendment does constitutionally guarantee the right to bear arms (though I know this is presently under legal dispute).
So, with this in mind, do you really think I’d be classed as a liberal in Texas? (I’ll defer to your expertise, since I’ve never been there.)
Walton may be thinking of a recent UK controversy over adoption by same-sex couples. Despite pressure from the Catholic Church (backed by other religious bodies), a law has recently been passed that forbids adoption agencies discriminating against same-sex couples. These agencies are not state-run, but depend on public funds, which reinforces Bill’s point about the grey areas between public and private. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6311097.stm
Walton: But I agree essentially with most of the goals and principles of the conservative movement.
Every time I look away, you give more evidence of my analysis — and I think it’s generally applicable to conservatives and other similar “movements”, left and right. The goals and ideology override empirical evidence — you don’t say that you agree with their analysis on point A & B, but you privilege the results — “goals and principles” — over the analysis that would lead to them. Probably not intentionally, but in practice. Otherwise, it is highly unlikely that you would agree with them in general — any collective is going to be 50% garbage.
Ideology is mankinds most wasteful pursuit.
Walton, yes you would. By even allowing some abortions given extenuating circumstances, by even questioning the death penalty (I personally know 2 people who have tried to find a way to be able to be the person that actually does the execution. Lucky for all of us, that is handle by prison staff), by supporting the wall of separation, by even uttering the words “gun control” (we take our guns very seriously here), and last by not doing all you can to get creationism in school (there’s a big flap going on with our board of education right now).
For even daring to break with the party line here, that makes you as much a liberal as Barack Obama (who by the way isn’t a liberal). Texas is a very conservative state. I could tell you some horror stories about what I heard following the decision of the Lawrence case. For someone like me, a self-identified liberal socialist with strongly atheistic and feminist leanings who is also gay, anywhere outside of Austin is not the friendliest place. You can still find a lot of people here (I live in a small town outside of Houston) or are openly racist.
Bachalon #590 – Really? That is bizarre, considering that I’m one of the most right-wing members of my university’s Conservative Association.
I could tell you some horror stories about what I heard following the decision of the Lawrence case. – I’m aware that Texas is a very conservative state, and it does seem bizarre and pointless to most British people that Texas still had anti-sodomy statutes until they were struck down in 1997 (we repealed ours, without any need for judicial fiat, in the 60s; they were barely enforced even before that). But are you really telling me that many Texans actually want to send police round to citizens’ bedrooms and arrest them for engaging in consensual gay sex? Are there not more important things to spend public money and resources on (given the high general crime rate and drug problems in US cities, for instance)?
I disagree that Obama isn’t a liberal, but I will say that my problem with him is not so much with his substantive domestic policies (does he even have any?) as with his lack of experience. I also, as stated, disagree vehemently with his policy on Iraq. Withdrawing troops would be an absolute disaster. (Hopefully he will realise this if he is elected.)
McCain himself has, of course, been labelled as a liberal by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. No doubt some of the Texans to whom you refer would regard him as a liberal. However, I’m roughly in line with him on most issues (except perhaps immigration) and I regard him as a conservative.
If you support any form of gun control, Hell yeah!!
(I’m joking, but only just barely.)
Actually, I think that if you lived here in the U.S. you’d have a very hard time finding a candidate to vote for, or any community of like-minded people with whom to caucus: Mainstream conservatives wouldn’t like your tolerant positions on “God, guns, and gays”; Libertarians who might like your (somewhat) tolerant stand on same-sex unions and your support of lower taxes would hate your positions on drugs and guns; folks who agreed with you on separation of church and state would wonder how you could be “pro-life” (which really means “anti-choice,” and on specifically religious grounds); homeschoolers and voucher fans who liked your support for “school choice” would consider you a traitor on the teaching of creationism….
The problem is that you’re looking at conservatism as a coherent philosophical construct, and it really isn’t that in practice (to be fair, almost no political movement is). Instead, it’s a yoking together of shared emotions, gut feelings, and preconceptions. I’m not saying there are no thoughtful, intellectually honest conservatives; I’m only saying that they’re rare among leaders of the conservative movement… and when they do appear, they’re generally considered iconoclasts.
Um, not quite – ever hear tell of someone named Alan Mathison Turing?
To Bill Dauphin at #592: I agree that it is difficult to label myself precisely within the conservative movement. I used to regard myself essentially as a libertarian, but over time I’ve become more hardline on law and order (particularly drugs), and I’m a strong neoconservative/hawk as regards foreign policy. (Hence why I didn’t support Ron Paul; he’s very good as a senator, but I vehemently disagree with his stance on national defence.) I’m evidently not part of the “religious right” either, due to my opposition to creationism in schools.
I would say that my underlying philosophical rationale, inasmuch as there is one, is a belief in qualified liberty. That is to say, prima facie, I trust human beings to make their own decisions about their lives, without government interference or control; hence low taxes and a free market economy. However, this is qualified by the fact that the proliferation of certain social ills – such as drugs – is harmful to all of society, and, by contributing to crime and social breakdown, ultimately limits everyone’s freedom and enjoyment of life. Thus I’m not a pure libertarian. I also recognise the fact that “freedom doesn’t come free” and that we are at war with global Islamic terrorism, and therefore that we need to fight to defend our freedom.
Re abortion, I don’t think it’s a religious issue at all, and I don’t understand why it must always be lumped together with same-sex unions. There is no persuasive secular argument against same-sex unions, since there is no evidence that they do society any harm, or affect anyone except the persons who choose to enter into them.
Abortion, on the other hand, boils down to this: at what stage of development does a fetus become a human being, and therefore merit the protection of the law? Since we don’t have a definitive, objective answer to this question (as we have no idea at what age a human consciousness develops), I would err on the side of caution and consider a fetus to constitute a human being from its earliest stages of development. This is nothing to do with religion; it’s a secular argument. Hence why I oppose abortion. If it were just a religious matter, I would not wish to impose it on the rest of society as a matter of law, since we live in a plural, secular society in which no one religious view should be imposed.
Walton: Since we don’t have a definitive, objective answer to this question (as we have no idea at what age a human consciousness develops)
Once again, have you bothered to look at the empirical evidence? Myelination of the CNS isn’t complete until an infant is about 3 months old — so human consciousness is impossible until that point. Just pick up a neuroscience textbook before spouting off on neuroscience.
For god’s sake, it just isn’t that hard to refuse to hold an opinion until you’ve bothered to have a passing knowledge of the underlying empirical reality!
Walton,
And perhaps you might be starting to understand the differences between where you are and were I am.
Whoa, I forgot to close my tags. Sorry ’bout that.
We vegans would like to remind you that it’s not only human consciousness which deserves our consideration.
For humans, there’s a point near 20-26 weeks in the womb when pain may begin, and every M.D. looking at the data can tell you this. Not coincidentally, you’ll have a hard time finding an M.D. offering abortions after the 20th week. Walton forgets that the ethics he’s concerned about are also taken into consideration by people who’ve given the Hippocratic oath.
It is unethical to fail to educate one’s self on the facts pertaining to what one calls ethical issues.
There’s a copy of this post with a link in moderation. I apologize for my impatience. Walton, come back to it when it appears, please.
Walton:
Good that you said “used to” there; a law-and-order, hawkish/interventionist libertarian would be a major oxymoron.
First, he’s a congressman (i.e., a member of the House of Representatives), not a senator. Functionally (and often temperamentally), there’s a big difference between the two. Next, the man is a dangerously radical nutjob (I was living in Texas back when he was getting his start in politics). The problem with “smaller government” conservativism in the U.S. is that rather than having the goal of measured, rational reductions in government bureaucracy, it’s usually code for the desire to completely tear down whole functions of the public sector that the right wing finds ideologically intolerable (e.g., public education, social welfare infrastructure, etc.). Paul’s position on school choice, for instance, is really a Trojan Horse that would have the effect of eventually bankrupting (and therefore abolishing) the entire enterprise of public education.
I was engaging in no such lumping in this case… but since you ask, the reason abortion and gay rights often end up in the same conversation is that many of us liberals perceive the other side’s position on both issues as deriving from fundamentally puritanical ideas about sexuality. Both abortion and homosexuality challenge the orthodox religious/conservative view that the only legitimate expressions of human sexuality occur within “traditional” (i.e., heterosexual, monogamous, open-to-God’s-gift-of-children) marriage. No doubt there are principled opponents of abortion who are genuinely (albeit misguidedly, IMHO) concerned with the “sanctity of life,” but there are many others who believe (and even a few of them will admit this) that abortion, like contraception, is bad because it allows sexual “sinners” to escape the consequences of their sin.
The argument boils down to what constitutes personhood, and virtually everyone who tries to define that as anything other than independent life (i.e., having been born) ends up making reference to some concept of a metaphysical soul. That may be “nothing to do with religion” in your mind, but I assure you that as a political movement, in this country, opposition to abortion has everything to do with religion.
I think this is the problem with your take on American politics: You see what people say, but you don’t have the secret decoder ring, which can only be gotten by digging around in the cereal box a bit. I’d face the same issues were I to try to comment on British politics, don’t you think?
Can we please not turn this thread into yet another pointless debate about abortion? The discussion has already gone so far off the rails as to have no relation to the original topic of the article, which by the way, OMITTED any mention of abortion (but did include “sports fans”, who apparently are a whole lot worse, I guess…)
To Bill Dauphin at #599. I don’t have time for a full reply now, but I’ll make a few brief responses.
First, he’s a congressman (i.e., a member of the House of Representatives), not a senator. Functionally (and often temperamentally), there’s a big difference between the two. – Apologies, I misspoke. I do understand the difference between a Senator and a Congressman; I’m extremely familiar with the US system of government.
I am fully aware that most pro-lifers are religious and base their opposition to abortion on religious grounds. Rather, the point I was trying to make is that there’s no logical reason for viewing it solely as a religious issue; it ought to be an ethical dilemma for everyone, religious or not. There would be nothing inherently contradictory about being a pro-life atheist.
…there are many others who believe (and even a few of them will admit this) that abortion, like contraception, is bad because it allows sexual “sinners” to escape the consequences of their sin. – I am aware that some people oppose abortion as part of a broader outlook on sexual morality generally. But I am bemused (and slightly horrified) that anyone would see it as some sort of “punishment for sexual sin”; for one thing, what about young girls who become pregnant as a result of rape? Or where naive young teenagers become pregnant, having been emotionally and physically exploited by older men? In those cases, telling them that they had to keep the baby purely as some sort of bizarre “punishment” would be not only unjust, but barbaric. Rather, the reason why I would not necessarily endorse abortion in such cases (unless the girl’s life was endangered by childbirth) is that I do see the fetus as a human life. I acknowledge the evidence presented above by some people, and as I’m not a doctor, I’m not qualified to have any sort of intelligent opinion on when a fetus becomes, in any meaningful sense, a human being; but as I said, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. I don’t deny your assertion that some people might well see it all in terms of “punishment for sexual sin”, but if they do make such an argument, I think they’re both wrong and ethically repugnant (and fundamentally out of step with Christian values as well: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”)
I’d face the same issues were I to try to comment on British politics, don’t you think? – Maybe, but British people are exposed to a lot more information about American politics (especially during an election cycle) than vice versa.
Walton: … I do see the fetus as a human life. I acknowledge the evidence presented above by some people, and as I’m not a doctor, I’m not qualified to have any sort of intelligent opinion on when a fetus becomes, in any meaningful sense, a human being
????
Really — ???? WTF?
You should never ever say “I’m unqualified to have an intelligent opinion in field X, but I have strong opinions on field X”.
“I’m not an engineer — and have never studied the field — but I strongly believe that steel in unusable in bridges”.
“I’ve never studied physics, but most assuredly the Copenhagen interpretation implies the psychics are real”.
“I’ve never opened a bible, but I’m convince that Jesus was an alien being”.
“I’ve never studied the constitution, the law or semantics, but we should definitely apply originalist theories”.
If you think you should have an opinion on something — go study a field for a while, even as a layman or dilettante, then come back when you at least have a reasonable argument for your position, other than hand-waving “the safe position is”.
Why does this come from the right so often? Every asshole has the right to an opinion, but that doesn’t mean that they’re opinion is of any value! If anyone should know that, it should be a conservative.
Sad that even the Milk Snatcher was better on reproductive rights than Walton. How does a person become so divorced from reality that he thinks a blastocyst has rights?
their their, frog
Well, I’ve accepted the limits of my current knowledge and I’m more than willing to learn. We’re waiting for the link posted by Grammar RWA (#598 above) to get through moderation, which may add extra scientific information to this discussion.
You may note that I have repeatedly acknowledged, on every thread, that the physical and natural sciences are entirely outside my area of expertise. Unlike areas which I do know about – such as foreign and defence policy, military studies, and constitutional law – I have only a basic understanding of science, and on scientific points I’m more than willing to listen to the experts, of whom there are many in this forum. So I’m intentionally not purporting to be knowledgeable about this subject.
But if medical science could give us a conclusive, or even a good, answer as to when a fetus becomes a human being – when the nebulous concepts of “humanity” and “consciousness” develop – then surely there would be no ethical controversy over abortion, because everyone would agree that a fetus either is, or is not, a human being?
There’s no scientific content in my link. But hell, you can get a decent education by googling pain+weeks+fetus if you have any grasp of biology.
But then I realize that if you’re studying law, and you don’t know how to tell reputable scientific journals from non, you’ll be adrift in the ocean. Ask KillerChihuahua and friends.
It’s not a fetus until the 9th week. Before that, it’s an embryo.
So, Walton, not only do you continue to prove yourself to be an ignorant little boy, you have shown yourself to be a lying ignorant little boy. It’s been a day since the manipulative tantrum in which you assured everyone that if you were referred to as an ignorant little boy again that you would stop posting, yet here you are still flapping your jaws with abandon. I suppose it’s unfair to expect a little boy to demonstrate his grown-up-big-boy integrity and stand by his own word though, isn’t it?
Walton, how do you define “human being?” Because right now, from what you’ve said, you strike as a person without empathy. Great, so the psychological trauma of having to carry a rapists baby to term means nothing to you? Only a man would ever say such a thing. What would you tell a girl who asked to get an abortion in such a case?
Congratulations, once again you show your astounding ignorance of how beliefs and politics actually intersect in this country.
To Milo Johnson at #608 – I shouldn’t even be responding to abuse like this. Frankly, I think it’s pathetic that you feel the need to attack me in this manner; and that you are so sickened by the idea of someone disagreeing with your strident views that you see fit to call them an “ignorant little boy” in an attempt to get them to leave.
You are an embarrassment to atheism (just as hatemongers like Fred Phelps are an embarrassment to theism). Most people on this forum are at least willing to engage constructively with my ideas and discuss them. Unlike you, I can respect others as human beings even where I do not concur with their ideas.
I am not going to reply to you again, because I don’t want to be drawn into an insult-flinging match, nor do I intend to sink to your level. And no, I am not going to stop posting just to make you happy. I’m going to continue discussing issues constructively with other members of this forum, and ignore any further abuse I receive from you.
Milo, you ass, shut up. Some people, Nick Gotts and others, are enjoying talking to Walton, and you’re trying to lower others’ enjoyment of this blog. If you don’t want to read him, get firefox/greasemonkey/killfile.
Fergy:
I haven’t really been talking about abortion, per se. I’m talking about the unspoken (and often somewhat hidden) ulterior/ideological agendas that lie under ostensibly principled political positions; the politics of abortion is just one example. For instance…
This is precisely the example that proves my earlier point: It makes perfect sense for abortion foes to carve out the nearly ubiquitous “rape-and-incest” exception if you think of unwanted pregnancy as the consequence of sexual sin: Since there’s no sin in being raped (unless you happen to be a Muslim woman, of course), it’s acceptable that you should be protected from the consequences. OTOH, people who truly believed (as virtually all abortion opponents claim to) that the fetus was morally equivalent to a born child wouldn’t support any such exceptions: Since when, after all, do we execute children for the crimes of their biological fathers?
If, as I suspect, the unacknowledged basis of most folks’ opposition to abortion is largely religious notions of sexual morality, that’s a problem for someone who wants to be a pro-life secularist… which goes back to my earlier point about Walton not matching up to any one American political definition as well as he(?) imagines.
As for your complaint about thread drift, what do you expect after 600+ comments? Howevermuch I disagree with his politics and think he’s naive, Walton strikes me as thoughtful about and engaged with the world around him. In what sense is chatting seriously with a bright young foreigner who’s interested in U.S. politics a bad thing?
Fixed it.
To Bachalon at #609.
What would you tell a girl who asked to get an abortion in such a case? – In all honesty, I have no idea. That would be a horrific moral dilemma, and it would be both arrogant and false of me to pretend I had an easy answer.
I’m sorry that you see me as a person without empathy. I’m really not like that in real life, but I appreciate that this may not always come over in my discussion of abstract political issues.
To Grammar RWA and Bill Dauphin (#611 and #612): Thank you.
I really don’t care who is enjoying chatting with the child, and I really don’t care if the child engages with me or not. I simply pointed out his dishonesty, inconsistency, and immaturity. If you don’t like my comments, you are welcome to ignore them yourself.
To respond to Bill Dauphin at #612:
OTOH, people who truly believed (as virtually all abortion opponents claim to) that the fetus was morally equivalent to a born child wouldn’t support any such exceptions. – And, indeed, I don’t support exceptions for rape and incest, harsh and unsympathetic as I may sound in saying so. Once the fetus has passed the point at which we can regard it as a human being (whenever that may be, and this is the area which is open to dispute), it is only acceptable IMO to kill it if the mother’s life is directly at risk.
It is, of course, perfectly clear (as you point out) the views of many abortion opponents are, in practice, bound up with a condemnatory morally-conservative (perhaps rather Pharisee-like) approach to sexual behaviour. I don’t disagree with you that this is a major factor in the political thinking of the American religious conservative movement. But I am merely arguing that there is a secular justification, and that my “pro-life” stance is genuinely just that – I want to preserve innocent human life.
I know that this raises absolutely horrific moral dilemmas, such as cases of rape. And I do think that, in the worst possible scenario – where an underage girl is raped and becomes pregnant – the shock and harm that a full-term pregnancy would cause to her, both mental and physical, is a valid argument for allowing an abortion. In such a case, even if she were physically able to carry the baby to term, condemning her to do so would be functionally equivalent to destroying her life, and I think that may outweigh the life of the fetus. So I’m not making an absolute blanket statement here. (Just as killing a human being to save another is not always wrong.)
Translation: I don’t really believe in forced birth and brood mares for the state, I just play an anti-choicer on the internets.
Read Pandagon, Walton. But I don’t recommend you post there; you’ll get your ass handed to you.
Um.
Have you read this? It’s by Carl Sagan, addressing the issue of fetal development of the brain.
http://www.2think.org/science_abortion.shtml
Do you have an argument against his suggested critera of detectable brain waves? Read the first, second, and third parts as well.
Starting here:
pandagon*blogsome*com/2006/12/26/some-reproductive-rights-links-to-consider-while-digesting-christmas-leftovers/#comment-307482
And why can Owlmirror post links but not moi?
It has nothing to do with lacking empathy or being a man; he’s just being more logically consistent than most abortion foes are.
Personally, I don’t think anyone should be forced to carry anyone’s baby to term for any reason, but if you believe (as I do not but Walton seems to) that the embryo/fetus is a true human person with full rights, then its mother’s psychological trauma, however tragic, is no justification for its murder.
As I said before, the fact that pro-lifers do carve out the rape-and-incest exception gives the lie to their pretense of defending the sanctity of life. This, along with the fact that those who would criminalize abortion (e.g., the South Dakota ban) never propose the sort of penalties that murder would demand, is what convinces me that the so-called pro-life position is fundamentally disingenuous. They pretend abortion is murder in order to give their position moral weight, but they don’t act like they really believe it because, I think, they don’t believe it, and they know nobody else does either. IMHO, “pro-life” is almost always code for “anti-sex,” which in turn is a fundamentally religion-based position.
And that’s why I (politely) called Walton out on (among other things) his claim to be both pro-life and secular.
Owlmirror at #619: That’s a very interesting article, and no, I hadn’t read it before or been presented with that argument. Indeed, it addresses precisely the area I was concerned about.
I always felt that “viability” was a flimsy point of distinction to use, ethically; is the capacity for independent survival – which, of course, is not possessed by some human beings; consider the position of some terminally ill and disabled people – a logically valid criterion? However, I’m pleased to see that Sagan moves away from that line of argument.
Since I’m not terribly familiar with the science (as I’ve already conceded), I hadn’t come across the idea of using detectable brainwaves as the relevant criterion. But it certainly seems less arbitrary than any of the other factors, since it is ultimately the workings of our brains which makes us human, and brain activity is the only physical factor from which we could possibly infer any sort of human consciousness.
So no, I don’t have a rebuttal for that line of argument, and I’m going to have to go away and reconsider my thinking on this. (I hope this makes clear that I am open-minded and willing to consider new information when it comes up.)
Understood… but when I chimed in you seemed to be trying to place yourself in an American political context (e.g., would you be a liberal in Texas); if you want to do that, you have to understand what that context really is (as opposed to what it claims to be). You personally may be able to reconcile pro-life advocacy and secularism; you won’t find many fellow travelers in American politics.
Stipulated. And if you reject some arbitrary definition of in utero “viability,” you’re left with only two logically reasonable milestones to consider: The beginning of gestation (i.e., the moment of conception) and the end (i.e., birth). If you stick strictly to biology, it is (I fearlessly assert) patently absurd to call a freshly fertilized egg a full-fledged person… which leaves birth as the only defensible secular definition of the beginning of a human person’s life. To argue otherwise, it seems to me, you must posit some sort of metaphysical ensoulment event… and then we’re right back to religion.
