Tuesday, May 27, 2003
From James Taranto:
'It Must Be Stopped'
In an interview with the far left radio show "Democracy Now!," New York Times reporter Chris Hedges has this to say about students who heckled him when he delivered a viciously anti-American commencement speech at Illinois's Rockford College:
"People chanted the kind of cliches and aphorisms and jingoes [sic] that are handed to you by the state. "God Bless America" or people were chanting "send him to France"--this kind of stuff and that kind of contagion leads ultimately to tyranny, it's very dangerous and it has to be stopped."
Ironically, [without noting the irony--ed.] AlterNet.org headlines the interview "The Silencing of Dissent on Graduation Day."
The students were rude to heckle him, but really, "it has to be stopped"? What does he propose doing, carting them all off to re-education camps? And does he really disapprove of "God Bless America"? Irving Berlin, you fascist!
So, Mr. Hedges, exactly what kind of political system would you like to see imposed to replace our democracy, to stop contagious stuff like saying "God bless America" (which leads to tyranny)?
What kind of re-interpretation of the First Amendment would you like to impose to stop this kind of stuff, such as angry graduates saying "God bless America" (which leads to tyranny)?
This is the quintessential example of a dogmatic political ideologue attempting to call criticism some manifestation of censorship. As usual, they can dish it out, but can't take it.
Freedom of speech does not mean unchallenged speech.
As for his malarkey about aphorisms "handed to you by the state," my goodness, he opposed removing tyranny in Iraq, yet whines about "God bless America" shouted at a graduation ceremony?
He wants a system where "that kind of stuff" is declared "very dangerous" and says "it has to be stopped," but then claims those comments came from some kind of tyrannical state mindset. Who does he think he's kidding?
And how did he get a job in news?
Friday, May 23, 2003
If even a dean of Islamic Law, Sheikh 'Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, can see this, a distinction between the Iraqi people and the Baath regime, why couldn't our own college professors see it?
"The question is: Why did the Arab media consent to align itself with the Iraqi regime while at the same time pretending that it was with the people?"
"It is my view that the answer was stated by the director of one of the satellite channels: 'It is competition. In such circumstances, either we win the viewers or others win them.' Thus he summarized the way of most of those in the Arab media. Their aim is to win the street at any price. The street is emotional and has little confidence in the Americans. It can be won by fanning the flames of its emotions and encouraging its feelings with dreams of a great Arab victory and a great American defeat."
"To a large extent, the Arab media was characterized by selectivity, and it was decidedly on the side of the Iraqi regime. Our intellectuals took over the line and constantly repeated it. Our media then devoted special programs to disseminating and repeating the falsehoods of Sahaf. Their biased point of view was imposed on listeners. Our media attempted to increase the degree of hatred against the coalition by concentrating on the degree of the destruction and the number of civilian victims, without making clear that this was because the regime positioned its forces and tanks in civilian areas. The army of Saddam of which they were so proud because it was the only army which could protect civilians in fact used the civilians to protect itself."
"It was the Arab media itself which claimed that the aims of the war were to destroy Iraq, put an end to its capabilities, and, in the end, to occupy it. It did not for a moment consider the role of Iraq's ruler in the destruction and ruin of the country over a period of more than thirty years. It did not consider how he had destroyed the country's environment, education, health, and legal systems. He also set oil wells on fire and destroyed bridges, and he transformed the cities, especially in the south, into wretchedness, deprived even of clean drinking water."
"The Arab media attacked the Iraqi opposition and imposed a collective boycott [on them] while satellite stations played host to everyone but the Iraqis who were, after all, the ones most concerned."