See why I’m skeptical of the yoking of pro-life and secularism?
I think, perhaps, the conclusion I can draw from this is that I don’t fit exactly into an American conservative niche. My social (as opposed to economic or foreign-policy) views are slightly too “liberal” (in the broadest and most nebulous sense of the word).
Yet I will say that I can read a column by a conservative author, such as Ann Coulter, and generally agree with the overwhelming majority of its content. So if one is faced with a simplistic choice of being labelled as “conservative” or “liberal”, I think “conservative” fits me a lot better, even in America. Don’t my free-market economic and hawkish foreign policy views outweigh a moderate stance on social and moral issues?
I also hope I’ve shown that while I’m by no means infallible, or even particularly brilliant, I do try my best to be open-minded and intellectually honest, and I do rethink my views when presented with new information or compelling arguments (such as that presented by Owlmirror above regarding abortion). I’m not a knee-jerk adherent of everything that leading American conservatives say.
I’m genuinely saddened that Milo Johnson considers me an ignorant child, and I don’t know what I’ve said to give him that impression. I hope that he will revise this assessment at some time. I can’t help being relatively young, but I don’t think I’m stupid or ignorant, and I haven’t knowingly lied. I acknowledge that I have been wrong on many things in the past and that I may be wrong now.
In the sense that they lead to an ever-increasingly stratified and authoritarian society which trends toward eliminating social freedoms and individual ethical decision-making, yes.
Walton, he called you an ignorant child because, no offense, you sort of are. I know you detest bringing age and nationality into this, but you were the one who revealed both. You can’t decry others using that; no changing the rules in the middle of game.
I’m going to be honest, when I found out both, a lot things made sense. Specifically some startling, er, ignorance of how politics and beliefs in American actually work. To your credit, you’re fairly well-read, certainly more than most people I encounter, but there’s a large difference between reading something (like say, a virgin writing about sex) and actually experiencing it. That’s the difference. You don’t really know how conservatism and conservatives work here. You can’t without being here.
There is no shame in being ignorant. I myself am ignorant of a great many things. If someone points that out, I don’t get upset. Rather, I see it as something new to be learned. You seem to suffer from the same problem that many here in America do: they take it as a personal insult, often interchanging it freely for “stupid,” yet strangely enough, not doing anything to remedy it. They wail long and loud about how dare someone call them ignorant.
But it’s true: you are ignorant, and in this increasingly infantilizing culture, you are not yet an adult. I won’t call you a child, but you do have a lot of rather…immature views on things. You seem stuck on a lot of things, which the main obstacle being that, again, you haven’t experienced things.
You express shock over the fact that sex could be considered a punishment to some people. Yet it is. People here talk about how sex is a gift from god, yet they oppose comprehensive sex aid, free contraceptives and the morning after pill, thus making sex a punishment.
I’m not quite sure what else to say. It’s good to see you questing after knowledge, but one thing you have to understand here: most of the commentators here are both older than you and are natives of this (being America) country. Just keep that in mind in future postings.
Aye, Bachalon, but Milo flat out told him to leave. I mean, he isn’t J.
You don’t really know how conservatism and conservatives work here. You can’t without being here. – I take your point. I’ve never lived in the United States or experienced it first-hand. I am, as you say, very well-read in American politics and I do understand the mechanics of it; but I do realise that there’s a gap between academic knowledge and daily experience.
You express shock over the fact that sex could be considered a punishment to some people. – No, I was expressing shock at the idea that someone would want to impose pregnancy as some sort of “punishment” for having illicit sex (Bill Dauphin asserted above that this is part of the rationale behind many pro-life views in the US). If this were taken to its logical conclusion, one would have to conclude that sexually transmitted diseases are a punishment on people for having illicit sex, so we shouldn’t try to cure them – and that would plainly be a ludicrous and barbaric view. I was merely trying to explain that my rationale for opposing abortion was radically different to that.
For the record, I’m not particularly “pro-sex”. I don’t think sex before marriage and sexual promiscuity are positive things for society at all. But I don’t think I have the right to try and impose my personal moral views on others.
Thank you for being polite and respectful in your tone. Milo Johnson, whatever he may have meant, was a long, long way from being polite and respectful, hence why I reacted to him with hostility.
And these defenses of Ann Coulter! When I was a reichwing Christian, I still wouldn’t have associated myself with such small-minded tripe. She is shitlicking low.
The woman feels it acceptable to invoke homophobic slurs against political adversaries. The social acceptability of that language correlates with gay-bashing. It says a lot about Walton.
Limit one per customer, sir.
I am, as you say, very well-read in American politics
ROFLMAO
Is that what you call perusing the spew of Limbaugh and Coulter?
being well read?
that’s fucking hilarious!
like I said, you should consider becoming a comedian when yo grow up.
Yet many hold that view as well. Whatever has colored your view of American politics and discourse is truly different from the reality on the ground here.
Mmmm. I can’t resist exploring this psychic dungeon, Walton.
Why do you believe sexual partners should not confirm that they are compatible before they sign legally binding contracts? I don’t think I’d buy a used automobile from you.
And why should the pleasures of the body not be experienced by those who prefer their lives be absent such contracts?
And do you make exceptions for gays who live in states where they can’t marry?
Oh and Walton, as you are a fan of Coulter, perhaps you’d like to take PZ’s challenge.
Grammarboy, you don’t have very good reading comprehension despite your cognomen, do you? I didn’t tell the child to leave, I reminded him that he bluntly stated that he was going to stop posting if anyone called him an ignorant little boy again, and that he did not keep his word after I called his bluff and did so. Get it right, especially if you want to be the self-designated comment referee. And Walton, as far as “polite and respectful” goes, you have to earn that from me and if you present yourself as an ignorant little boy in the manner you have, I will grant you neither. You came in here to prove something, you made a fool of yourself, and you are trying to deflect the accountability for your own tantrum-induced words by whining that I’ve been rude to you. You come to a noted atheist venue and think that you’re the one that can reinvent the wheel and convince us that your fairy tale isn’t a total load of crap, and you don’t seem to realize that you’re about the twelve thousandth troll to do so just in the time that I’ve been reading and writing here. I find it telling of your own inner neediness that you think that I’m susceptible to the argument that I “make atheists look bad.” First, atheists are already the most hated group in this country, so I can’t really drag unbelievers into the mud. Second, I’m not in a club, I don’t care what anybody else thinks of me or what I think, I’m not trying to persuade you or anybody else, and when you start throwing asinine and juvenile assertions around like you initially did I’ll continue to call you out on it. So, put up or shut up. Either keep your word and take a hike, or admit that you said something juvenile and stupid in a moment of rashness and take the responsibility that a real man does. Earn a little respect like an adult does, or stop pretending to be one.
Not to mention that he supports the death penalty…
What is it with people like Walton who can’t see their own hypocrisy? (Oh, wait! That’s on the sign, isn’t it?)
For the rest of the record, the more common term for what you’re saying you’re not, particularly, is sex-positive. Just so’s you know… ;^)
BTW, a note of clarification: I wasn’t saying that people want to proactively impose pregnancy as a punishment for sex; rather, they think that disconnecting sex (e.g., through contraception and abortion) from its “natural” consequences (e.g., pregnancy and disease) makes it easier to “get away with.” That is, they see contraception and abortion (not to mention Gardasil!) as anti-deterrents to sexual sin.
This, BTW, perfectly in line with market-based economic conservativism, which claims that individuals in the marketplace always respond rationally to cost, and that the sum of those individual rational responses is, by definition, Good. This is also why they want us to be careful comparison shoppers when, for (a very personal) example, an only child has just been diagnosed with a brain tumor.
[Hmmm… I just realized that last sentence seems scary. No worries: It was years ago, and my daughter is fully recovered. But the idea that people should be responsible for making rational purchasing decisions in the middle of such a crisis just frosts me. If I ever needed it proved to me that the laissez-faire approach to healthcare policy was the bunk, that experience did the trick.]
I don’t even need to read between the lines, Milo. There’s no possible honest reading where your “I suppose it’s unfair to expect…” comment doesn’t mean “leave.”
If we’re going to keep this up, though, I must insist that you buy me dinner first. The dangers of promiscuity, and all that. Or is mutual mental masturbation not sex?
Walton: If this were taken to its logical conclusion, one would have to conclude that sexually transmitted diseases are a punishment on people for having illicit sex, so we shouldn’t try to cure them – and that would plainly be a ludicrous and barbaric view.
So many conservatives in the US are barbaric. It was actually an argument here (and continues to be), whether giving teenage girls the HPV vaccine was “moral” — that protecting them from disease was a sin!
As well, your hero Ronny Ray-gun Reagan and his allies fought quite vocally against funding research into AIDS — since it was a punishment from The Big Guy for gay sex.
Really Wally, you’ve put yourself in bed with unrepentant barbarians by your own admission. This is the core of the American conservative movement. If you don’t agree with these views, you don’t agree with what American conservatism is, and has been, for the last 30 years. It’s barbarism, pure and simple.
Maybe some of your other views are just as barbaric? You have to consider that, if you agree on so many positions with barbarians.
Frog, good call. Walton, there is a sizable contingent of conservatives here that oppose the HPV vaccine because they feel it would give girls (always girls) a “license to have sex.”
For another thing, look up Dr. Reginald Finger. He was suggested as a name for the FDA by Focus on the Family. He was the only member of the review committee to oppose Gardasil. He’s on record saying he’d oppose a cure for AIDS since it would eliminate the so-called “disinhibition factor.”
He is the rep of FotF, a fairly mainstream conservative organization here in the US. These are the people you want to align yourself with?
You really do have some literacy issues, don’t you? The referenced “I suppose it’s unfair to expect…” comment clearly meant exactly what it said, that he didn’t follow through on his declared ultimatum and that it was unlikely that he would be man enough to keep his word. Nobody forced him to make that declaration and now he doesn’t want to admit ownership of it, but instead hides behind feigned hurt feelings and looks for the sympathies of others. Why don’t you let the child fight his own battles, anyway? You simply don’t have a piece of this dispute and I’ll thank you to mind your own damned business. Do I need to find smaller words or do you get it now?
Nobody forced him to make that declaration and now he doesn’t want to admit ownership of it, but instead hides behind feigned hurt feelings and looks for the sympathies of others.
I’d have to agree with Milo here, that does appear to be what is happening.
Walton wants to play “the poisoned well” card, but repeatedly (by telling us his age, his sexual status, etc.) seems to be intentionally poisoning his own well.
can’t have it both ways:
he can either claim the ignorance of a child, and look to BE informed, instead of trying to inform the rest of us.
or he can stop whining about the fact that he intentionally poisons his own well, and we end up reacting to that.
Why do you [Walton] believe sexual partners should not confirm that they are compatible before they sign legally binding contracts? – Grammar RWA
I’ll leave Walton to answer for why he does, but a couple of thoughts on how he can:
1) He probably thinks premarital sex is a decadent modern invention, and doesn’t know that in many very traditional societies, marriage followed pregnancy, because to remain childless was a great economic and social disadvantage, so you needed to be sure you were fertile with your chosen partner.
2) By his own account, he’s never had sex, so he doesn’t realise that for most people it takes practice. If you want to risk a disastrous wedding night, Walton (I’m assuming you’re straight), then fine, abstain from premarital sex. (I’m reminded of a cartoon I saw years ago in Private Eye, showing one man saying rather smugly to another: “I’ve been a practising homosexual for twenty years, and now I’m rather good at it.”)
I gotta ask–what IS Walton’s main area of study? ‘Cause unless it’s American Government and/or Political Science, he’s got some nerve barging in and throwing his under-fermented opinionating around like a heavyweight pundit.
And if it IS AG/PS, he needs to take a few more upper level courses before he opens his mouth on a blog full of ‘Mericans to tell us what’s what…about our own system, no less.
Unless, of course, we are free to dump on him about the various issues and failings of, say, Thatcherism. Or the humanitarian idiocy of the Commissariat during the Crimean War. Or the various excesses of Oliver Cromwell. Or the woodenheadedness of the Admiralty. Or the way the Polish Cryptographers were sidelined over the whole Enigma thing…
The MadPanda, FCD
NG: He probably thinks premarital sex is a decadent modern invention, and doesn’t know that in many very traditional societies, marriage followed pregnancy
And by traditional you mean Western, and specifically British-derived cultures. In the 17th century, one study (read many years ago before my dementia set in) found that in Maryland, more than 50% of marriages were officialized after pregnancy. There was betrothal, and marriage only followed if the bride got pregnant.
That’s the whole point of the wedding band deposit – man gives wedding band of significant value to protect the woman in case he backs out after impregnating her, but man won’t get married until he confirms fertility of the couple. You don’t get any more Britishy and Puritan influenced than the mid-atlantic colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries, do you?
Part of the great American (and Anglophonic) self-delusion.
Walton’s main area of study is, clearly Walton.
Guy’s an obvious narcissist, and pompous about it ta boot.
I damn well do, Milo, unless your sexual hang-ups are equally interesting and you’re volunteering for a public probing.
Walton’s main area of study is, clearly Walton.
Guy’s an obvious narcissist, and pompous about it ta boot.
on the nosie.
In response to Frog and Bachalon at #641 and #642: Yes, sometimes I’m embarrassed to be a conservative when these people make their more ludicrous comments. But as you well know, it’s an unfortunate fact that the American right relies on their support, and so their views can’t be ignored. It’s a sacrifice which, as I understand it, must be made in order to hold together the fragile conservative coalition.
I admire Reagan greatly, for his role in winning the Cold War, saving the American economy from disaster, and building a strong, united and healthy conservative movement (which sadly has fallen apart under GWB, since he’s polarised conservatives and made religion more of a divisive issue). But I don’t have time to argue all of that tonight (it’s nearly 1am where I am) and don’t want to clog up this already-immense thread with twenty more political issues. Basically, though, the point I’m trying to make is this: the two most important political issues are the economy and national security/foreign/defence policy. Those are the issues on which I typically agree with conservatives. Therefore, in order to ensure that the right things are done in these areas, it’s necessary to get conservatives into power, and in pursuance of that aim it’s necessary to ally oneself with some of these slightly bizarre people on the religious right. This is all I’ve been saying all along; I haven’t been intending to actually defend indefensible viewpoints.
Re the remarks about premarital sex, that’s a personal moral belief which I don’t think I need to justify, since (as already expressly stated) I don’t want to impose that personal belief on other people. In the interests of an efficient, harmonious and non-dictatorial society, it’s best that people’s private, consensual activities, provided they don’t hurt anyone else or infringe anyone else’s rights, should not be matters for the state to control. The state is not the arbiter of morals (and, indeed, the scariest totalitarian regimes in history have been those which have taken on that role). I doubt anyone here will significantly disagree with that. Therefore, as I’m not imposing my beliefs on anyone else, I don’t see why we need to argue the point.
I admire Reagan greatly, for his role in winning the Cold War, saving the American economy from disaster, and building a strong, united and healthy conservative movement (which sadly has fallen apart under GWB
you REALLY need to drink less kool-aid.
I’m embarrassed to be a conservative when these people make their more ludicrous comments
I-R-O-N-Y
Walton, my lad, Ronald Reagan did NOT win the Cold War. He was just in at the end…and ultimately his vision has lost the peace.
Or maybe you’ve forgotten where your bestest buddy, bin Laden, got some of his initial funding?
The MadPanda, FCD
Because your attitudes contribute to a dangerous culture in which sex is something to be feared, and that hurts people, specifically, everyone who grows up in that culture. It hurt me and I can see it sure as hell hurt you.
You made a moral statement: X is wrong. Even if you aren’t planning to use the state to enforce it, you’re still responsible for backing up your reasoning. Or else morality and ethics are not serious enough for public discussion.
Translation: it’s not that I believe women, gays and brown-skinned people don’t deserve rights. It’s just that there are other priorities more important than letting them have those rights right now. Surely they can wait until the next round of bigots dies off. And the next round, and the next round, because public discussion of personal morals is off the table so we can’t make headway on that front either.
Walton: It’s a sacrifice which, as I understand it, must be made in order to hold together the fragile conservative coalition.
I hate that argument — to ally yourselves with the most obtuse and criminal barbarians, to lie to them (which is what that coalition does) and use them, and then risk having them take over the coalition and revert society to barbarism.
At the risk of Godwin, this was the same mistake that German center-rightists made in the 20s & 30s. “Oh we don’t believe in all that fascists crap, but they’re useful tools in a coalition against the Red Menace”. Anyone who plays that game deserves to have their ideas eliminated from society — just as the German right has been now for over half a century for that mistake. It’s also what has happened in Chile and Argentina for the right’s roles there in military dictatorships.
Ye shall be judged by your allies — your opponents will not be forgiving if you drag us into the dark ages. Allies of theocrats should be shown the same mercy that allies of bolsheviks have been shown.
Walton,
That sounds suspiciously like you’re saying that the ends justify the means. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Poisonous views can most certainly be ignored. Who cares if they agree with you otherwise? I like the idea of socialized medicine, but I’ll be damned if I seek help from people who also think people with strong religious views should be sterilized.
If they’re indefensible, why do you want to ally yourself with them? You don’t get it, do you? The moment those people are in power, they will turn on you for all the things you don’t see eye to with them on. These are not the people you want to court. If you are right, then all you need is evidence and sound reason. You don’t need to recruit lunatics who probably don’t know shit about fuck but only think that way because they’re told to.
Then why the fuck are you so intent on casting your lot in with people who think that part of the state’s job is to police the bedrooms of people they hate?
THEN WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SO INTENT ON CASTING YOUR LOT WITH PEOPLE WHO EMPHATICALLY THINK THE STATE SHOULD ENFORCE NOT JUST MORALS, BUT THEIR PARTICULAR MORALS?
Then I have nothing further to say to you. If you can’t understand why we disagree so vehemently, then you truly are an ignorant fucking child.
oh, I gotta go out, but as far as Reagan’s “economic contributions”?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/13/72111/695
again, if you rely on the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh for your education, you’re going to be laughed at for being an imbecile.
there’s something I really don’t get, though.
why is an 18 year old brit stuck on coulter and Reagan?
any REAL UK’ers care to comment on whether that is common or not?
I rather suspect “Walton” is pulling our collective chains.
Thanks for answering, but as frog said, modern Christian behaviour bears only a tenuous connection with Christ’s original teachings. You are moving the goalposts in saying that instead of criticizing prominent Christian behaviour, we should discuss some idealised version of Christianity.
I hope you don’t deny that actual Christians very frequently do point to some acts as more sinful or immoral than others.
You are probably referring to stuff like Matthew 5:22:
OK, Jesus may be implying that everyone’s a sinner. But he makes this point EXACTLY the same way the sign does, by contrasting large and small sins and saying they may all condemn you to hell!
Secondly, it must be a very small minority of Christians who actually, seriously believe that insulting your brother is just as bad as murder. If Christians don’t take this shit seriously, why should we? (Actually, the “without a cause” was probably inserted in that verse by later scribes to make it seem more sensible.)
Walton,
I have many reasons for hating Reagan, who was a liar, war criminal, mass-murderer and disgusting hypocrite, but I’ll mention just one: he nearly got me killed. OK, he nearly got everyone killed, but as Yossarian said “What difference does that make?”. Reagan’s “evil empire” rhetoric and arms build-up, particularly moving cruise and Pershing missiles to Europe, convinced the Soviet leaders of the time that a first strike nuclear attack could be imminent. In the early eighties I was shit-scared, and I was right. In November 1983, the routine NATO exercise “Able Archer” was misinterpreted by Soviet intelligence as a cover for such a strike, and for a period of days Soviet nuclear forces were on a hair-trigger, waiting for any sign of a U.S. missile launch. If any one of a considerable number of Soviet submarine commanders had lost his head (they had the power to launch), or if a computer malfunction had occurred, the holocaust would have happened. (Earlier the same year, a Soviet computer did malfunction, warning of a missile launch, and we owe our lives to a certain Comrade Petrov, who overruled the computer five times.) Incidentally, I loathe Castro and Che Guevara even more – they actively tried to kill me (and of course everyone else) during the Cuban missile crisis, urging Khrushchev to launch missiles from Cuba.
Frog: you would be absolutely right if “the most obtuse and criminal barbarians” in the modern world were the American Christian right. But they’re not, not by a long shot. The most criminal barbarians in the modern world are the Islamic terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center, and everyone who supported them. We are at war with global Islamic extremism, and that war has to be the first of our priorities. And so the right needs to unite behind that one, crucial policy goal.
(And aside from the Islamists, there are plenty of groups far, far more barbaric than the American right. Communists, the Burmese military junta, the Sudanese Janjaweed militia, just to name a few.)
Arguments about gay marriage etc. are important, undoubtedly; but even from the point of view of a homosexual person, would you not say that it’s more important to protect them from being slaughtered by terrorists than to ensure that they have the right to get married? Just saying.
We don’t really have this problem in the UK, since both major parties are in favour of same-sex civil partnerships, and (apart from some Catholic opposition) it’s all relatively non-controversial. Which is better, undoubtedly. But (as you keep reminding me) the US is not the same as the UK.
Oh, Walton, shut the fuck up. Somehow, you’ll have to find the way to pardon me for thinking that, for whatever strange reason, the people here, in my home town, are more of a threat to me than a terrorist over in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Why the fuck can’t I have both? Why should I settle for second-class citizenship for the sake of safety? Oh, that’s right, because I’m not safe from the terrorists here at home.