'The Kuwaiti Media was the Sole Exception to this Rule'
"The Kuwaiti media was the sole exception to this rule. Not one satellite channel had the courage to transmit scenes of [the] welcome [of] the coalition troops in the liberated cities. Instead, the satellite stations made a great fuss over what they called the crimes of the coalition and ignored the crimes of the regime. The correspondents continued to impose their political points of view on viewers. Not one of the satellite stations, except Kuwait, had the courage to show a tape of the chemical strike against Halabja. It was the same with the air attack of the 1991 uprising in which holy places were hit and hundreds of Shi'ites were killed and tortured. More than 250,000 Iraqi citizens were killed in the uprising..."
"The question is: Why did the Arab media consent to align itself with the Iraqi regime while at the same time pretending that it was with the people?"
"It is my view that the answer was stated by the director of one of the satellite channels: 'It is competition. In such circumstances, either we win the viewers or others win them.' Thus he summarized the way of most of those in the Arab media. Their aim is to win the street at any price. The street is emotional and has little confidence in the Americans. It can be won by fanning the flames of its emotions and encouraging its feelings with dreams of a great Arab victory and a great American defeat."
"To a large extent, the Arab media was characterized by selectivity, and it was decidedly on the side of the Iraqi regime. Our intellectuals took over the line and constantly repeated it. Our media then devoted special programs to disseminating and repeating the falsehoods of Sahaf. Their biased point of view was imposed on listeners. Our media attempted to increase the degree of hatred against the coalition by concentrating on the degree of the destruction and the number of civilian victims, without making clear that this was because the regime positioned its forces and tanks in civilian areas. The army of Saddam of which they were so proud because it was the only army which could protect civilians in fact used the civilians to protect itself."
"It was the Arab media itself which claimed that the aims of the war were to destroy Iraq, put an end to its capabilities, and, in the end, to occupy it. It did not for a moment consider the role of Iraq's ruler in the destruction and ruin of the country over a period of more than thirty years. It did not consider how he had destroyed the country's environment, education, health, and legal systems. He also set oil wells on fire and destroyed bridges, and he transformed the cities, especially in the south, into wretchedness, deprived even of clean drinking water."
"The Arab media attacked the Iraqi opposition and imposed a collective boycott [on them] while satellite stations played host to everyone but the Iraqis who were, after all, the ones most concerned."
'The Kuwaiti Media was the Sole Exception to this Rule'
"The Kuwaiti media was the sole exception to this rule. Not one satellite channel had the courage to transmit scenes of [the] welcome [of] the coalition troops in the liberated cities. Instead, the satellite stations made a great fuss over what they called the crimes of the coalition and ignored the crimes of the regime. The correspondents continued to impose their political points of view on viewers. Not one of the satellite stations, except Kuwait, had the courage to show a tape of the chemical strike against Halabja. It was the same with the air attack of the 1991 uprising in which holy places were hit and hundreds of Shi'ites were killed and tortured. More than 250,000 Iraqi citizens were killed in the uprising..."
John Ashcroft was pilloried not long ago for praying in his own office. NPR reported about one group's concerns of how this might violate, and here the reader's voice took on a hard, heavy edge which clearly meant to communicate to the listeners that this was something to get upset about, "separation of church and state."
I once ate lunch at a table of screenwriters, among them an Oscar-winning creator of the 60's hit "Rebel Without a Cause," Stewart Stern.
A horror film-maker brought up how John Ashcroft was holding prayer meetings in the department of Justice. They all seemed to be aware of it, shook their heads, clucked and tch-tched disapprovingly. One woman, sneering, spat out, "Separation of church and state," similar in tone to the reader from NPR.
I imagine they knew that the meetings were not compulsory, but entirely voluntary. I had to ask how they could perceive a person privately praying as an infringement of establishment principles, laws respecting religion. He was not forcing anyone to pray, was not trying to pass a law. "What is the harm in a guy doing this," I asked, and shut my eyes and bent my head forward. "Is that really hurting anyone, or commingling state and religion?"
If those complaining did not believe prayer was actually talking to a deity (ostensibly because in their eyes, none exists) but only vain mutterings, then what could possibly be the harm?