You’re well read, right? You might recognize this quote, then.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
why is an 18 year old brit stuck on coulter and Reagan?
any REAL UK’ers care to comment on whether that is common or not? – Ichthyic
Not common, I’d say, but not that rare either. Many young rightwing Brits would admire American conservatives, often without much real idea what they are admiring, because the US crowd are far more upfront about their prejudices than the British right (even British fascists don’t tend to go in for the kind of public bigot-speak Coulter indulges in). On top of that, there’s sheer power-worship, and also anti-Europeanism (hardly noticing that the US right regard all Europeans with contempt, including Brits) and sometimes a racially-tinged attachment to the idea of an “Anglosphere” consisting of the UK, USA and white Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and in apartheid times, South Africa and Rhodesia).
Yaaaaaaawwwwwnn. Must get to bed.
Reagan tried to kill us. You keep ignore this when it’s brought up, but he wanted gays to die, and his AIDS research policy killed many of us.
I take this personally. I take your support of him personally. I do not care that you dishonestly pretend civil unions are equivalent to marriage and would “permit” civil unions (even though you’ve never once lifted a finger in activism for us, and you’re 100% talk). That doesn’t mean shit. You lay down with homophobes, and you are fully accountable for the results of your alliances.
Furthermore, you exaggerate the dangers of terrorism (automobiles are more dangerous). And you lie that conservatives can protect us from terrorists better than liberals can. Even while your good buddy GWB rattles his saber at Iran, providing the excuses for crackdowns by Ahmadinejad against liberals and reformers in Iranian academia and government. Fucking conservatives are creating terrorism.
But in the midst of being wrong about the facts, you tell me I’m better off cowering in fear from your handmade bogeymen instead of joyfully marrying another person I love in this brilliantly short lifetime.
Fuck you for that. Fuck you, sincerely.
Bill Hicks was right about the eyes of fear and the eyes of love.
The most criminal barbarians in the modern world are the Islamic terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center, and everyone who supported them. We are at war with global Islamic extremism, and that war has to be the first of our priorities.
Walton, this cowering before a few handfuls of fruitcakes hiding in caves really is ridiculous. Yes they are criminals, barbarians if you want, but we are not at war with them. They are not a state, have nothing approaching the power of a state, and almost certainly never will have. They are, in relation to the unprecedented power and capabilities of western societies, a minor irritant. The main danger they pose to those societies is an indirect one – that they can be and are being used as an excuse to introduce laws and technologies that could very easily be used to destroy the freedoms we have.
Oh, Walton?
Reconcile this
with this
Yer ass is showin’ boy.
The most criminal barbarians in the modern world are the Islamic terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center, and everyone who supported them
what do you base that on?
body count?
novelty?
symbolism?
because, by any measure, it’s not hard to find historical precedents that outweigh it.
how far back do you want to take your “modern world”?
Walton: The most criminal barbarians in the modern world are the Islamic terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center, and everyone who supported them. We are at war with global Islamic extremism, and that war has to be the first of our priorities. And so the right needs to unite behind that one, crucial policy goal.
So I guess you didn’t get my comment about the German center-right allying themselves with the Nazi’s to fight the communists? Or the center-right in Chile and Argentina allying themselves with the militarist fascists to fight the communists?
This is always the tactic of the business right — they’re so afraid of compromising a bit with the liberals to form a united front against the radicals on both sides, that they inevitably act to foment the radicals, since the radicals feed on each other — nobody loves the Christian right more than the Jihadis, no one loves the Jihadis more than the Christian right.
Since this pattern is so universal, one would be remiss to not consider that their true leanings, under all the oh-so-reasonable discussion, really lies with theocrats and fascists. Just search for “The Family”: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/10/112839/361
Go to bed with dogs, get up with fleas. One thing is pragmatism, but this is just plain stupidity.
Slightly OT here, but did anyone else catch George Will on the Colbert Report last night?
He told Colbert that he was a (gasp!) Agnostic!
I did! As a Yuropean I don’t know anything about this dude, but props for mention of agnosticism without taking a swipe at atheism, meh for the “there are only two kinds of people” crap. Where does he classify your authoritarian republicans that are not so big on liberty?
Where does he classify your authoritarian republicans that are not so big on liberty?
I’m no fan, but IIRC, Will does have his own column in the WaPo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032402294.html
I think Walton answered this for us. He forgets they exist as often as he can. Peace of mind, you know.
Walton – you admire Reagan and Bush’s tax cuts – Do you not realize that these cuts are illusory since the US government is running a huge deficit (which is now being financed to a great extent by China) and therefore these taxes are merely being deferred to future generations.
When did fiscal irresponsibility become conservative?
If you are worried about terrorism, why do you want to continue a war which has proven a great recruiting tool for Al Queda.
Bachalon at #661.
Somehow, you’ll have to find the way to pardon me for thinking that, for whatever strange reason, the people here, in my home town, are more of a threat to me than a terrorist over in Afghanistan or Iraq. – But the terrorists aren’t just over in Afghanistan or Iraq. 9/11 was a direct attack on US soil.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Yes, it’s Thomas Jefferson. And I see his point. However, I don’t see gay marriage as an issue of fundamental basic liberty (and I’m fairly sure Jefferson wouldn’t have either). If someone were suggesting rounding up gays and incarcerating them indefinitely without trial (or indeed stoning them to death, as Fred Phelps would like to do), I would be fighting to the death to prevent it, and I would never ally myself with any administration which was trying to do that. But marriage is just a legal contract; no one is stopping gay couples living together as if they were married. Don’t get me wrong – as I’ve said, I don’t see any logical reason why a gay couple shouldn’t be entitled to the same legal rights and benefits as a straight married couple, hence why I’m in favour of civil unions. But I don’t see it as an issue of basic human rights.
And at #665, yes, I can reconcile those two statements. As I’ve said earlier, the basic principle in a free society is that we allow people to do as they wish in their private life without government intervention; however, this is tempered where there is overwhelmingly persuasive evidence that a particular practice or phenomenon is highly damaging to society as a whole and, ultimately, to the rights and freedom of others. This is the case with drugs. Drug abuse is responsible for a lot of crime, social and family breakdown, and other problems in society (both in the US and the UK), and it would be a step backwards IMO to legalise any recreational drugs. (Though I can see the argument for limited legalisation of marijuana for medical purposes, on prescription.)
To Nick Gotts at #664.
They [terrorists] are, in relation to the unprecedented power and capabilities of western societies, a minor irritant.
Tell that to the 3,000 American men, women and children who were murdered on 9/11.
Tell that to the thousands murdered in the Madrid train bombings.
Tell that to the British people murdered in the 7/7 London bombings.
Tell that to the people murdered every day by suicide bombers in Iraq and elsewhere.
Tell that to the women who were oppressed under the Taliban, the apostates who were executed, etc., until we liberated Afghanistan.
This is a war against a brutal and barbaric enemy, who have shown themselves willing to kill as many of us as possible at any cost. And they’ve shown that they have the resources and strength to be able to do so.
We have to destroy them.
Grammar RWA at #663.
Don’t judge Reagan too harshly. While it’s undoubtedly true that he did very little to deal with AIDS during the early years of his presidency, very few people really understood the scale and danger of the problem until the mid-1980s. In 1986, Reagan commissioned Surgeon-General C. Everett Koop to produce a report on the problem of AIDS; the conclusions reached by the report included support for a comprehensive education strategy and the distribution of condoms. So I think it’s twisting the facts somewhat to say that Reagan “wanted gays to die” and was willing to let AIDS spread. He wasn’t a monster.
Believe me, if I thought Reagan had actually been content to let AIDS kill off gays, then I would not be able to count him among my personal heroes. I sincerely ask you to believe that I’m not inhuman or evil, and I harbour no hatred or even dislike towards homosexual people. I’m sorry if I gave you the impression that I did harbour any such dislike.
Walton, time to walk the walk not just talk the talk. Do not be like the chicken-hawks who infest and bring shame onto the Conservative movement in America. Enlist now, work hard and make it into the SAS and fight terrorism directly. My first war was Vietnam and have been in the latest two as a civilian, i.e., not military, counterterrorism officer. Once in Iraq and twice in Afghanistan and going back again. IF you honestly believe terrorism is the greatest threat we face then live up to your belief, enlist, fight, protect. You are the right age, you can do this.
The reason people like me and many of my colleagues and many soldiers have contempt for Bush and the current crop of, for want of a better word, conservatives is that she have shown themselves very willing to commit the sons and daughters of others to war. They do not expose their own families and selves to the potential horror. And do not bring up McCain, one example is not enough and while I admire him surviving imprisonment, it frankly it no more impressive than a 20 year old surviving his second tour and walking point in Iraq or a young under trained and under armed soldier trying to survive yet another IED and ambush on her supply column. I actually find them more impressive, but I have never been a POW so cannot compare what that is like.
Be a real conservative and actually show some backbone and fight for what you believe. Then, what you say might be worth a listen.
For the record, I do not see terrorism or drugs as the great challenges facing the world. I see them as just effects from what I consider the true evils, ignorance, poverty, and the desire to control others.
Ciao
He wasn’t a monster.
nope just ignorant and a bit stupid, but a nice guy.
hmm, now I get why you like him!
and I’m fairly sure Jefferson wouldn’t have either
based on your vast knowledge of Jefferson’s writings, right?
phht.
you’re a buffoon, boy.
better grow up a little faster if you want to play the authoritarian game.
Tell that to the 3,000 American men, women and children who were murdered on 9/11.
I tell them as soon as you tell the descendants of about a million german and Japanese descendants who were firebombed by US and allied forces.
and while your at it, why don’t you tell it to the descendants (if there are any left) of the victims of the mujaahideen, that the US funded during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
while were at it, why not tell it to the hundreds of people murdered in the Oklahoma city federal building bombings.
you understand SO little of the history of the word “terrorist”.
if I thought Reagan had actually been content to let AIDS kill off gays, then I would not be able to count him among my personal heroes.
frankly, you don’t know shit about the man.
first, you need to understand why those who are gay revile the man for the AIDS issue, as some of us are actually old enough to actually remember what he really did, and don’t get our history from the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh.
source:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/08/EDG777163F1.DTL
I lived in the state where the actor Reagan (a horrible actor too, btw), was groomed for the governorship, and then the presidency, by people who used him like a fucking puppet.
Reagan was a supporter of McCarthy (do you even know who that was?), which is what attracted those people to him to begin with, as they knew they could use anti-communism sentiment just like they use anti-gay and anti-science sentiment today to motivate their ignorant voting base. His political career was entirely a construct of the Southern California Republicans, and Reagan himself had little to do with it.
as to whether Reagan’s administration had any worthwhile policies, I already showed you the failure of supply side economics.
you can look up for yourself the long-term problems incurred with deficit spending.
as to the rest, you know so little about the man, I can’t really tell you where to start.
you could try reading the wiki article on him and following up with some of the hundreds of references there.
you can see a bit of a summary of Reagan’s real legacy here:
http://prorev.com/extreme.htm
as to the first fall of the Soviet Union, I’m not a historian, but again there are thousands of references that will detail the relevant economics and political structures that lead to the collapse. Really, Reagan had no more to do with it himself than being a figurehead.
just one at random:
http://www.essortment.com/all/fallofthesovi_rkcm.htm
do you see Reagan mentioned anywhere?
nope.
Moreover, I’m sure there are dozens here who would have been happy to make book recommendations to further your education on the subject, if you weren’t so convinced that at 18, you already knew everything about it.
Frankly, I find myself not interested in conversing with you further; as I feel sorry for you that you seem to find the revisionist history and lies of people like Coulter and Limbaugh appealing, and have apparently lost all interest in learning at such a young age.
I do hope you don’t represent a large segment of your current age group, or you will end up finding yourself in a brave new world, being as ignorant as you are.
Re #674 Walton,
First, a minor point. Thousands did not die in the Madrid bombings. Get your facts right.
The Spanish people gave their verdict on their government toadying to Bush and thus putting them in the firing line, then lying about the identity of the bombers, a few days after those bombings – I suggest you listen to them.
As I said, Islamist jihadis are a minor irritant in relation to the power and capabilities of Western societies.
Just look at how few times they have been able to strike since 9/11 – the PIRA were a far greater threat to British lives, and still fell far short of the toll from road accidents. A war requires an enemy capable of commanding resources commensurate with your own.
Admittedly we are now involved in wars – because our troops are occupying other people’s countries, and many of the inhabitants resent it enough to attack them. Had 9/11 been followed by a swift and limited operation to destroy terrorist bases in Afghanistan, those wars would not be happening. The reason there are suicide bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were bombings in London and Madrid, is the illegal invasion of Iraq. Saddam Hussein, vile creature though he was, was a secular dictator, who hated the Islamists, had no link to 9/11, and posed no threat to the west. Iraq was one of the most secularised Muslim states.
Had the neocons believed their own lies about being in a war with Islamic extremism, they would have left him alone and concentrated on Afghanistan. Iraq was invaded to secure military bases and control of the oil industry. One side-effect was to give Sunni jihadis the chance to establish themselves there. Another was the creation of home-grown terrorist groups in the UK and Spain. A third was to give power to the most reactionary among the Shia clerics – essentially the deal between the occupiers and the Shia hardliners is: we get control of the oil industry and our bases, you get a share of the loot, and control over Iraqi women’s bodies. (Among the other side-effects: hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths – but what the hell, as Ann Coulter says, they’re only ragheads – four million displaced people including a large proportion of the most educated and secularised Iraqis, the creation of Sunni-Shia hatred and persecution of other religious minorities in a country where intermarriage was common, the destruction of irreplaceable cultural relics, and at least in large part, the current financial crisis.)
To JeffreyD. As I’ve said earlier, I am actually in the OTC (Officers Training Corps – similar to US ROTC, except it doesn’t lead automatically to a commission). I do hope to join the Territorial Army (equivalent to your National Guard) when I leave university, and if I have the opportunity I would be proud to serve a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. So I am not a chickenhawk, or at least I don’t intend to be. (Though I’ve wasted so much time on this forum over the last couple of days when I should have been in the gym, so my fitness test result may not be as good as it could be… still, I can run a 6-minute mile, which is good enough for the Army PFT.) :-)
You’re right, I have little respect for politicians of any stripe who dodged the draft during the Vietnam years. I suspect Cheney would have been a better vice-president, and more clued-up about the strategy in Iraq, had he served in Vietnam (rather than getting a series of student deferments, as he did). Clinton, of course, was also a serial draft-dodger (he studied here at Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar, and smoked marijuana with his friends while others of his age group were fighting and dying for their country.) But as you point out, that can’t be said about McCain.
and if I have the opportunity I would be proud to serve a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan
yes, that is a good use of your talents.
go be a soldier.
OTOH, you aren’t very good at listening, so I wouldn’t expect to rise too high in the ranks if I were you.
I picture you as the equivalent of a staff sergeant, after say 6 years commitment.
and smoked marijuana with his friends while others of his age group were fighting and dying for their country
and bush snorted coke and was an alcoholic before he became “born again”.
drug abuse seems to be a requirement of political service.
what makes you think that service in the Military leads to “clean livin'”, btw?
Oh, I think you’ve got some larnin’ to do there, too.
…and speaking of learning, as a grunt in the field, just exactly what do you expect to learn that would be of value as a politician?
things of tactical value in the field (how best to kill with a rifle) are rarely of value in the strategic sense.
However, I think you’ll make a good grunt.
I suggest you stop wasting time here and get on with it.
To Nick Gotts. Apologies, I misspoke about the number killed in Madrid. But it doesn’t affect my point that it was a terrorist attack which murdered numerous civilians.
The Spanish people gave their verdict on their government toadying to Bush and thus putting them in the firing line, then lying about the identity of the bombers, a few days after those bombings – I suggest you listen to them. – I just love the way that, according to most people on this forum, the view of the majority of ordinary people matters not at all when it comes to abortion or gay marriage, but on issues of war it suddenly becomes the most important factor. IIRC, someone even tried to deploy the argument earlier that “opinion polls show that the majority of Americans want to leave Iraq, so we should withdraw.” Moral of the story: the people are always right – except when they disagree with the liberal position. (To be fair, though, conservatives are very often guilty of the exact same kind of thinking.)
Had 9/11 been followed by a swift and limited operation to destroy terrorist bases in Afghanistan, those wars would not be happening. – What kind of operation are you talking about? Yes, we could have gone in, bombed the al-Qaeda training camps and left, and it would have set the terrorists back a bit. But it would have done nothing for the long-term problems. The Taliban would still be harbouring and supporting terrorists, were they in power today. Now, on the other hand, millions of Afghans have been liberated; for the first time, Afghan women, for instance, have a chance to get an education and to enjoy basic civil rights. Don’t get me wrong; stabilising Afghanistan will not be an easy ride, and we’re a long way from achieving it yet. But that’s no reason to chicken out. In the long run, spreading education and building a stable infrastructure should help to eliminate Afghanistan as a breeding-ground for extremism. (I thought you were all in favour of the idea that better education will help to fight the causes of Islamic fundamentalism?)
Re Iraq, you are, of course, right, and it mystifies me why we had to take out Saddam at that particular point, considering that Iraq was one of the most secular states in the Middle East and had no link to al-Qaeda. But regardless of the rights and wrongs of the invasion, we’re stuck over there now, and things will only get worse if we pull out.
Quoth Walton:
“We have to destroy them.”
Good luck with that. The problem is, you’re going to have to find them first.
…anyone know where Bin Laden’s at?
To Ichthyic at #680: It was JeffreyD at #676 who brought up the issue of military service, and implicitly accused me of being a chickenhawk. I was answering that. I wasn’t just randomly bringing it up.
Walton,
you are a contemptible little shit. Oh noes, someone smoked marijuana while opposing an unjust military action.
Vice President Cheney would have done better had he served? You forget that his entire world view is corrupt and that he’s a vile human.
What we have here is the Brit version of a YAFer. A worthless little true believer.
MAJeff at #684:
What we have here is the Brit version of a YAFer. – Funny you should say that; I actually applied to attend a conference in Washington DC this summer run by the YAF. I didn’t get accepted for that one, but I’m going to a different one run by the Leadership Institute, a similar conservative organisation.
This will be my first hands-on experience with American (rather than British) conservatism. Since the consensus here seems to be that I have a naive view of American politics and that I won’t really understand it until I’ve lived it, I hope it will be an educational experience.
you are a contemptible little shit. – You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, and I’ve been called worse. For what it’s worth, the sentiments are not mutual; I’ve developed some degree of respect for most people on this forum (with the exception of Milo Johnson, perhaps). I don’t dislike or despise you personally because of your views. I wish you could extend the same tolerance to me, but I won’t expect that of you.
To Ichthyic at #680: It was JeffreyD at #676 who brought up the issue of military service, and implicitly accused me of being a chickenhawk. I was answering that. I wasn’t just randomly bringing it up.
Is that really your conclusion as to what my post to you was about?
holy crap.
you don’t belong here.
seriously.
I can think of a hundred blogs where you would feel more at home… like this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm
yes, that’s more your speed, I think.
you’ll have fun there.
now, run along and play.
I wish you could extend the same tolerance to me, but I won’t expect that of you.
Your views, when put into action, harm people. I do not respect that in the least.
You’re not as bright, informed, or moral as you think.
And if you think YAFers are “moderate Republicans,” if you think you’re somehow a “middle of the road conservative” you’re wrong. YAFers are right wing. The sorts of people who think Ann Coulter is an actual intellectual. Sad and pathetic.
I can think of a hundred blogs where you would feel more at home… like this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm
They, sadly, might be too bright for him.
Walton,
I love the way when you don’t have a good response, you start burbling about “liberals” – you’ve learned your neocon lessons well, I’ll give you that. For the record, I am not a liberal, but a socialist. The reason we should withdraw from Iraq is that most Iraqis want us to.
Yes, we could have gone in, bombed the al-Qaeda training camps and left, and it would have set the terrorists back a bit. But it would have done nothing for the long-term problems.
That’s because the long-term problems are not solvable by military means. The occupiers of Afghanistan are now bogged down in a war which will almost certainly continue as long as they remain in the country.
Now, on the other hand, millions of Afghans have been liberated; for the first time, Afghan women, for instance, have a chance to get an education and to enjoy basic civil rights.
You really don’t know much history, do you Walton? Afghani women were considerably more liberated than they are now, before the mujahedin gained power. I don’t deny many are better off now than under the Taliban, but most of Afghanistan is under the control either of the Taliban, or of corrupt and brutal warlords. Your faith that it can be stabilised by foreign forces is entirely unwarranted: the longer they stay, the more they interfere, the more they will be resented – as the Russians found.
Re Iraq, you are, of course, right, and it mystifies me why we had to take out Saddam at that particular point, considering that Iraq was one of the most secular states in the Middle East and had no link to al-Qaeda.
Excellent! You’re mystified. That ought to be a clue Walton: if a theory or worldview makes no sense of some of the most prominent features of the domain it attempts to explain (as your theory that we are at war with Islamist terrorists and your worldview that the neocons are the good guys make no sense of the invasion of Iraq), there’s something wrong with it.
I’ve told you why Iraq was invaded. Indeed, it’s hardly a secret. Look at the plans for permanent military bases, and the oil law the occupiers have been trying to push through the Iraqi parliament. Look at the website of the Project for the New American Century… ah, you can’t! I just tried to go there to check the name of a document, and it’s been suspended. However, you can find out about it if you want to: the basic idea is that the USA can, and should, dominate the world. Its associates include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and many other current or former members of the Bush regime as well as their academic supporters.
I hope it will be an educational experience.
if you continue to rely on “camps” and radio talk show hosts for your information, I don’t think “educational” is the word you want to use there.
“indoctrination” is more appropriate.