Furthermore, were Ashcroft a muslim, or a Buddhist, or a Zoroastrian engaged in some other meditative practice, and inviting others to join, I doubt they would feel a need to disparage him. It was bigotry, pure and simple.
I've actually seen this anti-Christian bigotry played out in another arena. On a talk show an audience member started to condemn a homosexual for his lifestyle, saying that he had a demon. The guest on the dais responded in kind, mocking the speaker with a taunt of "What a great Christian you are."
The man, an elderly black bearded gent wearing a skull cap, replied, "I didn’t say I was a Christian."
The hat should have been a giveaway: he was a Muslim. The guest's face seemed to soften a bit and he cut off his retort, the crowd's muttering hostility faded away.
Double standard?
Ask those complaining about separation of church and state, what do you think of burning incense at a prayer wheel in the capitol? Inclusiveness?
We've come a long way from the time when the founding fathers wrote the 1st amendment. They had recent memories of state churches (Anglicanism), imposed forms of worship, controls on freedom, persecution of minority religions such as the Quakers and puritans. They saw the danger in the government taking a single institution and requiring religious expression according to strict adherence of one religious form.
They knew of the execution of Tyndale, of Sir Thomas More… They knew of the Calvinist /Zwingli conflicts, the Protestant/Catholic strife, and knew that if everyone was free to practice as they chose, we could have out of many, ONE.
They saw danger in making diversity of spiritual expression illegal.
It is evident that they never intended to make all religious ideas anathema in any state forum, property, or space.
They never intended to banish spiritual ideas, freely expressed or just as freely ignored, from the public sphere.
A school teacher can have a necromicon on her desk, but not a Bible. She can wear a crystal, but not a cross.
You can set up a prayer room for Mulims in a public school, but you can't have Boy Scout troop.
Is this an increase in civil liberties, in the eyes of the ACLU? How does taking away freedom increase liberty?
I once ate lunch at a table of screenwriters, among them an Oscar-winning creator of the 60's hit "Rebel Without a Cause," Stewart Stern.
A horror film-maker brought up how John Ashcroft was holding prayer meetings in the department of Justice. They all seemed to be aware of it, shook their heads, clucked and tch-tched disapprovingly. One woman, sneering, spat out, "Separation of church and state," similar in tone to the reader from NPR.
I imagine they knew that the meetings were not compulsory, but entirely voluntary. I had to ask how they could perceive a person privately praying as an infringement of establishment principles, laws respecting religion. He was not forcing anyone to pray, was not trying to pass a law. "What is the harm in a guy doing this," I asked, and shut my eyes and bent my head forward. "Is that really hurting anyone, or commingling state and religion?"
If those complaining did not believe prayer was actually talking to a deity (ostensibly because in their eyes, none exists) but only vain mutterings, then what could possibly be the harm?
Furthermore, were Ashcroft a muslim, or a Buddhist, or a Zoroastrian engaged in some other meditative practice, and inviting others to join, I doubt they would feel a need to disparage him. It was bigotry, pure and simple.
I've actually seen this anti-Christian bigotry played out in another arena. On a talk show an audience member started to condemn a homosexual for his lifestyle, saying that he had a demon. The guest on the dais responded in kind, mocking the speaker with a taunt of "What a great Christian you are."
The man, an elderly black bearded gent wearing a skull cap, replied, "I didn’t say I was a Christian."
The hat should have been a giveaway: he was a Muslim. The guest's face seemed to soften a bit and he cut off his retort, the crowd's muttering hostility faded away.
Double standard?
Ask those complaining about separation of church and state, what do you think of burning incense at a prayer wheel in the capitol? Inclusiveness?
We've come a long way from the time when the founding fathers wrote the 1st amendment. They had recent memories of state churches (Anglicanism), imposed forms of worship, controls on freedom, persecution of minority religions such as the Quakers and puritans. They saw the danger in the government taking a single institution and requiring religious expression according to strict adherence of one religious form.