I’d tell you to cultivate a more skeptical eye, but it would be wasted advice.
get ye hence to the freerepublic, and lounge with your fellow ignorant pigs.
I’m sure you will find them full of “information” that confirms your greatest hopes and dreams.
They, sadly, might be too bright for him.
one has to have goals, though, right?
besides, I think you might be overrating them a bit.
‘ve told you why Iraq was invaded. Indeed, it’s hardly a secret. Look at the plans for permanent military bases, and the oil law the occupiers have been trying to push through the Iraqi parliament. Look at the website of the Project for the New American Century… ah, you can’t! I just tried to go there to check the name of a document, and it’s been suspended. However, you can find out about it if you want to: the basic idea is that the USA can, and should, dominate the world. Its associates include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and many other current or former members of the Bush regime as well as their academic supporters.
Silly Nick. Don’t you know by now that this is an “abstract” “intellectual” exercise and that actually existing conservatism is irrelevant to this conversation?
Look at the website of the Project for the New American Century… ah, you can’t! I just tried to go there to check the name of a document, and it’s been suspended.
ROTFLMAO!!!
that is just so poetic…
THE website where the ideals of the neocon movement are identified, with signatories, and…
they forgot to pay the bill!
man, that is a funny note to end the night on.
I hope that thing is cached somewhere, as I very often link to it.
ITMT, you could send young Walton here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Walton #679, you stated “As I’ve said earlier, I am actually in the OTC (Officers Training Corps – similar to US ROTC, except it doesn’t lead automatically to a commission). I do hope to join the Territorial Army (equivalent to your National Guard) when I leave university, and if I have the opportunity I would be proud to serve a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. So I am not a chickenhawk, or at least I don’t intend to be.”
IF you have the opportunity, eh? You have it now. Quit college, enlist. I served in the military after two years of college then returned for BA and MA, not hard to do. Unless you are willing to serve, front line serve, stop telling me that one of the main dangers to society is terrorism. It is in your power to do something about it on a personal level. Forget about the TA, actually enlist in the active forces.
Let me be clear to the blog at large here. I do not think one has to serve in the military to have the right to talk about war, politics, terrorism or any of that. To me, citizenship and basic human rights gives anyone the right to speak out and to speak about anything that effects us all. What I cannot stomach are those who think and state that the Iraq and/or Afghanistan war is a good thing and that we should send our sons and daughters to fight it when they and their families do not bear any burden. Walton, you have stated how important the war against terrorism is, you support the wars, your country has troops in both places. Time to join and put your body where only your mouth seems to go.
I do believe we can help in Afghanistan, that is why I return. I believe Iraq is a lost cause, but would return if asked to try and help because I am good at what I do. It is not courage, it is not politics, it is the career path I chose long ago, and it is one that gets harder to defend to myself, but that is a personal issue.
Walton, you said regarding Iraq, “But regardless of the rights and wrongs of the invasion, we’re stuck over there now, and things will only get worse if we pull out.” Not sure if I believe that premise on a strategic level, tactically, yes. So, another reason for you to enlist and go, defend your views, defend your beliefs.
Walton, you are the one stating over and over again the need to defeat terrorism and the necessity to still be in these wars. Until you do something more than move your mouth, you are a chicken-hawk. You do not even have plans to serve after college, just expressed a willingness to serve, apparently if asked. Well, I am asking you.
BTW, if you do not think the above is fair, tell me to sod off, but please, spare me another round of apologetics and attempts to be rational and noncontroversial. I have no interest in hearing excuses about why you cannot enlist tomorrow.
Yes, this is a controversial issue. Some people hate me for what I do, I live with it. I do not hide or try to please them all. I am proud of me and my children are proud of me, that is enough. I am not a hero or anything of that sort, but, to quote an older line, I have served with heroes.
oh, and a new link that will be useful:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration:_Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Interesting, I genuinely wasn’t familiar with that organisation. This is slightly worrying.
Interesting, I genuinely wasn’t familiar with that organisation. This is slightly worrying.
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
Ignorance of actually existing American conservatism? Who would have ever guessed such a thing?!
JeffreyD at #694: I should have made clear that I greatly respect you for your service.
And I also maybe wasn’t being totally clear. Territorial Army units in the British Army are deployable, and given the personnel shortage in the UK military, it is highly likely that if I join a TA regiment after graduation, I will be deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq. Assuming the TA will accept me (I still have to pass the selection board and the commissioning course at Sandhurst), I do wish to serve, and I will go on deployment when my country requires it. The reason I don’t want to drop out and join now is because I want to serve as an officer, not in the ranks (since I think that’s the role in which I can most usefully contribute). (Although a university degree isn’t formally required to serve as an officer in the British Army, around 80% of officers do have degrees, and in any case I don’t feel I yet have the maturity or the confidence to pass officer selection; I hopefully will have built up these qualities by the time I graduate.)
What I cannot stomach are those who think and state that the Iraq and/or Afghanistan war is a good thing and that we should send our sons and daughters to fight it when they and their families do not bear any burden. – I understand that, and I don’t want to be one of those people. And I believe wholeheartedly in supporting the troops. I donate to military charities when I can, and I believe we should spend money on higher pay and more benefits for our armed forces.
This is slightly worrying.
LOL
just ignore the nasty intellectuals. They are only interested in all that “book larnin'” mumbo-jumbo.
now, now, no need to worry your pretty little head about it. You just get yourself right on over to the freerepublic, where they will soothe your furrowed brow with the platitudes and lies that have become familiar like a warm blanket to you.
turn on a podcast of Limbaugh before you go to sleep, and you’ll feel better in the morning.
sleep tight.
oh, and just remember:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
that’s a good lad.
Hey Walton –
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
This was not said by Jefferson, it was said by my namesake, Benjamin Franklin!!!
hmm, some are proposing it’s a scrub job on the old PNAC site:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×5999015
ya think after 8 years, the neocons finally got tired of having their own words thrown in their face, just like the DI with their “Wedge Document”.
oh, btw, when you wake up tomorrow, Walton, you should look for the “Wedge Document”.
I think you’ll find some interesting parallels.
oh, and the PNAC site is cached, of course:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.newamericancentury.org
take a look at this one:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020923154604/www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
This is the infamous “Pearl Harbor” catastrophe memo (see page 63). Try to count the number of times the words “Iraq” or “Saddam Hussein” appear, then tell me they didn’t have this invasion/occupation planned pre-9/11…and still they manged to cock everything up.
Try to count the number of times the words “Iraq” or “Saddam Hussein” appear, then tell me they didn’t have this invasion/occupation planned pre-9/11…and still they manged to cock everything up.
Please. Anyone who watched the 2000 campaign knew this was what they wanted. I remember calling my parents after one of the debates and saying, “He wants to invade Iraq.”
What I love is how people are shocked–Shocked! I say–when someone might intimate that the invasion was desired and that the “war on terror” was nothing more than a justification for something already in the works.
Amazing what you can learn and know when you pay attention to what actually happens in the world.
-Shocked! I say
vapors and all?
Amazing what you can learn and know when you pay attention to what actually happens in the world.
sadly, I don’t think that will be the fate of poor Walton.
I think he finds himself too comforted by the right-wing freaks gently pulling at his ear.
seriously…
the Leadership Institute?
*shudder*
once he goes there, he will have swallowed the final mouthful of the koolaid.
no turning back for Walton.
He will have fully reinforced his delusional worldview, just like the PNAC guys want him too.
*shakes head sadly*
*plays taps*
I wonder what part of “I have no interest in hearing excuses about why you cannot enlist tomorrow” he was unable to grasp.
Look, guys. Seriously.
I am not some kind of brainwashed conservadrone, programmed to mindlessly repeat every Coulterism and Fox News headline. I was not brought up in a conservative household. My parents (though practising Christians) are quite politically moderate. I myself have moved further and further to the right over time, because I found my instincts leading me in that direction. I have been influenced by conservative intellectuals such as Douglas Murray (who is British, but, like me, is primarily interested in US politics).
I don’t just read Coulter and Limbaugh, believe it or not. I regularly visit liberal websites such as Media Matters for America, to see what the other side is saying. (And I also watch the Colbert Report, demonstrating that I have a sense of humour, contrary to popular belief.) I have many liberal friends in real life (and, indeed, even my conservative friends are generally well to the left of me; this is the UK, after all). I am exposed to other views regularly.
I had hoped that I could win the respect of people on this blog, by discussing issues in a rational and open-minded way, and learning from others’ ideas. And, indeed, I have learnt things. Sadly, though, many people here seem to consider me a brainwashed conservadrone of some description, and so many seem to think that “neocon” is a synonym for “lunatic”.
I’ve spent most of the last two days on this blog when I should have been working. I don’t know why I keep coming back; I’m seemingly addicted. :-) I apologise to the people I’ve inadvertently annoyed and offended, and I thank those people who’ve raised new and interesting points – particularly Bill Dauphin and Nick Gotts. I can respect people who disagree with me, and respect the validity and intellectual coherence of their opinions.
and so many seem to think that “neocon” is a synonym for “lunatic”.
that you DON’T is why we are considering you to be a brainwashed “conservadrone”.
you say you are read, but exhibit no knowledge indicating such.
you’re lying to yourself, and as such, lying to everyone here.
and it’s pathetic.
I hope college will be good for you, but with your current attitude, I rather doubt it. I think it will chew you up and spit you out.
I apologise to the people I’ve inadvertently annoyed and offended
seriously, nobody really cares if you’ve offended someone with an insult (which you haven’t, so apologizing for that would be stupid).
what people get offended at around here the most is by those pushing ignorance as if they were knowledgeable.
…because it’s exactly how creationists operate.
seriously, I really doubt you will learn anything you WANT to know here.
go to the freerepublic and commit yourself to your ignorance already.
there is simply too much for you to learn for a blog to be of worth to you.
come back if you manage to finish college, and actually take some classes in history or politics.
I had hoped that I could win the respect of people on this blog, by discussing issues in a rational and open-minded way, and learning from others’ ideas. And, indeed, I have learnt things. Sadly, though, many people here seem to consider me a brainwashed conservadrone of some description, and so many seem to think that “neocon” is a synonym for “lunatic”.
Based on actually existing neoconservatism, how could we reach any other conclusion?
Conservatism can’t fail, it can only be failed….
I wonder what part of “I have no interest in hearing excuses about why you cannot enlist tomorrow” he was unable to grasp.
ummmm.
all of it?
He came here to preach, not to listen, though he appears somehow to have convinced himself otherwise.
strange lad.
“I am not some kind of brainwashed conservadrone”
That is exactly how you come off. If you don’t think you are one you really need to do some serious introspection.
You really have no idea what it was like when Reagan was president.
You just parrot the right wing that has turned him into some sort of conservative demigod.
Conservatism can’t fail, it can only be failed….
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”
-John Stuart Mill
Ichthyic, JS Mill was an optimist, I think.
Ciao y’all
Ichthyic, JS Mill was an optimist, I think.
LOL
yeah.
see ya in a few.
MAJeff:
Well, I agree with you 2/3: I think Walton is bright, based on the evidence of his writing (by which I mean the quality of the writing per se, not the ideas expressed). I agree that he’s poorly informed (but then, who among us was not at 18, eh?), and I don’t think too highly of the morality of the positions he’s espousing. But he seems to be listening, despite the snark of some here, which is the ultimate cure for being uninformed. And I think morality is at least in part the residue of information, so IMHO there’s hope for Walton’s future.
Plenty of bright young people have been taken in by the seductive wingnuttery of Limbaugh, et al. (not to mention the seductive fetish wear of Coulter); perhaps if we can get just a little information through Walton’s defenses, sow just a few seeds of doubt, then he’ll approach his Leadership Institute experience with a bit of skepticism, and his path to the Good Side of the Force will be shorter and less painful.
Oh, I can dream, can’t I?
JefferyD:
Bingo! Thank FSM someone with your background has said this, and so cogently. Every time I attribute social problems (whether geopolitical or domestic) to ignorance and poverty, my right-wing acquaintanes call me a goddam lily-livered socialist.
Ichthyic, re your #713, “LOL, yeah. see ya in a few.”, not sure about that. I have allowed anger to make me far more open than I usually wish to be and beyond a level with which I am comfortable. I think I will drop back a little more into lurk mode for a while, lots of things to do and my head needs to be clear. I will continue to enjoy this blog when possible and fight the good fight with postings as the fancy seizes me, but nothing too deep for a while. (smile)
Ciao all
JeffreyD at #715: I’m genuinely sorry for angering you. Let me reiterate that I respect your service in the military (it’s far, far more than I’ve done for my country so far) and I admire you for that, despite our disagreement about political issues.
I suspect you really would have to be an American to understand how eerily reminiscent this is of a middle-aged suburban white guy (ca. 1970) saying, “No, really, some of my best friends are Negroes!”
De nada. But don’t for a moment read into my interchange with you even a tiny particle of agreement with your politics. I’ve been engaging you respectfully because I want to change your ideas, not defend them.
I assume you’re a sincere person dealing with us in good faith, but I agree with others here that ideas like yours, when put into practice in the world, are very destructive. I don’t discourage you from military service, but I hope by the time you finish university and become an officer, you will be doing so with a better informed, more balanced view of the world. You would do well to re-read JeffreyD’s upthread meditation on pursuing a military career/mission in this benighted world.
And if you must attend the Leadership Institute, please do so with a critical mind. Ask yourself whether these are truly principled conservatives with whom you have common intellectual ground… or just ideologues bent on enlisting you in a movement dedicated to nothing nobler than perpetuating and expanding its own power.
Famously (but apparently incorrectly) attributed to your own Winston Churchill is the observation that, “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.” For myself, I think the truth is exactly the reverse: The older I’ve gotten and the more I’ve learned, the more liberal I’ve become. When I was your age, I was a Republican… but I got better. My fondest hope is that you will, too.
Bill, the Churchill quote, which conservatives love to cite, also implies something they seem never to consider: that life-long conservatives have no heart.
You were a Republican when you were young? Ah. Interesting. My dad has spoken of the push-and-pull of being raised in a solidly Republican state (CT) by independent, left-leaning immigrant parents during the era of social revolution, rock’n’roll, and a nation divided over a foreign war. America – love it or leave it, baby!
My take on that last bit of nostalgia (LOL) is this: The government works for us, not the other way around. The nation is the child of the Enlightenment and of the genius-cluster that founded it. In that light, what possible benefit is there to cast criticism of country as treasonous? When a child brings back a lousy report card, what does a caring and responsible parent do?
I feel this is a very conservative point of view, and I just don’t get why many conservatives I know refuse to put any stock whatsoever in the annual reports which suggest that many of our peer nations in Europe and Oceania boast superior overall quality of life, much lower crime and infant mortality rates, and greater environmental sustainability than the self-described “greatest nation on earth”.
It is because I am a patriot that I care enough to mention it. What degree of arrogance is required to conclude, without analysis, that we have nothing to learn from our neighbors and cousins?
Shouldn’t the sign really read, “Hell’s Most Welcomed?”
Well gee whiz, do you really not see why that is? When a nation is at war, that’s everyone’s business, abortion and marriage are private matters.
(Opinions differ on abortion, but it has already been explained to you why abortion in the earlier stages of the pregnancy is not “killing a human” by any reasonable definition.)
You have been getting an increasing amount of heat here, which is understandably frustrating to you, but consider that these people have been personally hurt by the policies of American conservatives. How would you feel if Americans started praising some UK politician you consider particularly odious and harmful, spoke of UK liberals as “we”, and said that you need to give up some of your political goals and be grateful that you haven’t been stoned to death?
Cheney utilized “student deferments” – but Clinton was “a serial draft-dodger”?
You’ve gotta be fucking kidding me.
Walton jumps the bluefin.
Walton, you can do better than being a dittohead. I know you can. But at present, your influences betray you.
Oh, and you DIDN’T know that regime change in Iraq was neocon policy, defined when Clinton was still President? Yikes. Well, live and learn.
Are you not aware that this policy was at the top of the Bush admin’s To-Do list after he took office in 2001? That as early as February he was pushing his advisors to give him an excuse to knock down Hussein? That memos on the topic of oil-distribution rights for western oil companies in a post-Hussein Iraq were being circulated in early 2001 as well?
How can you not know this?
The newamericancentury site is down? LOL. Oh well. Scrub scrub scrub.
Yah, I thought I’d given my confession here previously: I voted for Reagan twice (including my veryfirst vote for president) and Bush 41 once. (Take note, Walton: Someone who actually voted for Reagan now hopes you and your generation will utterly turn its collective back on his legacy!) I was never a rabid right-winger by today’s standards, but… it’s been 30 years now since I became eligible to vote, and those decades have been a continuous journey from moderate conservativism to a better informed, more enlightened liberal position.
That’s funny: These days, CT is a fairly deep-blue state. 4 of our 5 congresspersons are Democrats (that’ll be 5 of 5 by the end of this election cycle, I think, as we’ve got a strong Democratic challenger for the increasingly loopy Chris Shays); both of our senators are Dems (well, of course, we have to put an asterisk next to LIEberman, but he was a staunch D until recently, and I’m confident he’ll be replaced with a real D at the first opportunity); we have large and growing Democratic majorities in both houses of the state General Assembly; and all of the elected constitutional officers (Attorney General, Secretary of the State, Comptroller, Treasurer) are Democrats (who typically run unopposed). Perversely, we seem addicted to Republican governers, and in many towns Republicans have been able to ride anti-tax sentiment to local power (local government here is funded almost entirely by property taxes, which totally warps local politics). Generally, though, CT is a solid blue state, and relatively liberal, too (even our millionaires are often liberal, as witness Ned Lamont).
Hear! Hear!
I’ve always insisted that the real ideological difference between left and right is that the left actually believes that government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” while the right treats government as a separate (and generally hostile) entity from “the people.” To critics who say, “yeah, well our government isn’t really all that representative, is it?” my response is that if that’s true, the proper fix is to make government more representative, not to shackle or bankrupt or shrink it.
And once you’ve come to that position, the whole big government/small government conversation becomes trvial: If government is a true reflection of the will of the people, then size doesn’t matter, except as it relates to effectiveness. A government activity is good to the extent that it effectively represents and executes the will of the people… regardless of whether doing so requires a lean, agile office or a large army of civil servants.
Because they’re much more committed to ideology than to results (oddly, this is exactly the claim they make about liberals, but I’m pretty sure they’ve got it backwards). And note that ideology is different than principle: Commitment to the concept of personal liberty (for instance) is a principle; commitment to the notion that unfettered free markets always maximize personal liberty (a la libertarians) is ideology. I don’t mean that ideology is a bad thing, BTW; I just mean that folks for whom ideology is far more important than either principle or pragmatism will lead us in directions that are neither just nor effective. Because American conservatives espouse (even if they don’t actually follow) the ideology that government solutions to social problems are always inferior to market solutions, we’re stuck with unjust, ineffective policies around healthcare, welfare/poverty, wages, etc. It doesn’t matter that Europe, Canada, et al., get better results; THER DOIN’ IT RONG!
(Kseniya, forgive me for being so didactic. I know you don’t need me to teach you any lessons; my longwinded answer is just another part of my quixotic attempt to lead young Walton to the light.)
Kseniya at #721: Cheney utilized “student deferments” – but Clinton was “a serial draft-dodger”? – I didn’t mean it to come over like that. Both of them were draft-dodgers, and both (mis)used student deferments to escape going to Vietnam. It has nothing to do with partisanship or political ideology; it diminishes my respect for both of them.
Oh, and you DIDN’T know that regime change in Iraq was neocon policy, defined when Clinton was still President? – I was perfectly aware that getting rid of Saddam was a policy goal which many people were advocating as early as the 1991 Gulf War and its aftermath. (Understandably, since Saddam was unquestionably a bastard who killed a lot of his own citizens.) I also know that James Baker advised H.W. Bush, back in the 1991 war, not to go all the way and eliminate Saddam, knowing that Iraq would collapse into insurgency and infighting without the stability of the Baathist regime (as indeed it did). And I’m aware that at the time, some people regretted that Saddam had been left in power. I just hadn’t heard of the “Project for a New American Century”; that doesn’t mean I’m wholly ignorant of the history of American foreign policy.
Posted by: Walton | June 5, 2008 11:06 AM
*whoosh*
I’ve always insisted that the real ideological difference between left and right is that the left actually believes that government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” while the right treats government as a separate (and generally hostile) entity from “the people.” – That’s not quite how I see it. As a matter of practical reality, the incentive of government bureaucracy is to expand its own power, at the expense of the interests of the people. Bloated government has to be held in check. I think the economic history of my own country (which was nearly destroyed in the 70s due to over-mighty trade unions, bloated nationalised industries and high tax rates) shows that smaller government is generally better. Furthermore, we conservatives also believe that (with a few exceptions) it is better to trust people to run their own lives and make their own decisions, particularly about how to spend their money, than to let government do it for them.
A government activity is good to the extent that it effectively represents and executes the will of the people… regardless of whether doing so requires a lean, agile office or a large army of civil servants. – True in theory, but not in practice. A huge bloated government employing a “large army of civil servants” cannot be genuinely responsive to the will of the people. And because it isn’t subjected to the pressures of the free market, it has no incentive to be efficient and to avoid wasting money.
I don’t think, however, that ideological dogma of any sort should be applied to everything across the board. There are some things which government clearly should do, and generally does well. So I would agree that the “small government” principle can be taken too far.