They knew of the execution of Tyndale, of Sir Thomas More… They knew of the Calvinist /Zwingli conflicts, the Protestant/Catholic strife, and knew that if everyone was free to practice as they chose, we could have out of many, ONE.
They saw danger in making diversity of spiritual expression illegal.
It is evident that they never intended to make all religious ideas anathema in any state forum, property, or space.
They never intended to banish spiritual ideas, freely expressed or just as freely ignored, from the public sphere.
A school teacher can have a necromicon on her desk, but not a Bible. She can wear a crystal, but not a cross.
You can set up a prayer room for Mulims in a public school, but you can't have Boy Scout troop.
Is this an increase in civil liberties, in the eyes of the ACLU? How does taking away freedom increase liberty?
Thursday, May 22, 2003
I took a real shine to this from Michael Totten:
I believe (and dearly hope) there are conservatives who would rather read Christopher Hitchens than listen to Rush Limbaugh bellow at Tom Daschle.
Oooo-oh, yes. Heck, yes. Yup yup yup.
There are times when I really enjoy the company of liberals.
I prefer it even more when in a social setting, we are able to enjoy each other's company so much that we neglect to discuss politics.
Some thoughts are for naught, some thoughts are hot, but not a lot Totten taught is overwraught. A hottentot, Totten 's not.
I believe (and dearly hope) there are conservatives who would rather read Christopher Hitchens than listen to Rush Limbaugh bellow at Tom Daschle.
Oooo-oh, yes. Heck, yes. Yup yup yup.
There are times when I really enjoy the company of liberals.
I prefer it even more when in a social setting, we are able to enjoy each other's company so much that we neglect to discuss politics.
Some thoughts are for naught, some thoughts are hot, but not a lot Totten taught is overwraught. A hottentot, Totten 's not.
On Indymedia. The "love" that dares not speak its name.
The Indymedia satellites are an acrimonious cult of self and exalters of baseness. They are their own gods, their own transcendence. Their own opinions are their only truth. They approach no thing, no thought, with an open spirit. Nothing is eternal outside of their ideas. They blot out the light of reason; condemn themselves to a benighted and savage nature, like Morlocks. If the world were more like them, would we be closer to Paradise or closer to the Pit?
One would think moral relativists might disparage systems of morality. Right and wrong would be rejected concepts, the social contract null and void, individual liberty the highest state. Anarchy.
The fact is, they do have a very unambiguous sense of right and wrong, yet it is the inverse of the common sense and logic or doctrines to which most of us at LGF adhere. They celebrate the polar opposite to individual liberty, a new chattel slavery… to a singular mindset, one which cannot abide moderates, "corporate media," middle-incomers, respectful gentlemen and ladies: a profoundly hate-filed, execrable universal intolerance. Thus the resonance with the fundamentalism and the opposition to Liberalism.
As fundamentalists, they do have many requirements for all of us, a dogmatic contract with many provisos: and we are all farther on their bad side with almost every breath we take. They hold the rest of humanity to very strict account.
Politeness is rude to them-- it's phony. Asperity connotes sincerity. Hate has become a precursor of intimacy, entree to a clannish brotherhood of supremacists. To speak gently of their "enemy" is to be a loathsome outsider. Confusion is clarity. Spleen is wisdom. Emotion has become Reason, falsehood has become truth. The profane is sacred. Paranoia has become security.
"If [humans] were angels, government would not be necessary. If [humans] were beasts, government would not be possible." They aspire to making government impossible, and thus aspire to be less like angels, more like beasts.
Seduced by penumbral phantasms, they cling to the foulest infernal wraiths of bitterness, judgment. An inverse effulgence, a gravity-well blotting out genuineness, reality, logic, reason, truth--requirements all for genuine love, genuine clarity, genuine life.
They dwell in an illusion, a hint at life.... Like the tempters in "The Screwtape Letters" by CS Lewis.