It doesn’t matter that Europe, Canada, et al., get better results; THER DOIN’ IT RONG! – Speaking as a (reluctant) European, I would question whether we get “better results”. France and Germany, which do practise big-government solutions in general, have huge economic problems (though in Germany this is partly from the stresses of reunification with the former Communist East). I don’t think that the welfarist solutions practised in some European nations, particularly the Scandinavian countries, are actually economically sustainable (and, indeed, the new centre-right “Moderate Party” government in Sweden is starting to dismantle some of their over-mighty government).
As regards healthcare, don’t be too quick to praise our system and criticise your own. Speaking as someone whose country has a so-called “universal healthcare” system, I can testify that it has its own problems. Yes, inequities of access are remedied to some extent, and obviously we don’t have HMOs with all their attendant problems. But we do have long waiting lists, a poor quality of care in many hospitals (it’s something of a postcode lottery), and a health system which is fast becoming financially unsustainable. Our survival rates for many cancers are far lower than yours, and many cutting-edge treatments don’t become available on the NHS until too late. As for the Canadian health system, where they don’t even allow private healthcare, I am given to understand (I’m sure some Canadians will correct me if this is radically wrong) that there are massive waiting lists for state medical treatment, and that some Canadians are compelled to cross the border and pay for private treatment in the US. (Indeed, I believe there was a Canadian Supreme Court case about it.) So Michael Moore’s Sicko should be taken with a pinch of salt. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t doubt that the American healthcare system has huge problems (everyone acknowledges this). But our system shouldn’t be seen as a panacea.
Tell that to the women who were oppressed under the Taliban, the apostates who were executed, etc., until we liberated Afghanistan.
Please tell me about all of the feminist groups that were ignored by mainstream organizations when they kept reporting about the abysmal way women were treated. Please tell about people getting more upset about the blowing up of two buddhist statues. Please tell me about how life for women have not changed in most of Afghanistan. Please tell me about all of the warlords still running who are no better then the Taliban.
Oh, and please tell me about how the search for Osama bin Laden was waylaid so that the administration could do what they really wanted to do all along, bring down Hussein. And what did Hussein have to do with any of the terrorist attacks you named? Answer without using Rovian talking points.
(Understandably, since Saddam was unquestionably a bastard who killed a lot of his own citizens.)
Many of those killed were when Hussein was a US ally, meant to be a balance against post revolution Iran. Please do not use morality as a reason to get rid of Hussein when US foreign policy did not give a flying fuck he was doing this when he was an “ally”.
Over the course of 700+ posts I’ve been variously disgusted (by pretty much all of his positions) impressed (by his ability to admit, sometimes, when he is wrong) and confused trying to figure out what ties all Walton’s thoughts together. FWIW I think he is basically a fairly bright young man who has yet to throw off the tyranny of idealistic adolescent thought processes that are primarily informed by ignorance of how the world really works. Like when you learn that your sports hero (my score is a paltry 13, BTW), while a great player, is also an asshole. Some of Walton’s positions seem to be faltering as he realizes that reality doesn’t mesh well with his idealism. But mostly not. I suspect that he knows quite a lot, but a lot less than he thinks he knows. Perhaps in time, if he manages to broaden his horizons beyond the cesspools of Coulter and her ilk, as he is doing here.
There have been many excellent posts helping Walton to see where his idealism, in the light of the real world, is self contradictory or runs on the rocks, but I’d just like to throw in one that stuck out to me: Walton admits that he doesn’t think he has the maturity to pass the officer screening, but seems to feel that he has the maturity to pass judgement on great swathes of social, moral and political thought. Hmm… Interesting.
Walton,
With regard to health care systems, take a look at comparative statistics for life expectancy and infant mortality.
Bill, no worries – my knowledge store is limited. I can learn things from just about anybody. Maybe even Kenny!
Walton:
Well, fair enough – but it did, and you can’t take it back. That kind of slant reeks of Limbaugh. Cheney “deferred” his service, while Clinton “dodged” his – and smoked pot while his countrymen died.
Oh, yeah. That’s balanced.
As I said, your influences betray you.
What do you think party-hardy fratboy Dubya was doing during those years, during and after his curtailed stint in the reserves?
By the way – how do you feel about the shameless GOP attacks against decorated war vet John Kerry during the 2004 campaign? Have you ever heard of Max Cleland? Are you aware of the disgraceful, libelous attacks he was subjected to at the hands of the contemptible Ann Coulter?
It’s not Coulter’s bizarre views on science that turn “us” off to her, as you’ve speculated. It’s that she’s a mean-spirited wretch who holds nothing sacred beyond her own extended ambitions.
Of course not. Did I say that? No. It did seem, however, that you were saying that you just couldn’t imagine why Bush & Co decided to invade Iraq after bin Laden became (in)conveniently elusive. Apologies if I misread that.
Hey, Walton, I’m still on your side. If I’m being too edgy, well, sorry. In my defense, I’m sick as a dog and my head is pounding like a bass drum; there are weasels fighting in my sinuses and I’m very cranky – so things that might normally irritate me have become magnified.
I think this is my cue to crawl back into bed for a while…
Modernization of the welfare system started long before the current Swedish government and the changes brought by the present government have been minor. Sweden’s economy continues to grow.
And if you are worried about sustainability, how can you support “taking the fight to the terrorists”? Is that economically sustainable to the present US government? Bringing up Sweden’s hypothetical unsustainability in the long run and forgetting the real cost of the war on terror is ridiculous.
Walton:
You say…
…but your very language…
…presupposes the dogmatic view big government activities are by definition “bloated.” I would say that a government activity was bloated if it were bigger than it needed to be to be effective, regardless of how big or small it was; my sense is that conservatives say (and I gather you agree) that any “big” government activity was “bloated,” regardless of how effective it was. You also…
…presuppose that your political/economic theories (i.e., that “market pressures” are required to produce efficiency… and that efficiency is the sole proper metric of government effectiveness) represents axiomatic truth, regardless of either results or the concerns of the rest of the people. This sort of elevation of theory over either principle or practicality is precisely what I was talking about in my note to Kseniya.
And what about “the people”? When you say…
…you’re perfectly fulfilling my earlier description of a key distinction between right and left: You say “people,” not “the people,” clearly referring to individuals rather than a synthetic whole, and your syntax clearly places “government” in opposition to “people.”
Margaret Thatcher famously said “there’s no such thing as society,” and while I know she repudiated that line as having been taking out of context, I think it says something very true about conservativism, whether she meant it that way or not: Conservatives focus exclusively on individuals (and pseudo-individuals like family units and corporations) and think of society (if at all) as an aggregation of individuals rather than any synthetic whole that might be more than the simple sum of its parts.
That sounds OK in theory, I suppose, but in practical terms it leads to the people in my town who annually vote against the budget because they don’t want to pay for town services they don’t personally use… like public schools, services for the elderly and disabled, relief for the poor, public transportation infrastructure…. As a bleeding-heart, commie-symp liberal, I have this crazy notion that those services benefit the whole community, not just their direct “customers,” and so it’s reasonable that we all share the responsibility for paying for them. So while you might be able to construct a plausible theoretical defense of your ideas about government and taxes, in practice people who think like you are destroying my town. Do you now see why some folks here have been unwilling to just agree to disagree in this thread?
Whether you believe me or not, I’m really not an ideologue. I don’t (nor do I believe liberals generally do) advocate for government solutions for their own sake; I advocate for solutions that work to advance principles I support. Because many of the things I care about — social, civil, and criminal justice systems; public education; human and civil rights (in which category I include universal access to healthcare); etc. — are unlikely to be profitableinherently good; I’m willing to listen to any solutions that produce good results in line with the principles I’ve described. But your “better idea” needs to work better; don’t tell me it’s “better” based on some abstract notion of philosophical purity.
If you listen to the healthcare debate in this country, though, you’ll hear conservatives say “You don’t want the government running your healthcare system, do you?” Full stop. As if it were intuitively obvious that government systems are bad. When I hear talk like that, expressing absolutes without any reference to analysis or evidence regarding actual effectiveness, I know I’m listening to an ideologue.
I’m sure I’m not totally objective on the point, but my observation is that I hear that sort of ideological cant vastly more often from conservatives than from liberals. YMMV.
Looks like Hell will be REALLY REALLY crowded – I guess the Bible’s right about only 100,000 of the Elect being saved in the Last Times. Let’s see…. hypocrites – most every rightwing Republican Xtian; sports fans – everyone in the Red States; porn lovers, fornicators, gamblers – ditto; money-lovers – all the bankers, corporate CEOs and Wall Street tycoons; people who are rational and science-minded; etc.etc.
OK, just who IS going to be raptured?
“Many of those killed were when Hussein was a US ally, meant to be a balance against post revolution Iran. Please do not use morality as a reason to get rid of Hussein when US foreign policy did not give a flying fuck he was doing this when he was an “ally”.”
This point cannot be said enough. When we put Hussein in place, it was to stem the supposed rise of communism in Iraq. Surely when we deposed the former elected leader-with-communist-intentions conservatives here praised Hussein for being a strong law-n-order type leading his people away from the clutches of communistic squalor. How convenient that he kept Iran in check, partly by oppressing the Shiite majority in his own country. How convenient then that we supposedly go to liberate them, and in turn liberate the very people most closely related to those we speak so vituperatively about now.
Using the supposedly moral argument that going into Iraq was a means of liberating the oppressed is wildly dishonest, wildly disingenuous, ignorant in the extreme, convenient to the level of gross opportunism, and 100% wrong in every logical sense.
This leads to a paradox, by the way, when “[the] people” decide that the best way to run their own lives, make their own decisions, and manage their spending, is to offload some of those tasks and responsibilities to the government the people have put in place themselves.
So, Walton – you conservatives trust [the] people to make their own decisions only as far as those decisions agree with your own?
Please reconcile. TYVM.
Walton, instead of yelling I would like to ask a favor of you: read this book with an open mind: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Good comment, there, Bill.
Play MadLib with that one:
And so on. Of course, there’s no reason why one cannot shout “Hell, no!” or “Hell, yes!” to any one or all of these, but playing this game yields some absurdities, not the least of which is the conclusion that we’d be better off with no government at all. Because, you know, we know what’s best and because unfettered free-market capitalism invariably produces the best quality of life for the greatest number of people.
Errr… right?
How ironic, given the identity of Saddam’s #1 role model.
Walton, a few things.
I apologize for taking the tone I did with you earlier, but it’s frustrating to listen to someone with know experience speak like that. I stand by what I said, though with substantially less “fucks.”
Second, if you want to hit me up personally, my e-mail is [email protected], and I can be reached via AIM as “detrs is my name.” I’d be delighted to get some one on one with you outside of here. I’m not looking to debate or argue, though I can’t promise that won’t happen.
Last, and this is the most important part.
While you’re attending your leadership institute thing, I want you to do me a favor (which is part of the reason why I want to hit you up in private): I want you to try and find a graceful way to bring up all the positions you are moderate about. I want you to look at the reaction you get. If you are unable to find a good way to bring those up, do it anyway.
I want you to pay attention to the reasoning why they will almost surely disagree with you. I want you pay attention to how they treat you from then on.
Even more important still, I want you to remember this: if you do not bring that up, if you hear something with which you not only disagree but strongly disagree with and you say nothing, you are complicit for helping to promote something you oppose.
There was a slogan used by many gay and lesbian people in the 80s.
That slogan is “silence = death.” You may not understand that now, but I want you to do this for me.
And I want you to remember that when you’re being attacked for your moderate views by people you consider to be your brethren.
(To Bachalon) What, so you’re suggesting that, at the LI conference, in discussing issues with American Republicans, I purposefully try to bring up the few narrow areas in which I disagree with them (such as gay marriage or creationism in schools)?
The problem with this plan is that those kind of moral issues mostly boil down to religious beliefs. My religious beliefs are nowhere near as strong as those of the average US Republican, and I’m not keen on the idea of imposing them on others through governmental action. But someone who fervently believes in an evangelical Protestant position, who believes young-earth creationism to be the scientific truth, and who thinks homosexuality is a sin (all of which will doubtless be the beliefs of some attenders at the conference), is not going to be able to debate those issues with me in a constructive way, because there isn’t any common ground from which to debate. Ultimately, it isn’t really possible to have a secular argument about gay civil partnerships, for instance. There are no good secular reasons for opposing same-sex civil partnerships; only religious reasons. Either one shares the religious beliefs which lead to such opposition, or one doesn’t; and I personally don’t. So I don’t see what good that kind of argument would do.
Surely the Republican party is a broad church (so to speak) with room for all kinds of different views? (As I recall, ex-Senator Lincoln Chafee didn’t even support Bush’s re-election in 2004.)
Such freakin tedium.
If you want to know where Walton is coming from, count the number of first-person pronouns in #706. Or in pretty much any of his comments, for that matter.
A more self-absorbed, narcissistic commenter I hope never to virtually meet.
I’m curious as to why folks choose to interact with this guy. At least Kenny was fun to tease. For a little while.
(But why should I care? A: I shouldn’t. Probabaly shouldn’t even post this one, but just once more and then no more commenting about other commenters. Hold me to it!)
“Surely the Republican party is a broad church (so to speak) with room for all kinds of different views?”
That would be mostly incorrect, at the very least from a national standpoint. Maybe in smaller places it’s a bigger tent, but that is not the case nationally, and they sure don’t let on that they are a particularly big tent. The current republican party consists of three groups: rabid capitalists, neo-cons (what people in Europe and Australia call neo-liberals), and religious conservatives. These three groups have allied to control economic, social and foreign policy, to deleterious ends I might add. Rarely has a republican been forward-thinking in his/her stances (Teddy, Eisenhower, even Nixon to a degree), and they have quite nearly fully divested themselves from any sort of policy stance that is remotely mainstream. Party loyalty is prized first above pretty much anything, and being a party member while not towing a particular policy line is practically heresy, punishable by their form of excommunication. Many current republicans are perfectly happy thinning the party’s ranks of anyone that even voices dissention from major stances, such as pro-choice sympathies. And I am not making these things up; I have heard these things from republicans.
It is quite rare to find an atheist republican, and if you do, he/she is a libertarian moonlighting with a party that actually wins elections. It is also quite rare to find a pro-choice republican, for nearly the same reasons.
The Democratic party on the other hand has always had a bigger tent politically speaking, and has nearly always been more diverse ethnically and politically.
To BlueIndependent at #742: So, in your opinion as an American voter, and taking into account the statement which I’ve already made of my own views and principles, do you think I’d be better off (in a US context) identifying as a conservative Democrat than as a moderate Republican?
I think I will drop back a little more into lurk mode for a while, lots of things to do and my head needs to be clear.
oh, no worries, I completely understand, and I think you would find all the regulars understand that as well.
In fact, I would suggest avoiding even lurking here; the temptation of SIWOTI is just too strong if you have other things you need to be doing.
just put it away for a while and come back in a couple weeks.
you WILL feel better about it.
seriously, this place is like a good pub, and the “alcohol” is good conversation, and throwing darts.
I’ve heard it compared to smoking crack.
:P
Fuck it.
Walton, I’m not going to lead your hand to the point I’m trying to make.
Here’s the deal: if you’re not going to make some attempt to engage your allies about things upon which you disagree, if you keep your mouth shut, then you are complicit in anything they do.
If you’re not going to try and convince people otherwise then you have no right to say “not all conservatives believe this.”
If you’re not going to try, then anything they do in the name of conservatism, in your name, can be laid as much on your feet as theirs. If you keep quiet, you are passively supporting things you claim you disagree with.
If you’re not going to try, then you have forfeited any right to complain that I am now telling you that you have just become my enemy.
And as for the question on “sports fans”…I think all commenters on that so far have misunderstand this just a bit…surely they only mean to condemn those who participate in fantasy sports activities, not “real” sports. (Umm, maybe I do agree with this part, then? Ha ha(?))
Maybe in smaller places it’s a bigger tent, but that is not the case nationally, and they sure don’t let on that they are a particularly big tent.
Those “smaller places” were exclusively in the Northeast. I don’t know if they exist anymore, anyway. Frustration with this situation is what made Christie Todd Whitman form the My Party Too PAC, and what made ex-Senator Lincoln Chafee into an ex-Republican who said “it’s not my party anymore” and apparently voted for Obama in the primaries. These are Northeasterners giving up, and on the verge of giving up.
There’s just no room for moderates in the Republican party anymore. This has been the refrain of many Bush appointees who’ve resigned in protest. This is essentially the theme of Scott McClellan’s complaints about the “permanent campaign.”
This was the theme of John Dean’s book, “Conservatives Without Conscience”, which if I recall was subtitled “What the Fuck has Happened to My Party? Is Anybody Else Frightened and Disgusted?”
do you think I’d be better off (in a US context) identifying as a conservative Democrat than as a moderate Republican?
You didn’t ask me, but I’ll say this: there are conservative Democrats who sound like you. I don’t personally know what moderate Republicans sound like, because they don’t exist in my part of the country (and that’s not even the South).
You didn’t ask me, but I’ll say this: there are conservative Democrats who sound like you. I don’t personally know what moderate Republicans sound like, because they don’t exist in my part of the country (and that’s not even the South).
Joe Lieberman morphed with John McCain and a dose of Phil Gramm is not a Democrat.
Not a democrat, certainly. But a Democrat? I can’t define what that is, if calling one’s self a Democrat and voting for Democrats doesn’t cover it. Walton’s “everyone is equal, but straights are more equal” attitude about our civil rights would fit comfortably in my area.
I’m not saying that’s a good thing.
To Bachalon at #745: OK, I will try and dispute those points with them. Honestly. I promise. You are right that I should stand up for my conscience.
And I hope I haven’t become your enemy. I didn’t intend to.
Walton,
Your characterization of the “right” as a unified group willing to sacrifice for the greater good is quite the best way you can show your inexperience and immaturity in political discourse. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are two very good examples of people who are all too willing to send other people’s children off to war to die while they stay safe in their million-dollar book deals and radio shows. The fact that you buy into their bulls**t (hook, line, and sinker, no less) is a testament to the fact that you’re barely an adult, and you’re extremely gullible to political deception.
Case in point, the fact the Reagan got elected was definitely not a positive overall. Reagan’s policies were solely responsible for decreasing medical benefits for soldiers (with the dental coverage plans being completely gutted). Reagan was responsible for the decline of the National Guard and Reserves, in that he – along with Weinberger – tried to remove all combat arms from the reserves and Guard, and he succeeded with the reserves before Sonny Montgomery stopped him from doing the same to the National Guard. Reagan and his agents were responsible for selling arms to Iran (and this is the same Iran that is such a pariah in today’s conservative ideology) in order to fund their undeclared war in Nicaragua – and this was after Congress had discovered their actions and cut the funding off. Reagan’s economic policies were responsible for the Savings & Loan crisis, much like the policies of the current administration encouraged white-collar felons at places like Enron in their greed and ambition, along with the current sub-prime mortgage crisis that is dragging the country further and further down into recession. I could go on for quite a while, but I don’t expect you to get it anyway – I’ll just patiently wait until you’ve lived a bit and seen the way the world actually works.
But before you so arrogantly lump yourself in as one “willing to fight and die” to protect freedom, know that you are not even remotely akin to the actual brave souls who place their signature on the dotted line – along with possibly their lives – in order to serve the greater good. You do not sacrifice. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh do not sacrifice. They merely profit from stirring the nationalistic emotions that breed unnecessary contempt for outsiders and cause the purpose of the military to be perverted into fighting unjust wars. They avoid actual sacrifice and instead enjoy obscenely wealthy lifestyles paid for on the backs of those who are making the real sacrifices. The fact that you do not recognize this is a testament to your ignorance. The fact that you criticize Obama for a supposed lack of experience with the very same mouth that makes the above statements is a testament to your arrogance.
You, my friend, need to step away from the keyboard and spend a little time in the real world before you come back. Statements like this one are utterly incorrect, and the last part of it again shows how ignorant you truly are concerning the political history of the USA. Only someone with such an effective mix of youth and ignorance as you display would even come close to seriously insinuating that the GOP is the party that “actually wins elections.” If you had any knowledge about politics (in any country), you’d realize that the only political parties that so dominate the political landscape in their countries are the ones that do so by force. The Republicans that you so ridiculously believe to be the superior party actually find themselves in the minority as we speak – or perhaps you missed the 2006 Congressional elections… I suggest you give yourself a little time to get to know the real world, rather than swallowing the conservative party line whole and regurgitating it here.
I don’t speak for anyone else here, but as for me, until you decide to join the discussion as an informed participant – rather than simply reading and spouting talking points straight from mouths such as Coulter’s and Limbaugh’s – you fit quite perfectly the definition of an enemy, at least in the political sense, solely because there is nothing worse than an individual who allows themselves to be intellectually manipulated by an outsider. It is your duty to educate yourself and form your own opinions, especially if you’re going to subject us to those opinions in your posts. (Don’t bother claiming that you already have – if you do, you obviously can’t tell the difference between a genuine opinion and a party-line talking point.) And if you continue to refer to yourself in the same vein as those individuals who actually have given up life or limb in service to their nation, you’ll most certainly be an enemy in the intellectual sense.
P.S. – If you have to keep calling yourself an honest seeker of truth, you’re more than likely quite far from it.
brokenSoldier,
Glad to see you back!
Walton,
If you’re still around: I disagree with brokenSoldier on a number of subjects (or perhaps just one big one), but I respect and take him seriously and read his comments with care. You should aspire to be more like him. You could start by searching for his name here and reading through his previous posts. (Apologies for the unsolicited advice.)
To BrokenSoldier at #751.
Firstly, I don’t compare myself to those who have already fought and sacrificed for their country. As explained above, I hope to do so later in life, but that isn’t the same thing. I respect all war veterans – regardless of their personal views – for their dedication to their country. So I apologise if I came over as arrogant in this regard. I am a member of the British Army OTC and hoping to serve in the Territorial Army, in a deployable capacity, after graduation, but I haven’t done it yet – and I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have done so. My sincere apologies if I gave any other impression.
As to the remark “It is quite rare to find an atheist republican, and if you do, he/she is a libertarian moonlighting with a party that actually wins elections” – I didn’t say this. It was said by BlueIndependent at #742, and for the record I don’t agree with it.
Walton:
You most certainly did, as evidenced by your use of the pronoun “we” in the below statement.
If you wish to retract that statement, that’s one thing. But you definitely did characterize yourself in that manner, and quite erroneously. And that statement was not the only example of your willingness to include yourself in a group to which you do not belong. There is no harm in presenting opinions, but when you do so without the base of knowledge or experience that is required for such statements to be credible, that is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
As for the statement I mis-attributed, I take back the comments I made. You’d be a lot better off if you did the same in examining the statements and claims you’ve made on this thread. In my own life, I was quite the conservative about 10 years ago, but my experiences since then have radically altered my worldview, and I’d be very surprised if you hold these same ideals after enduring some of the hardships inherent in the kind of sacrifice you’ve yet to experience. This all goes back to the truism that reading about something and actually going through it are two very different things. You can read all you want about war, but until you have been there and lost a friend in combat, you have no real understanding of the kind of sacrifice you have been talking about on this thread.
No one will fault you for lacking such knowledge, but the moment you presume to speak about it without truly understanding what you’re talking about, you invite the criticism upon yourself.
Fair enough, I retract that statement, or at least the impression it evidently gave (which was not what I intended at all). I am wholeheartedly pro-military and pro-troops, and I really didn’t mean to cause any offence. I apologise for the misleading impression it may have given.
…when you do so without the base of knowledge or experience that is required for such statements to be credible, that is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. – I have knowledge, but lack experience (by virtue of being only 19). You are, of course, absolutely right that there’s only so much one can learn from reading. And I am entirely willing to defer to your experience as regards the military, and to learn from it. I’m not trying to be arrogant, and I apologise insofar as I’ve evidently come over that way.
…my experiences since then have radically altered my worldview, and I’d be very surprised if you hold these same ideals after enduring some of the hardships inherent in the kind of sacrifice you’ve yet to experience. – Possibly. As I’ve said, I do intend to have that experience, if the British Army will allow me to do so. Maybe in ten years’ time I will have a different outlook, but it’s hard to tell.
brokenSoldier, nice to see you back. Been reading your comments re ASL on another thread with interest.
Ciao
I have knowledge,
No, you do not. I don’t know at what point in your life you’ll recognize the absurdity of that claim and laugh at the fact that you were foolish enough to make it, but I do hope that day comes.
Walton, here you have access to someone who used to share some of your views, but has moved away from them over the years in light of new knowledge and experience. If you are truly a “seeker of truth,” you should begin by asking him some questions about his experiences and what in particular has led him to change his views. Questions, Walton. Questions.
(More unsolicited advice, I know, but for some reason I’m still not giving up on you.)
“(More unsolicited advice, I know, but for some reason I’m still not giving up on you.)”
Good for you, SC. (Smile) I have given up, but then, I am not that nice of a person. I will note that at 16 I knew everything, at 18 I was sure of everything. Now? Well, the world continues to surprise me with what I do not know, but I find I enjoy the learning.
Ciao
To SC at #757. You may note that 90% of my post was given over to an apology for my previous statement, so I was under the impression that I wasn’t being too arrogant. Again, though, I sincerely apologise if I gave that impression. I’m happy to learn from other people.
If you are truly a “seeker of truth,” you should begin by asking him some questions about his experiences and what in particular has led him to change his views. – Yes, I was about to do that. I just felt it was first important to apologise for the fact that I inadvertently caused offence, and to correct a misleading impression which I gave from my earlier statements.
So I will ask an open question to BrokenSoldier, and to JeffreyD if he’s interested in answering. Insofar as you’re comfortable talking about it, what happened in your personal experience which caused you to change your views? What perspective do you now have on military and foreign policy?
I am, genuinely, interested in learning. I’m sorry that I evidently didn’t give that impression.
Posted by: Walton | June 7, 2008 12:10 PM
My objections and departure from the political right had everything to do with the things I saw while in combat, and the way that I have seen the conservative politicians handle the war and its veterans and victims.
Every time I hear the President or one of his party members talk about fighting terrorists in Iraq, I know enough to realize that they hardly know what they are talking about. The great majority of individuals who take up arms against us in Iraq are definitely not terrorists. If they were, I’d have few misgivings about the war. As it stands, most of them are simply Iraqis who have been lied to by the religious leaders that dominate their area. For example, one day we were moving along the main highway conducting what we called a ‘doorbell patrol.’ We were going to certain houses in the area, knocking on the door, and either checking up on individuals who had been threatened by insurgents or looking for wanted individuals. On this kind of mission, we’d go all day without so much as thinking about firing a shot, because that simply was not our mission. But on this day, the local mullah decided he wanted to foment a little violence, so he gathered a group of adult males from his village and tell them that the Americans were on their way to attack their village, and that if they let us, then we would pillage their houses, rape their wives and daughters, and hang them from the canal bridges. (Remember that these people had no reason to disbelieve their mullah, but even if they did, they did not have the freedom to contradict him.) These are people that are by no means unintelligent, but rather they are grossly uninformed. They are utterly ignorant – and they are kept that way by those individuals that enjoy the immense power and respect that comes along with being a religious leader in that society, and such men have no qualms about lying to their followers and sending them to their death for their own personal gain. (In this case, the mullah wanted to halt the American patrols through his village so he could resume his dealings in the black market trade that we had curbed the year before.) So he fed these men a story that he knew would make them take up arms to ‘protect’ their village. We entered the village to check on three families that had been threatened by one of the Sunni brigades, and walked straight into a hornet’s nest. At the end of the fight, we started to tend to the wounded, both theirs and ours, when I came across a man that I had fired at and hit. Keep in mind that at this point, I was still under the impression that if I ran into a fire fight, I was fighting enemies that had set out to kill me for the very narrow reasons constantly parroted by the Republicans. This man was talking, so i got my interpreter over to translate. As my medic treated him, he told us why he had taken to the streets against us. (Ironically, his family was one of the three that we were in the village to check on.) Here I was, face to face with “the enemy,” and I find that he’s just a regular guy, trying to protect his family and home from a threat that had been placed quite deliberately in his head by an opportunistic mullah – not unlike my situation, in that I believed I was over there to fight terrorism and its adherents, when such individuals are actually a very small minority. You’ll never know the guilt (at least, I sincerely hope you never do) that comes with knowing that orders from your mouth caused unnecessary harm to come to someone who truly did not deserve it.
When I hear conservative politicians rail on about Al Qaeda and how we need to defeat them “over there,” I know from personal experience that they are willfully distorting the truth. You don’t need to spend much time in Iraq before you realize that before our invasion, Al Qaeda had little to no interest in Iraq. They are there now precisely because we are there – it is their best chance to kill Americans, and they flock to Iraq to avail themselves of that opportunity. And that is beside the fact that these ppoliticians know full well that were we to leave Iraq, those terrorists who would attack the US would have a much harder time doing so in the post-9/11 world. They caught us by surprise on that day, but I find it hard to believe they could do it as easily the next time. We were on the right track with Afghanistan, but the war in Iraq was truly a step in the opposite direction that is costing us very dearly. Don’t get me wrong, I myself parroted the Saddam Hussein line (“We got him out of power – that’s all that matters”), but when you take a step back and judge the situation from the outside, you begin to realize that our invasion had less to do with 9/11, and more to do with Saddam himself. And the line that they spout that says the world is better off without him may very well be true, but it by no means gave us any justifiable reason to invade a sovereign nation. The world would definitely be better off without many of the tyrants that currently lead nations, but the mere possibility of aggression is not justification for war.
The great majority of my changes in opinion come from the fact that war, as horrible as it sounded before I experienced it, was infinitely more jarring and horrible once I saw it with my own eyes. I have disagreed with a couple of very astute commenters here in the past on the fact that I believe armed forces to be a necessary entity, I think we would all agree that nations should exhaust every single one of their options before they even consider the option of going to war. This is the point upon which my entire viewpoint now lies. The politicians who fanned the flames of war in Iraq did so obscenely prematurely, and had this nation opened the kind of discourse that should have been opened prior to commencing hostilities, we would never have crossed the line into war in the first place.
When I see politicians like McCain and his buddy from Indiana, Mike Pence, making absurd statements about the security situation in Baghdad (the now infamous “just like a summer market in Indiana” remark), I know from ppersonal expperience that they are intentionally distorting the truth – and just flat-out lying. No Senator or other elected official who visits that country will be able to get a true reading on the security situation ppersonally, because under no circumstances are they allowed to walk anywhere without an obscene amount of security. As the Executive Officer of my cavalry troop, I coordinated exactly 52 VIP escort patrols, and not one of them left the wire without a ridiculous amount of protection. What makes McCain’s position worse is that he said he took that trip because “Americans are not getting the whole picture” and that the media had been deliberately exaggerating the dangers and lack of security. McCain, being a military man, knows a security detail when he sees one. So his statements about the safety of the areas were not simply misconceptions – they are blatant lies. He knew full well that he was being escorted by one hundred soldiers, three attack helicopters, and countless crew served automatic weapons, yet he still had the gall to suggest that the area he was walking through was safe. As far as I’m concerned, in making that statement, he committed the worst sin an elected official can commit – he willfully deceived the citizens who pay his salary in order to create a completely false impression in the minds of Americans about our progress in Iraq.
And when I hear conservative politicians state that the Republican party is the party that takes care of the military, I know from personal experience that they are simply glossing over the truth with a bold-faced lie. It was not Bill Clinton who dismantled the military after the first Gulf War, it was George Bush Sr. It was not the Democratic party that attempted to remove the combat capability of the National Guard in favor of having a huge standing army, it was Reagan in the 80’s and Colin Powell in the 90’s. It was not liberals who raped the Army disability rating system to ensure that the military saved money, it was Reagan. To elaborate on that one, I’ll give you a couple of specific examples:
1 – The Veterans Administration rates a soldier by compiling their different problems and adding the ratings together, ujp to a poissible 100%. The Army used to do this very same thing until Casper Weinberger in the 80’s. To save money, they began only rating those injuries that would preclude service, drastically cutting down on the money the Army spent in disability payments.
2 – In addition, the army will only rate a soldier up to 75% disability – they leave of the top 25% for no other reason than to cut costs. As if that wasn’t bad enough, they do not rate equally, as the VA does. Instead, they use the ridiculous “whole man” concept, which says the following: If you receive ratings for three different injuries from the Army, all at 10%, you will not receive 30% disability, as common sense suggests – and as the rest of the service branches actually practice – but rather they take the first rating and subtract it from 100%, leaving you with 90%. Then, they take another 10% off of that remaining 90%, leaving you with 80%, and a disability rating of 19%. Finally, they take the last 10% off of the 80%, leaving you with a total disability rating of 27%. This sounds trivial, but when you realize that the threshold for medical retirement is 30% disability, you find that this “whole man” policy is designed for one thing – saving money by taking it away from people who have been promised that the Army would take care of them. In the days we live in, with the Army holding soldiers to the most ridiculous of stringent contracts because it is a “soldier’s obligation” to “follow their contract to the letter” (all words I have heard out of officers’ mouths time and time again), once the soldier gets wounded, the Army feels no obligation to honor theirend of the contract, and shows no remorse about changing the rules after the fact to get out of their own obligations to that same soldier. And these changes were the work of conservative politicians in an attempt to save money to cover up the hole in the budget left by their ridiculous policy of cutting taxes while increasing military spending.
I could go on and on about this, but I’ll spare you the rest of my ramblings. I hope I’ve made my points well enough, and I hope that you never have to go through the things that some people have been put through in the name of nationalism – but I’d caution you against accepting someone else’s interpretation – Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative – of things without going out of your way a little to check into them. If there is one pervading truth in politics, it is that there is always an ulterior motive behind anything a politician does. The minute you accept them at face value, you’re effectively handing over what power you have as a citizen.
I don’t mean to be patronizing in saying this at all, but you really do remind me of myself when I was 19. I was ready and raring to go fight to protect my country, and I let my intellect be hijacked by those who would use me to achieve their own ends. At the heart of it, that is the main reason for my disillusionment. We are raised to think that the government exists to take care of us, only to grow up and find out that the government is no different than the basest of human nature – its main concern is looking out for itself, and it will use any and all means of false justification to make sure it can reach that goal.
To BrokenSoldier at #760: Thank you for your detailed response. And I respect and admire you for your service.
I don’t mean to be patronizing in saying this at all, but you really do remind me of myself when I was 19. – It’s not patronising, indeed I take it as a compliment.
Thank you for the detailed account of the situation on the ground in Iraq. I wasn’t aware of the phenomenon you describe regarding the manipulation of ordinary Iraqis by religious leaders. I do realise it’s too simplistic to simply refer to our enemies over there as if they were a monolithic army of “terrorists”, and I recognise that I do not fully understand the complexity of the civil and military situation in Iraqi society (and won’t have that level of understanding unless and until I serve in Iraq).
We were on the right track with Afghanistan, but the war in Iraq was truly a step in the opposite direction that is costing us very dearly. – I don’t disagree with this at all, and I haven’t actually been defending the decision to invade Iraq. For the record, I agree with you 100% (as, as far as I know, do most military strategists of all persuasion) that it was a huge strategic error, and have believed so for some time (considering the fact that Saddam’s Iraq had no links to fundamentalism or al-Qaeda – being one of the most secular regimes in the Middle East – and that the Bush administration had no coherent plan for nation-building after overthrowing Saddam). To the best of my knowledge, this is now widely recognised. So I’m not defending Rumsfeld by any means, or trying to argue that the Bush administration has been consistently brilliant in its geopolitical-military strategy.
However, let me ask you this, with reference to your experience of the situation on the ground in Iraq: regardless of the rights and wrongs of the original invasion, what do you think would happen, at this stage, if the US and UK were to withdraw all substantial combat forces from Iraq? If Obama is elected, and fulfils his promise to begin a phased withdrawal over the next few years, how will this affect the situation on the ground? Since you have the benefit of first-hand experience, I’m interested in your view on this. I have supported McCain and strongly opposed Obama, up to this point, principally because I presumed that a withdrawal of troops would lead to more chaos and insurgency, or to an Iranian takeover; but your response above suggests otherwise.
As regards past US governments’ abuse of the disability rating system and cuts in spending for disabled veterans, I didn’t know about that; I find it disgraceful, but I’m not entirely surprised. In the UK (with whose military history I am more familiar), governments of both parties (Labour and Conservative) short-sightedly slashed military spending at various times since the war, and neither party has a stellar record on taking care of disabled and vulnerable ex-service personnel. So I wouldn’t make the rose-tinted claim that all conservative governments have a fantastic record on supporting the troops.
Once again, thank you for your response, and I’ve learnt a lot from it. I will, of course, rethink my perspective on this issue (as everyone should, when confronted with the testimony of someone who has greater expertise and experience).
Posted by: Walton | June 7, 2008 2:57 PM
I make this reply knowing that I am not an expert on foreign policy, but I do not believe that my assessment is either irresponsible or improbable, and I base that analysis on the different situations I encountered while overseas. During my eleven months there (due to my typical unfortunate luck, I only had a month left on my tour when my number came up!), I saw more than a few areas of the country go through a transition from American control to either control by Iraqi forces or simply no military presence at all, save for the occasional long-range patrol. These transitions were due to force consolidation and/ or hand-over of territory to Iraqi units.
The one thing I noticed most of all was that when it came time for our troops to leave an area, the first reaction we encountered from the locals was one of muted disappointment. This was not because they were afraid of terrorist retaliation, but rather it meant that the economic benefits that came along with a large force being there would necessarily dry up. (Things such as jobs on the American base, field ordering money no longer being spent on the local economy, etc…) After a few weeks, we would notice that the spot reports (reports concerning attacks or other violence) would decrease – this happened precipitously in the good areas, and a little more slowly in the areas that had been rife with violence, and in only a select few, it took a couple of months. But invariably, once American troops were out of the area, attacks did drop, due to the fact that the insurgents’ main objective – fighting an attrition war with the US forces – could be accomplished only where there were soldiers present. This is not to say that attacks completely ceased, but when compared to areas that still housed soldiers, the difference was immense. Once we were out of an area, the Iraqi Security forces did an admirable job of handling the attacks that did occur.
As for Iranian influence, our removal of Saddam Hussein did all that Iran wanted as far as expanding their influence over the country as a whole. During my time there, I never once encountered active Iranian influence at the street level, aside from finding caches of Iranian weapons – and even these could not be attributed to recent aid, because Iranian weapons have been flowing in to Shia insurgents from as far back as 1980, when they were fighting their war with Iraq. By removing Saddam Hussein, we removed Iran’s major obstacle to exerting significant influence over Iraq on a national level – the Sunni majority in the nation’s government. Once the majority in the government was no longer Sunni, Iran found that they could slow their aid to the fighter on the street and ramp up their pressure on the politicians and clerics that controlled the new national army, therefore exerting far greater influence over the country than could be done with shipments of grenades and rifles.
So in answer to your question, if we were to conduct a protracted withdrawal – which is necessary simply for the security of our withdrawing forces and civilian support system, I believe that while violence may still occur, it would be at a far lesser rate than is going on with our soldiers in the middle. I don’t mean that there would be no problems at all – but I do believe that the assumption that the nation would immediately collapse into civil war is deceptively simplistic at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.
As for the idea of Iran trying to take over the country, I don’t believe that is in the cards, either. Iran will certainly keep up their efforts in exerting influence over Iraq, but open armed conflict is not – as they well know – in their best interests. While the march to war this last time in Iraq was contrived at best, an Iranian invasion of Iraq would necessarily galvanize the international community against them and draw a military response from the United Nations. Iran seems to be entirely content with doing what they can politically to manipulate the direction of Iraq, and that is a problem that the Iraqi government should be handling themselves, which they are fully capable of doing.
As a matter of fact, it is my opinion that the situation in Iraq will not normalize until the armed forces of all foreign countries are safely outside their borders. Once they are in full possession of their country, they’ll be free to deal with the problems that they will inevitably have to face, whether we leave next year or in ten years. The difference will be that once we are gone, they will have no choice but to deal with those problems.
If there is one pervading truth in politics, it is that there is always an ulterior motive behind anything a politician does. – brokenSoldier
The British journalist (and communist) Claud Cockburn said that whenever you hear a politician say anything you should ask yourself: “Why is this bastard lying to me?”!
Correction to #763 – I just googled the phrase (should have done so before posting) and it wasn’t Cockburn, but Harold Evans, another British journalist (and a non-communist); and he said it to the staff of the paper he was editor of at the time, the Sunday Times – which was a very fine paper when he edited it, but is now owned by Murdoch.
Nick,
I thought it was “Why is this lying bastard lying to me”.
Nick,
I hadn’t heard of that quote, but it’s a sentiment I agree with completely – I think I’ll have to print that one out and frame it.
Indeed – the death knell of objectivity for many of our formerly respectable media outlets…
Matt,
Apparently that was Jeremy Paxman (note for non-Brits: British TV political interviewer, famous for being stroppy with politicians, e.g. he once asked the same question 15(?) times running, because his interviewee (Michael Howard) wasn’t answering it).
brokenSoldier,
Wonderful of you to take the time to respond so thoughtfully to Walton’s questions. Sorry for volunteering you for the job, but I was confident that, if asked, you would come through. I’m going to spin it and declare myself Facilitator of Truth-Seeking.
Nick Gotts,
note for non-Brits:…famous for being stroppy
Hmmm…:)
I, also, extend my thanks to brokenSoldier for a detailed and interesting reply, which has certainly been more thought-provoking than anything else I’ve read recently. I’ll have to think about it.
SC, I hope I’ve proved to you that I am willing to listen and to learn. The more I learn, the more I realise how little I know about so many things outside my own specialised area of knowledge – and until I’ve experienced Afghanistan or Iraq (which I hope to do, should the British Army accept my service) I won’t really fully understand it.
Walton:
Walton, statements like that betray your youthful ignorance. It is a sad mind indeed that hopes to experience war. My position in the discussions between myself and others on this post concerning the choice to serve in the military in no way espouse a desire for war, but rather a choice for service. The fact that you hope to experience Iraq or Afghanistan simply shows that you have no idea what you are wishing upon yourself. You need to grow up, or you very well may get yourself killed through your own ignorance.
Walton, no you are not my enemy. Not yet. I do have another question for you, though.
You say you support civil unions, but would you be willing to fight for them? It’s one thing to say you support them, another to actually put your money where your mouth is. I’ve found a lot of people who say one thing but aren’t willing to do any real work towards a goal.
I can add nothing to what brokenSoldier said about the situation in Iraq and generally agree with his analysis of what will happen if foreign troops leave. The situation will deteriorate to some extent when foreign money leaves, but the violence should decline dramatically.
I do not feel like talking about my experiences as such, in moving from callow youth to surprisingly still optimistic middle age – I have mentioned some of them in previous postings. I was always a liberal and a democrat, small “d”, and this did not really change. Rather, my contempt for those who push for war as any other than a last resort has grown. I do still think war must at time be a resort, last, but a resort and that a trained and equipped military is very necessary.
I do wish to point out one item which tends to bug me. Commentators always point out the invasion of Iraq was a failure. Yes and no. It WAS/IS a hideous mistake, but the invasion was well handled by the various military forces. However, no one in BushVille had any idea to do once Saddam was gone. The CIA, US Mil, State Dept all recognized no plan was in place for the “peace”, but no one at the White House wanted to hear any complaints on that score. Bush and company truly seemed to believe the “invaders” would be treated as liberators. The US military, civilian agencies, and support personnel are now left holding the bag because the, for want of a better word, leadership of the US was/is not willing to accept advice or criticism that does not fit with preconceived notions.
On other point. The longer troops stay in Iraq the higher the potential for war crimes. Combat troops do not make good occupiers. After the second or third time you see your brothers and sisters die in an ambush, the natural response is to shoot first the next time. This becomes difficult to control, especially when units are broken up in to small units for patrols or to occupy strong points, road blocks. The damage to our men and women is cumulative and horrendous. Keeping them in Iraq without a purpose and without a goal will eventually tell on them. I am of Vietnam, the generation and the army. I do not wish to see this happen again, but Iraq does make my bones and scars twinge with remembered pain.
BrokenSoldier at #770: Once again I apologise; “hope” wasn’t the right word. But you know what I mean. It is something which I intend to do, if I can.
Bachalon at #771:
You say you support civil unions, but would you be willing to fight for them? – No, in all honesty. Because I think, harsh as it sounds, that there are more important things to fight for.
Don’t get me wrong. If we lived under governments which were rounding up homosexuals and imprisoning them without trial, or encouraging vicious physical attacks on them – all of which does, of course, happen in many countries in the world – then I would fight against this with every fibre of my being. Because I believe that all persons, heterosexual or homosexual, need and deserve protection of their basic physical security and integrity.
But as it is, the question is not even comparable to that; it’s simply an issue of whether homosexual couples can enjoy certain legal benefits which accrue from being in a legally recognised relationship. I understand 100% that this is very important to many homosexual couples (particularly with things like hospital visitation rights) and I don’t wish to downplay the significance of the issue. But compared to the most important priority of our time – fighting terrorism and Islamic extremism – it is a secondary issue. (And, as regards hospital visitation etc., bear in mind that many of the same legal hurdles are faced by cohabiting siblings and other persons in non-sexual relationships. So it isn’t exclusively an issue of homosexual rights.)
As long as homosexuals are being imprisoned and attacked in many countries around the world, I don’t think that the focus of the gay rights lobby – or indeed of anyone who cares about human rights – should be on achieving the right to civil unions. It should be on fighting the brutal régimes around the world – especially Islamic extremism – who desire to do much worse things to homosexuals than deny them their civil unions.
As I’ve said, given a simple two-way choice, I would probably vote in favour of same-sex civil unions. If it were a two-way choice (yes or no), I might well even vote in favour of same-sex marriage. But I simply don’t think it’s the most important issue, and hence why I am not willing to devote energy to fighting for it to the exclusion of other issues.
Walton,
go to hell.
To MAJeff: The hell which you don’t believe in?
In seriousness, I would like to apologise for the fact that I’ve evidently offended you time and time again. But since you’ve more or less given up responding to my posts with anything but insults, I can’t do much about it. I am only stating honestly what I believe. I’m sorry if you hate me for it. But I can’t lie, and diplomacy can only stretch so far.
I can only ask you to ignore my remarks if you find them so offensive. I’ve given my reasons elsewhere for continuing to participate in this forum.
It’ll be a proverbial cold day before some bitch-ass heterosexual supremacist punk tells me what my focus should be as a gay activist. You’ve got some gall, and the fact that you are so goddamned clueless about it is sad and pathetic. Get out of yourself.
And yes, burn in that hell that doesn’t exist. It’s where you belong.
FOAD.
How DARE you, you arrogant little fuck? How dare you tell me that I should forget about my own life, my own oppression in this very society. I put my money where my mouth is. I contribute and teach. And you little fuckwitted ass have the gall to tell me that you know better where my efforts should be, when you admit you’re not willing to contribute any energy.
Fuck off you worthless little misanthropic shit.
I can only ask you to ignore my remarks if you find them so offensive. I’ve given my reasons elsewhere for continuing to participate in this forum.
I’ve been trying to ignore this intensely odious homosocial homophobe for a long time. It is a shame that there is no hell waiting for the likes of you, no N.D.E. moment of “oops, I sure got that wrong, I suppose it really is oblivion for me after all.” At the risk of godwinning this thread, Walton’s (is that you, Johnboy?) willingness to countenance discrimination against his GLBT brothers and/or sisters makes him no different from one who is careful not to wear a brownshirt on Crystallnacht, but who is equally careful to go out of his way to obsequiously say, “No, thank you,” knowing that “the right thing” is being done.
Walton’s spinelessness in defense of discrimination is uglier than my analogy. It would be even uglier to ignore such offensiveness, because it only gets stronger, and never really goes away.
bitch-ass heterosexual supremacist punk – Call me what you will, but I take issue with the suggestion that I am a “heterosexual supremacist”.
I am no bigot. I have never knowingly belittled or attacked a homosexual person for their orientation. It’s their business, not mine. I can’t prove this, obviously, since you don’t know me in real life; but, for what it’s worth, I give you my word of honour that I do not have any prejudice against homosexuals and I do not desire to deprive them of their rights and liberties as citizens under the law. I would ask you to assume good faith.
I don’t know what you would ask of me. I won’t reply to you again (unless you ask me to), since it obviously causes you so much anger. I really don’t dislike you, and it saddens me that I provoke so much hatred. It wasn’t my intention.
Note: my post immediately above was in reply to MAJeff, though I hope it also addresses Ken Cope’s reply.
I don’t know what you would ask of me. I won’t reply to you again (unless you ask me to), since it obviously causes you so much anger. I really don’t dislike you, and it saddens me that I provoke so much hatred. It wasn’t my intention.
Whoooooosh!
I am no bigot. I have never knowingly belittled or attacked a homosexual person for their orientation. It’s their business, not mine. I can’t prove this, obviously, since you don’t know me in real life; but, for what it’s worth, I give you my word of honour that I do not have any prejudice against homosexuals and I do not desire to deprive them of their rights and liberties as citizens under the law. I would ask you to assume good faith.
Clueless.
Easy there, Jeff. Don’t give yourself a stroke, now.
Walton… If you were genuinely concerned about the way Islamic and other repressive nations treat their own citizens (both homosexuals and straights, women and men)…
Wouldn’t you be thinking more about joining Amnesty International, or the International Human Rights Watch, or similar?
Speaking of focus, after all.
And don’t flatter yourself. You’re merely a diversion during the NBA finals.
C’mon, Owlmirror, these are merely abstract issues, politics. We’re not talking about real people.
I mean, why would Walton even consider that gay folks are working on issues that affect their lives while simultaneously working on issues affecting people around the world? I wonder where he even heard about gay folks being executed in Iran. Could it be gay groups like ILGA or ILGHRC bringing the issues forward to media outlets like the BBC? Noooo…that would mean we selfish western queers wouldn’t be doing anything.
And, of course, we’re the radicals insisting on full equality. And someone who admits that he refuses to stand up for queers–only to say that he harbors no ill will–who is willing to stand aside as the institutions of heterosexual domination remain intact, who criticizes queer activists for not doing work they are actually doing, wonders why someone might call him a heterosexual supremacist and take issue with his ignorant critique.
And then gets all narcissistic and shit.
Worthless little fuck.
In response to Owlmirror at #783: I have several friends who are deeply involved in Amnesty (they have a strong presence at my university), so I certainly did think about it. Although I applaud some of Amnesty’s goals, I have the following problems with them:
1) There really isn’t much point in holding solidarity marches, writing strongly-worded letters to foreign leaders, etc., in opposition to human rights abuses around the world. The leaders of those régimes have shown that they are not sensitive to world opinion. Is Ahmadinejad going to cave in and release thousands of innocent prisoners, after ignoring the geopolitical clout of the US and the UN, simply because he receives angry letters from student activists? Is it really going to make any difference? There are better ways to spend one’s time.
2) Amnesty is also increasingly partisan in the way it attacks the US government. I find it downright offensive that, on one poster in my college, they listed “closing Guantanamo Bay” and “ending the death penalty in Texas” as policy priorities in the same list as “stopping human rights abuses in Burma” and the like. I’m sorry, but no sensible person can argue that the US government’s transgressions are as bad as the brutality inflicted by the regimes in Burma, Iran, China, etc. And the US criminal justice system – which, flawed though it undoubtedly is, at least executes people only when they are convicted of murder – cannot be compared to the mass government-sponsored killings taking place every day in dictatorial nations around the world.
Ultimately, principled student activism, protests, vigils etc., solve very little. It makes the participants feel good about themselves, but it doesn’t do anything to defeat evil. It usually, regrettably, takes naked force to do that.
To MAJeff at #785.
I’m sorry. I conveyed the wrong impression in my original post.
I did not mean to suggest that gay rights activists were “selfish” and didn’t care about abuses in Iran and other repressive regimes. It was poor self-expression on my part, but that genuinely isn’t what I meant.
I was only explaining why I, personally, do not get very worked up about the issues of same-sex marriage and civil unions. It just isn’t one of my major personal fields of concern – yet I find here that I’ve been quizzed about it, and pressured to come down on one side of the fence or the other. Which is fair enough.
As long as homosexuals are being imprisoned and attacked in many countries around the world, I don’t think that the focus of the gay rights lobby – or indeed of anyone who cares about human rights – should be on achieving the right to civil unions. It should be on fighting the brutal régimes around the world – especially Islamic extremism – who desire to do much worse things to homosexuals than deny them their civil unions.
So, you didn’t mean what you said.
Not a serious ethical or intellectual person.
Ultimately, principled student activism, protests, vigils etc., solve very little. It makes the participants feel good about themselves, but it doesn’t do anything to defeat evil. It usually, regrettably, takes naked force to do that.
Principled homophobes have gotten their proposition on the California ballot to enshrine discrimination against teh gay into the state’s Constitution, as part of a GOP GOTV to pry the party hateful out of their troglodyte lairs to vote their homophobia, and while they’re at it, cast a vote for Walton’s man-crush, McCain, who has sold out to the Biblical end-timers. I won’t feel particularly good about having to make sure I vote against such idiocy, it’s my duty to do such a thing.
I’ll tell you what’s evil, Walton, you odious little shit. It’s your smug ignorance and sheep-like devotion to those who live to fleece you and your fellow clueless dupes, eager to vote against your own self-interest. Speaking of naked force (ever watch a gladiator movie?), it might feel good to rearrange your face, but that won’t make you any less stupid. There is at least a chance that you can be made a little less ignorant.
No….
Changing behaviors in others requires punishment and/or reward. “Punishment” may mean force, but not necessarily. Sometimes the threat of force is necessary, but even then, not always.
The major punishment involved in most of the major social advances of the 19th and 20th centuries was not force, not violence, but shame.
The women’s rights movements, the Indian independence movements, the black civil rights movements, the gay civil rights movements — all were predicated on the basis of mass demonstrations precisely so as to instill shame in those who opposed them; to emphatically remind them that they were people too. They were also rewarding themselves, in a way: given the social nature of humanity, reminding each other that they are not alone in their desire for change is itself a reward. The whole point was not to threaten the keepers of the status quo with force directly, (although a mass of people united does have an implicit threat all by itself, which is why repressive tactics were used against them).
(Even the anti-slavery movements were mostly based on using shame; the U.S. Civil War broke out because the South preferred to directly use violence rather than be shamed.)
Even if actual military force is necessary for whatever reason, that force must be carefully restrained and very narrowly targeted. If it is not, then the whole enterprise changes to an actual battle, or even a war.
Once the force goes from potential to actual, the conflict goes from being idealistic to cynically pragmatic: Dead people don’t misbehave.
And of course, from the point of view of the other side, when they see that there’s no benefit in changing their behavior, every death on their own side becomes a motivation for more primal behavior: fight or flight.
And of course, if you go in with naked force applied haphazardly, and no particular plan to guarantee the opportunity for peaceful behavior change, the end result is a mess such as Iraq: the only change of behavior is that the people have learned to change only the appearance of their behavior, and when unobserved, or after finding a way to make themselves unpunishable, do whatever they want.
So it’s important to keep in mind, as you put on your battle dress and lead your platoon into a foreign country where there is some behavior that you think needs to be changed with bullets and rocket shells and bombs and mortars and grenades:
What behaviors are being punished?
What behaviors are being rewarded?
Walton:
I knew what you meant when I made the comment. I joined the military because I thought I should, in order to provide the right to not join it to those who want to make that choice. Never did I – and never would I – want to go to war. It’s certainly not an uncommon sentiment, but it exists almost exclusively among those who have never been to war. I can guarantee you that if you do have to fight in open combat, you’ll realize that wanting to go to war is a foolish, youthful wish that romanticizes war while being completely ignorant of its horrors. You’ll realize that you simply did not know what you were getting yourself into – that is, if you make it out of it in the first place. I know more than a few individuals who shipped to Iraq with me that had the same view you’re putting forth. The only difference is that they didn’t live long enough to realize that they were horribly wrong in wishing for such a horrible thing.
I’d offer the advice that there are far better ways for you to show your love of country than anxiously waiting to run off to willingly participate war, especially the one in Iraq, but I’m not naive enough to believe that such advice would sway your desire. If you truly have taken anything away from the posts I’ve offered on this thread, you’d realize that this war in Iraq is a fire that does not deserve to be stoked with the blood of fresh soldiers. I had been in the army well over six years when it started – and as such, I had no choice in the matter. You, however, most certainly do have a choice. (My only consolation as far as Iraq is concerned is that your country is sending far less young people to that godforsaken war than mine is, so you’ll probably never see it.)
Be anxious to join the military if you choose, for that is a personal choice that I believe is defensible – though that is certainly a matter of opinion. But wanting to go to combat is not – under any circumstances – even remotely defensible.
To BrokenSoldier: Once again I think you’ve misunderstood me, though that’s my own fault for using ambiguous language. I don’t “want” to go to war, in the sense of looking forward to it; that would probably make me either an idiot or a psychopath. But I believe that our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is necessary and, at present, morally justified; and seeing as I support the war, I would feel like a hypocrite if I were not willing to put my own life on the line and serve. Since I am medically and physically fit for service, am in the OTC (similar to US ROTC, but it doesn’t automatically lead to a commission), and hopefully will have developed the maturity and confidence to be an officer by the time I graduate in two years’ time, I feel a moral obligation to serve in the military. That’s all I meant.
When I said “hope”, I was simply acknowledging the uncertainty of my position, since I haven’t passed officer selection yet and there’s no guarantee that I will be able to serve. But if I can, I will, for the reasons I have outlined.
Well Walton, if you’re really willing to put your life on the line for your absurd beliefs, I respect that – to exactly the same extent that I respect an Islamist jihadi who goes to fight for the other side.
Walton:
I didn’t misunderstand you at all – I was talking about my experience when you made the comment that you haven’t experienced Iraq or Afghanistan, though you hope to do so. You have constantly suggested that you are open to debate and reason, but you seem to be little more than a very polite concern-troll now. You clearly stated that you wanted to experience (specifically) Iraq or Afghanistan – you did not express a general moral obligation for service in our conversation until that last comment. You used the word hope in direct reference to wanting to experience one of those two specific wars as a combatant, which makes the above statement quite a transparent evasion.
Your motivation to serve – from what I have read from you on this site – seems to me to be mere submission to the idiocy of the conservative idea that the military is the most respectable and desirable form of service to the nation, and definitely does not sound like it is rooted in a sense of moral obligation, as you try to suggest. (Even mine was not rooted in a moral obligation, but rather a personal conviction – my realization that a certain number of citizens must serve in the armed forces, since we have a volunteer army, and my voluntary service allows someone else to make the opposite choice. This is the point on which Nick and I have disagreed, but we do not disagree on the fact that service in the military is certainly not deserving of some elite, noble characterization on purely moral grounds.
It doesn’t surprise me to learn that you don’t see through this suggestion that moral obligation is a valid motivation for military service – it is a tool that is quite effectively wielded by politicians to get more citizens to join, and while politicians on both sides of the aisle use it, it has been – in recent history – touted more by the conservative hawks in our government, most of which belong to the Republican party. When contemplating a course of action that may very well put you in a body bag, you should be able to explain your reasons behind such a decision with a better explanation than having a ‘moral obligation.’
And when Nick says that he respects that kind of decision about as much as he respects the decision of a jihadist to take up arms, you need to realize that he is not talking in general about your choice – he is (from my point of view, and he can correct me if I’m misrepresenting him here) very specifically addressing the fact that your choice is based in specious reasoning and upon beliefs and a perspective on the world that you clearly haven’t thought all the way through. Instead, you’ve allowed your beliefs to be guided by the likes of the crew at Fox News. If you can’t see through that rhetoric, then you’re allowing yourself to be manipulated along a path that will end lives, whether it be yours or someone else’s by your hand.
brokenSoldier@794. Yes, that’s what I meant, with the addition that I genuinely do respect physical courage as such, particularly as I suspect I don’t have a lot of it myself (something that has never really been put to the test in my very fortunate life) – and it takes considerable physical courage to blow yourself up.
When contemplating a course of action that may very well put you in a body bag, you should be able to explain your reasons behind such a decision with a better explanation than having a ‘moral obligation.’ Why? Is there really any higher calling than fulfilling one’s moral obligations, and sacrificing oneself for them?
And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods?
I’ll expand on this later, I’m not having a good day (for various reasons which have nothing to do with this forum).
Is there really any higher calling than fulfilling one’s moral obligations, and sacrificing oneself for them?
I think a Mr. Owen had some kind of answer to that:
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
No, in fact, I’ll expand on my response now.
This is going to sound bizarre and perhaps slightly insane, but when I think about it rationally, I don’t value my own life very much. Since coming into this world, I have contributed precisely nothing of any value to it. My life is not functionally important to anyone except my immediate family and friends.
I have a lot of personal problems which I won’t go into on this forum (discussing things here is meant to be a distraction from them, largely). I’ve achieved nothing useful or impressive in my life.
I don’t deny that there are many civilian careers which are highly worthwhile. But I don’t have what it takes to be a doctor, an engineer, a scientist, or anything else that genuinely involves productive achievement and service to others. I can be a half-decent lawyer, probably – but it really doesn’t interest me, and does the world really need more lawyers? And if I were to become a politician or a pundit (which I don’t have the ability for anyway), without having served in the military, you yourself would deride me as a “chickenhawk” for my pro-war views, as you do to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly.
But I do, I hope, have what it takes to serve in the military. And I’d rather risk losing my life doing something useful, than live a long, safe and unremarkable life.
As you can tell, I do have self-esteem and personality issues, and for the first time on this forum I am genuinely being 100% candid about the way I think, rather than trying to be detached. I’m sure you probably think I’m an idiot or a raving lunatic after reading this post, and I don’t blame you. But rather than going round in circles, I’ve decided I have nothing to lose from telling you the truth.
MAJeff at #797:
Yes, and the men who died in the First World War, in horrific conditions, were heroes. They suffered in a way which has never been equalled in a conflict before or since, and I have the utmost respect and admiration for that generation. We can never repay their sacrifice.
Reading through my post at #798, I apologise for it – it was inappropriately personal, and I don’t think it adds to the discussion. I would ask Prof Myers, if he’s around, to delete the post.
Their lives were wasted.
For heaven’s sakes Walton, you’re 19. I was bloody miserable at 19. Give yourself time to grow up. Try to have some fun. Most people, inevitably, are only ever functionally important to their immediate family and friends. At 54, I can’t produce much more than you in the way of real achievement, but I’m keen to stick around as long as possible to see what happens next! Don’t you want to be there if/when life is discovered beyond Earth? When the Higgs particle and gravitational waves are found, or found not to exist? When your favourite living novelist/director/band comes out with their next book/film/CD? I’m not in any way qualified to say so, but from what you’ve said on here, I would guess your childhood was in some way seriously unhappy, and/or that you have problems with the way you look, and/or that you have doubts about your sexuality. Whether any of these guesses are right or not, go to your GP and find out if you fit the criteria for clinical depression – and if you do, get it treated. You’ve sure chosen a weird place to come for counselling!
Posted by: Walton | June 9, 2008 7:40 AM
The point that I made – and you either missed or ignored – is that no citizen has a moral obligation to serve, and any elected official that suggests otherwise is disingenuous and manipulative. The choice to serve in the military – while in my opinion not inherently immoral – is not morally obligatory. When you use words and phrases like ‘noble,’ ‘higher calling,’ and ‘sacrificing oneself,’ you again betray the fact that the great majority of what you have posted on this site is little more than parroted talking points fed to you by others.
The highest calling for anyone is to do something they truly believe in – not something they’ve been told they should believe in. If you truly believed in serving, you’d be able to enumerate practical reasons for it instead of resorting solely to the ‘moral obligation’ line. Some join because it is their only way out of their situation. Others join because it is their only option for getting the money they need to get their education. Still others join because they are raised in the military and want to follow in the footsteps of their family. And you do have those who join because they actually want to experience combat. Though I find that last one deplorable, what little respect I do have for them lies only with the fact that they are honest about their motivations. In your case, you have displayed a youthful ignorance about military service that shows your naivety and your susceptibility to intellectual manipulation. You – as you have admitted – do not have a very good grasp on what you are getting yourself into. And since the profession you’re talking about directly involves the possibility that you will be an officer in charge of soldiers in armed conflict, that ignorance and your failure to rectify it is especially heinous. You don’t seem to realize that if you do lead soldiers in combat, you might lose one or more of them. And when you have to come back home and look those soldiers’ families in the eye, they are going to want to hear from someone that can give them more than talking-point style explanations as to why they don’t have a son or daughter anymore. They’re going to resent the hell out of you if you try to equivocate their husband or wife’s death with simple patriotism and the nobility of service. When learning that their brother or sister is gone, they are going to want you to be able to rationally console them, rather than waxing poetic about the virtues of sacrifice. I can tell you from personal experience that such nonsense offers NO comfort whatsoever to people whose family will never be whole again.
You don’t need to expand on this. You can recite all the poetry you want – such art is not even remotely effective at teaching you about war or the motivations for service. It is merely book knowledge, and offers no true insight into the real nature of the beast. You can think that lines such as the ones you quoted offer valuable justification for the ultimate sacrifice, but what you do not understand is that while this may be fine for you, you’re talking about leading other humans into the teeth of armed conflict – and words on a page are worthless in providing what you need to do such a thing effectively. You can recite all you want about dying well, but I can assure you that there is no such thing. The fact that you think such poetry offers a valid insight into the explanation of the merits of sacrifice is evidence enough for me that you have no idea what you’re talking about. And when you presume to speak about something as grave as leading men and women to combat without having the slightest idea what you’re actually talking about, you prove yourself unworthy of the task.
p.s. And be thankful you didn’t post #798 under your real name!
Walton:
What you need to understand is that you are a largely normal young adult, in that we were all similarly confused or disillusioned at one point in youth. There is nothing abnormal or wrong about such views, but the minute you place others’ lives in your hands by accepting a commission in an armed force, you obligate yourself to ensuring their welfare. And that is no job for someone who admittedly doesn’t value their own life very much. Everyone deals with ideas such as those, but it is patently irresponsible – and in my opinion, criminal – to take the responsibility for another human’s life into your hands until you have successfully dealt with and discarded such notions.
I would really appreciate if #798 could be deleted. It wasn’t appropriate, and you’re quite right that Pharyngula isn’t the place to come for counselling.
Indeed, I’m now very embarrassed about what I’ve said. I’m also rather concerned, because although I have not been using my real name, I have been using the name I use on Wikipedia – and there are plenty of people who know me in real life who are familiar with my work on Wikipedia. So I would really like that post to be removed.
For future discussions, it might be best if I withdraw for now and return at a later time under a different name. I know this is frowned upon, but I’m not trying to be dishonest; I just don’t think people will take me or my ideas seriously now that I’ve told you all about my personal insecurities.
Walton – Once again I come in late and can only suggest you read brokenSoldier, Nick and MAJeff well. I have seen what is called courage and what is called cowardice and there is damn little between them. No one dies well, some die in saving others and this can be a slight comfort to their friends and family, but no one really dies well. Further to what brokenSoldier said, if one of your reasons to serve is your zeal to “prove” yourself, do not seek the job of leading people in combat. Save them the difficult job of killing one on their own side.
This is not the great crusade for the future of the world. International terrorism is a problem and a serious one, but I truly do not see it as a threat to the world on the level that Nazi Germany was. Terrorism is a threat that should have been dealt with earlier and must be dealt with now, but it has little chance to cripple the world unless you let it so do, unless you become complicit in erasing freedom in the name of security as so many of your conservative heroes want to do.
Nick in #802 is worth rereading. I agree that you might want to see someone to see if you have any health, identity or depression issues. These are common at your current age and nothing of which you should be ashamed.
Walton. Get some help. Really. Today if you can. If you think I can be of assistance, my email address is easy to find.
To brokenSoldier: I should clarify that I have no intention of applying for (nor would I, at present, succeed in receiving) an officer’s commission for at least a couple of years, until after I graduate. I have nowhere near enough maturity, personal self-confidence and balance to lead men in combat now. I acknowledge this. And I agree that it would be criminally irresponsible if I were to be allowed to do so right now; I’m assessing my own abilities realistically, I hope. But hopefully I will have matured to the point where I can deal with it in a couple of years’ time.
And I can’t win, seemingly; you seem to be telling me that my motivations for wanting to serve are all wrong, and that I should stop thinking of it as the only worthwhile career path I can take, or as a path which I am morally obliged to follow. Yet, at the same time, you accuse those conservative politicians and pundits who haven’t experienced war, yet happen to have pro-war views, of being “chickenhawks”. So what can I do? You’re evidently telling me I shouldn’t serve, at least not with my present motivation; but if I don’t, you will tell me (correctly, of course) that I don’t understand the reality of war, and call me a chickenhawk.
And I can’t win, seemingly
Sure you can. Just change your views on war :).
Posted by: Walton | June 9, 2008 9:15 AM
Either cite where I have said this, or refrain from putting words in my mouth. And regardless of someone’s military record – or lack thereof – I have plenty of other reasons to oppose someone who advocates war as anything other than the absolute last resort when nothing else works.
I’m not telling you not to serve at all – I simply told you that from what I’ve read, you need to take a hard look at why you want to, and that if it is truly something you think you want or need to do then you should be able to come up with more than just the moral obligation explanation.
As for it being the only worthwhile career path to take, I’d offer that if you do think it is the sole worthwhile profession for you, then you probably need to take some time and really look into your options as far as career path goes. I find it hard to believe that there is only one career path you find that fits your abilities and strengths – an assertion like that points instead toward the likelihood that it is the only one you’re seriously considering.
Look man, aside from all the barbs we may pass back and forth on this site, when it comes to war – knowing what I know now – I’d never wish it upon anyone. If it seems like I’m being relentless on this, it is because no one, regardless of the conversations that transpire here, should go into that kind of a situation without some serious and stark self-examination. If you honestly have already done that and really, honestly think you have a moral obligation to go off to war, then tell me to piss off. But short of that, I’ll keep trying to deter you from going into that situation without the clearest and most resonant warnings and advice I can give.
What’s bad about a chickenhawk is the hypocrisy. By definition, a chickenhawk is someone who wants to send other people to die.
Walton, I admire your candor far more than I would admire any steadfast attempt to present yourself as anyone or anything other than who or what you are. There’s as much, or more, courage in that as there is in standing up for a minority view on a blog. From another point of view: There’s no shame in being human, in being young and unsure of yourself, nor in being honest and open about it. I doubt that anybody here would accuse you of indulging in compulsive disclosure.
As for taking you seriously, I find that I understand people’s comments better when I have a sense of where they’re coming from. The more Walton I see in your comments, the more seriously I take them as being your thoughts and opinions, as opposed to having the sense that you’re keeping yourself hidden, to some extent, behind the voices of American conservative icons.
You’re exactly the same age as my next-youngest sibling, my brother J., who turned 19 in the past week and who has just graduated high school. He’s an essentially normal 19 year old – armed with some nascent talents, some lofty dreams and ambitions, and very few tangible accomplishments beyond his hard-won diploma.
In other words, he’s exactly where he ought to be.
I don’t know what you expect of yourself. Very few people, and I do mean out of the billions who populate this earth, “contribute” anything to society (in the sense you mean) by their 19th birthday. As a matter of fact, however, you have contributed just what has been asked of you – to dedicate yourself to your education, with an eye to the future. On that score, you’re ahead of many of your peers. I believe you already know this, just as I now believe that you have undervalued this important contribution.
You’re obviously brighter than the average bear, and you strive for goodness but are still searching for a path that feels right to you. No passion for law? Dump it. Silence the voices that are telling you what you “should” be doing, and listen to the voice that tells you what you want out of life. And I do mean life.
Of course you feel powerless. Welcome to the world of the nineteen-year-old western male. However, this notion that you must “sacrifice” yourself to prove your self-worth is deeply, deeply flawed. You speak like a person who believes they can only be of worth if they go out in a blaze of glory. Frankly, it does sound like suicide-bomber mentality. No good can come of it.
Frankly, it does sound like suicide-bomber mentality. No good can come of it.
Just what I thought. Let’s be glad Walton wasn’t brought up a Muslim!
Feh.
Define “useful”.
I believe that most people underestimate the value of the ordinary. Very few people leave a lasting, positive mark on world history. There’s more than one way to change a world, however. One of the most important jobs we young adults face today, anywhere in the world, is to raise our own children to be as free from the fear and hatred of xenophobic bigotry as possible and to understand the imporatance of environmental sustainability. If you ask me, that’s a far more useful approach to life than, for example, dedicating yourself to leaving a Walton-shaped hole in the lives of the people who know and love you now in a misguided attempt to create value for your existence.
Consider for a moment the possibility that the “blaze of glory” approach may, in fact, be both cowardly and lazy, when compared to dedicating a lifetime to the ideal of making the world a more livable place than it was on the day you were born. Such dedication requires persistent hard work and a non-trivial degree of self-sacrifice.
Just a thought.
Walton, put a sock in it.
I’ve noticed that you seem to relish protestations of your martyrdom — someone calls you an idiot and we immediately get several paragraphs of your hurt feelings and insincere apologies, oh woe is you.
Listen. I’m in Minnesota. We know passive-aggressive out here, the repressed resentment buried under layers of niceness and polite talk. I can spot it across transcontinental distances, and hoo boy, have you got it bad.
Here’s a hint. This is what grown-ups do: when they get called an idiot, instead of obsessing over it and turning it into pages and pages of breast-beating argle-bargle where their wounded feelings are made the center of all attention, they fucking ignore it and move on to address the substantive points.
I know, it’s hard to do when you have nothing of substance to say, but try. These long-winded whine-fests about how everyone is picking on you are extraordinarily tiresome.
Brokensoldier:
Do you mind if I copy over your experience into my own diary? It really does put everything into perspective, from my point of view.
Walton, just to be clear, the line “you accuse those conservative politicians and pundits who haven’t experienced war, yet happen to have pro-war views, of being “chickenhawks””, should be attributed to me, not brokenSoldier. I am not sure if anyone else mentioned it, but believe I was the first to so do. Easy to get confused with long threads.
Ksenyia, nice pair of posts there.
Ciao y’all
Sorry, that should have been “your description of your experience”, to be pedantic. And I’m referring to note 760.
Thank you to Kseniya for a great response, which did make me feel a little better.
Prof Myers, I’m honestly sorry for filling up your blog with my personal problems. I do suffer from low self-esteem and various other issues, and so I take it personally when someone calls me an idiot. I realise I’ve inadvertently made this one of the longest threads on the site, and a lot of it is about me rather than about the substantive issues. So I can see why you’re annoyed.
I really need to seek counselling in RL, I think. Some of my friends have been telling me to do so for some months. Or maybe religious instruction (much as most of you doubtless hate the idea); having a strong faith, which I don’t have at the moment, might help me to deal with some of my issues.
But I’ll stop hijacking this thread now, and once again, thank you to everyone who’s responded to me. If anyone wants to get in touch with me for any reason, my email address is walton_m AT hotmail.co.uk.
Good grief, Walton — you did it again!
Walton, you are an absolute fucking genius! I’ve honestly never seen such fantastically clever trolling since long before adequacy.org shut down. Fabulously well-played and utterly brilliant: you are truly a prodigy and a master of this under-appreciated fine art. Wow. Just. Wow! Truly awesome.
I am not a troll. I can’t, of course, prove that to you.
But I suppose I should take it as a compliment that you think I’m a clever and subtle troll, rather than (as I actually am) a confused teenager with mental and emotional problems. Believe me, I would be much better off if you were right.
Walton,
I believe you, that you are a confused teenager with mental and emotional problems. You’re not the first, that’s just very normal. You’re also not the first who uses the internet to let go, not extraordinary. If you want to do like the other sheep and join a faith club to talk about nothingness, it’s up to you, but it will lead you nowhere.
I know that when I was your age, I found great comfort in reading books. Do you read a lot of books ?
Worthwhile careers? How about nurse or garbage truck driver? I am not being sarcastic: if you want to ‘make a difference’ that will be visible in your lifetime, something like that is a much safer bet than basic science.
Just out of curiosity Walton, have you read Jingo, by Terry Pratchett?
World War I was not about heroism, it was about failure: A failure of diplomacy; a failure of self-control on a national level; a failure of reason; a failure of ethics; a failure of sanity.
A failure of imagination.
And the same can be said about any war.
You feel the need to do something self-sacrificing? How about Doctors Without Borders? How about being a journalist, going to the countries that you are certain are so horrific and bringing back the stories of horror, and sometimes, of redemption and hope?
And human rights groups don’t just do letter writing campaigns and such. Someone has to go to these countries and find out the actual occurrences of abuse, and report them. That could be you.
Or how about volunteering locally? I’m sure that there are groups trying to mediate between your local secular society at large and the more insular and fundamentalist immigrant groups. How about trying to understand and change the potential for violence there? For that matter, I understand that fundamentalists are often very conservative. Maybe they’ll appreciate your perspective, eh?
You have lots of options besides the military.
Noooo. No. No. I disagree. You need to unravel the threads, not coat them with a patina of “meaning”. Would you try to untie a knot by dipping it in laquer, and then waiting a week?
I don’t mean to say that one cannot possibly have a useful chat with a member of the clergy (my personal experience says otherwise). What I mean to say is, I doubt lack of faith is a problem, and I doubt even more sincerely that pumping up your faith to a size at which it begins to occlude your problems will solve a darn thing. Doing so will either bind you for life, or simply delay – perhaps with significantly deleterious effect – the inevitable and necessary processing of those underlying issues and the untangling of those threads.
There’s no benefit in pathologizing a relatively normal reaction to the difficult and sometimes painful transitions that life demands. Everyone has issues. Go talk to someone. Talking won’t kill you. :-)
I’ve been thinking about this for a while today. Yeah, I’ve been poking Walton–and hard.
BrokenSoldier can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there’s a common thread to both of our approaches to Walton on this war issue: he’s romanticizing war and fetishizing the hero-warrior myth.
This isn’t some bloody grail quest.
And, yes, there is a higher calling than dying for your country. It’s helping other people live. I’ve worked in domestic violence and gay anti-violence programs. I’ve taught students from the high school to graduate level. Apparently, this work hasn’t been productive. {cue for, “I didn’t mean that….” which has been far too common, especially when Walton’s words keep giving him away.)
Productive labor can take on any number of forms. My sister is a hospital chaplain. I’m not fond of the god-woo, but I respect her work. She spends every day working with sick and dying people, sitting and talking with them about whatever it is they want to talk about in their last hours. I couldn’t do that. She’s not going to have some bloody hero-story told about her, but she’s there providing comfort to the ill and dying. That’s not valuable or productive?
Walton, step back. You completely missed the point of the Owen post. His last lines, regarding the lie of how sweet it is to die for one’s country, flew over your head. Instead, some parroted line about honoring valour and bravery, all of which was wasted. That war was such a colossal waste of life, and you came away fetishizing a myth and romanticizing war yet again. It’s horror. It’s a waste of humanity. It is not to be looked forward to, hoped for, romanticized, desired. And for any protestation, again, your language gives you away again and again.
A world in which fewer people were willing to kill or die for an idea is something to work for. Fantasies about martyrdom are worthless; they’re anti-human and reject life. That’s nothing worth praising. And, your fantasies of martyrdom aren’t that different than fantasies of martyrdom inspired by an afterlife. Better to improve life, to help others live, to help them experience the wonder of living, than to die.
I marched so BrokenSoldier would stay here, so she wouldn’t lose her friends and have her body damaged. She chose to serve, to take certain risks. I would be remiss in my duties as a citizen, my obligations as a human, were I to not fight to keep her out of harms way and to push my government to exhaust every option before sending her into battle. Wet dreams about war, especially when proffered as serious public discourse, are an affront to that moral duty and are all that your preferred candidates have been offering.
Living a long, routine life…how awful. What misery to have good friends. How terrible to go to work everyday at a job that is both fulfilling and makes a difference. Not being recorded in history–and instead making a child’s life better or providing pleasure to a lover or a shoulder to a friend–must be the worst fate to befall a human. On second thought, that amazing conversation and dinner with a friend, weeping at beautiful music or an awe-inspiring photo, playing peek-a-boo with a toddler on public transport, taking a bite of food and having your body melt, kissing…..those are life, and they are so amazingly worth it.
(My apologies to BrokenSoldier for any speaking out of turn.)
Jeff… Yeah.
Yeah.
I hardly know what else to say.
Posted by: Notkieran | June 9, 2008 10:21 AM
No, I don’t mind at all.
MAJeff, OM:
(bold mine emphasis)
Very well said, and I agree 100%. I served because of the reasons that I elaborated on earlier, but that isn’t to say that I haven’t learned a few things since then. (Walton, what follows is a perfect example of the reason that I don’t think any citizen is morally beholden to do a damn thing for their government.) I have often been asked whether or not – knowing what I know now – I would sign up all over again. I gave the question some thought, and finally decided that I would not. This is not due to any misgivings I had about the choice to serve, but rather because I believe that the government is just as obligated to the soldier as the soldier is obligated to follow the tenets of their contract. After all, a contract is binding in both directions. In light of the fact that I have had to fight so hard to get the care I need, I came to the conclusion that the Army I grew up in is one that simply doesn’t deserve the level of sacrifice it is being given by the citizens that do make the choice to serve. If they mend their ways and begin upholding their end of the bargain by actually taking care of their veterans, then I might change my mind.
But as it stands now, (and I’m definitely not trying to be self-righteous here, but rather I’m trying to give an idea of why I feel so betrayed by the military) I have to wake up every morning, at 28 years old, and know that I’ll never take another step in my life without at least leaning on a cane. I’ll never again know what it feels like to be pain-free, as the damage done to my nerves ensures. And I’ll never go another 24 hours in my life without taking an obscene amount of prescription drugs. And while there are individuals in the Army system that truly care and show compassion, as a whole the system has given me nothing but transparent equivocations and half-ass excuses as to why I’m not as disabled as the ratings say I should be. But I’m past anger now, and I’ve long since decided that I’m not letting them ruin one more day of the rest of my life.
Walton, if you feel any moral obligation at all, it should not be to any government, but as MAJeff explains here, it should instead be toward your fellow citizens. I joined the military so my fellow citizen could choose not to if that is their desire. MAJeff showed his moral dedication to his fellow citizen by using his voice to try to keep my choice from being perverted through misuse of military force. It is only through mutual cooperation and humanistic dedication like this that we will ever improve our world and make it a better place tha it is today. Remember, we support each other, while it is the government’s job top serve us, NOT the other way around.
*Just a little side note, this brokenSoldier is a he — thought there is a family story that says my aunt just couldn’t believe it when I was born, and made the nurse pull my diaper down just to make sure… :-P
No apologies needed at all. It was a very astute post, indeed. When it comes out like that, I never mind someone speaking on my behalf.
I’ve done a lot of apologising lately, but this particular apology is going to be sincere and much-needed: I profoundly apologise to everyone for my posts yesterday. I was feeling depressed (mainly due to real-life factors which I haven’t shared with people here) and I said things which were not entirely appropriate for this forum. I do realise that I came over as borderline mentally unstable/suicidal, but I’d like to reassure everyone that this isn’t the case.
Thank you to the several people who’ve sent me concerned e-mails.
Just a little side note, this brokenSoldier is a he
Oopsie. I thought I remembered you stating being a she on another thread. Sorry for the mixup.
MAJeff and brokenSoldier, excellent posts which I am glad I read.
Walton, I would like to take back my chicken-hawk comment to some extent. I still have contempt for those who willingly send others to fight for them, for those who have contempt for my brothers and sisters, but that is the leaders and you are not one. You may be one day and I do want you to think before you get to that point. I would suggest you not serve in an active duty position until you get over the idea that war will add meaning to your life. Warfare changes you, some good, mostly bad. If you are lucky, you will experience a love for your fellow soldiers that can hardly be duplicated elsewhere, but the horrors will stay with you as well, there are still several faces that I can never forget and I hate those particular memories. Modern warfare is a lot of randomness, very little in the way of courage or a chance to prove yourself. Modern insurgent warfare in a place like Iraq or Afghanistan is tedium spiked with terror for most troops.
Walton, one other thing, stop apologizing, please. I had my therapy session yesterday and talked some about you, she suggested you might like to see someone. Being 19 can suck, why make it harder than you must? Besides, coming over as “borderline mentally unstable” does not really preclude you from posting here. (smile) Just quite apologizing and quit letting your feelings get hurt. Your political views are far enough away from most people on this blog, and I think that of most thinking Americans, that they will always draw fire. You need to let you skin harden a bit.
Ciao y’all – almost gone now, everyone play nice and let me know via email if someone actually proves gawd exists via some overly complicated logical puzzle. I am not holding my breath.
everyone play nice – JeffreyD
Um, I think you must have forgotten which blog you’re posting to ;-)
Nick, I forgot to put the smiley by that phrase. (laughing)
Ciao
Walton, please quit apologizing for being honest – particularly when your candor harmed no one. :-)
Did you? I didn’t think so. (Others may disagree.) It’s important (to me) for you to realize that my responses were not prompted by that sort of assessment of your disclosures. As I said, there’s nothing to be gained by pathologizing what is almost certainly a normal reaction to the various stresses imposed by a complex, demanding, and sometimes frightening world on the psyche of a very young man still a year shy of twenty. Please note my use of the word “man”, and not “child” or “boy”.
Sometimes I think intelligence can be a curse. As is empathy. Thinking and feeling too much, without a complementary ability to adequately self-regulate ones reactions, can be hazardous. Back in college, a friend of mine tried to slit her wrists one night – not due to any terrible circumstances of her own, but because she couldn’t handle all the pain and suffering out there in the world, and couldn’t do anything to alleviate any of it.
Or so she thought at the time. And yes, it was a terribly selfish and myopic act regardless of what prompted it. I’m glad to say she survived and is fine. She’s a kind and beautiful person, a gifted artist, who has learned not to take on the troubles of the world as if they were her own.
Anyways………
JeffreyD, please take care; you will be missed. Check in when you have a chance.