I think of Madeline L'Engle's "A Wrinkle in Time" and "A Wind in the Door." The villains were ethereal abysms called Echthroi (the Greek word for evil) who attacked by "un-naming," removing being-ness, in order to be all that is left in the cosmos. St. Augustine called evil not a true thing with an existence of its own since all was created to be good, but a corruption or abuse of something good.
That describes the Indymedia writers pretty well. Language is the doorway to much that is good-- communication, art, fact-seeking, community: in their hands, it becomes evil. In diagnosing inferiority in others, they hope to achieve reality. Blot it out, paint it black. Take away being, un-name, make them nothing, and then the nothing becomes something. Echthros.
The new accusers of Independent Media Center follow an old Accuser, who deceived nascent humanity with blasphemy, that they are equal with God. He was called the "Hater of Light" (Mephistopheles), the "Lord of the Flies" (Beelzebub), and the "Adversary" (Satan). Indymedia shuns the light of truth and reason, wallows in filth and offal (drawing flies), and is the adversary of whatever is Good, noble, pure or wholesome.
They are living like children of demons. The love that dares not speak it name.
The Indymedia satellites are an acrimonious cult of self and exalters of baseness. They are their own gods, their own transcendence. Their own opinions are their only truth. They approach no thing, no thought, with an open spirit. Nothing is eternal outside of their ideas. They blot out the light of reason; condemn themselves to a benighted and savage nature, like Morlocks. If the world were more like them, would we be closer to Paradise or closer to the Pit?
One would think moral relativists might disparage systems of morality. Right and wrong would be rejected concepts, the social contract null and void, individual liberty the highest state. Anarchy.
The fact is, they do have a very unambiguous sense of right and wrong, yet it is the inverse of the common sense and logic or doctrines to which most of us at LGF adhere. They celebrate the polar opposite to individual liberty, a new chattel slavery… to a singular mindset, one which cannot abide moderates, "corporate media," middle-incomers, respectful gentlemen and ladies: a profoundly hate-filed, execrable universal intolerance. Thus the resonance with the fundamentalism and the opposition to Liberalism.
As fundamentalists, they do have many requirements for all of us, a dogmatic contract with many provisos: and we are all farther on their bad side with almost every breath we take. They hold the rest of humanity to very strict account.
Politeness is rude to them-- it's phony. Asperity connotes sincerity. Hate has become a precursor of intimacy, entree to a clannish brotherhood of supremacists. To speak gently of their "enemy" is to be a loathsome outsider. Confusion is clarity. Spleen is wisdom. Emotion has become Reason, falsehood has become truth. The profane is sacred. Paranoia has become security.
"If [humans] were angels, government would not be necessary. If [humans] were beasts, government would not be possible." They aspire to making government impossible, and thus aspire to be less like angels, more like beasts.
Seduced by penumbral phantasms, they cling to the foulest infernal wraiths of bitterness, judgment. An inverse effulgence, a gravity-well blotting out genuineness, reality, logic, reason, truth--requirements all for genuine love, genuine clarity, genuine life.
They dwell in an illusion, a hint at life.... Like the tempters in "The Screwtape Letters" by CS Lewis.
I think of Madeline L'Engle's "A Wrinkle in Time" and "A Wind in the Door." The villains were ethereal abysms called Echthroi (the Greek word for evil) who attacked by "un-naming," removing being-ness, in order to be all that is left in the cosmos. St. Augustine called evil not a true thing with an existence of its own since all was created to be good, but a corruption or abuse of something good.
That describes the Indymedia writers pretty well. Language is the doorway to much that is good-- communication, art, fact-seeking, community: in their hands, it becomes evil. In diagnosing inferiority in others, they hope to achieve reality. Blot it out, paint it black. Take away being, un-name, make them nothing, and then the nothing becomes something. Echthros.
The new accusers of Independent Media Center follow an old Accuser, who deceived nascent humanity with blasphemy, that they are equal with God. He was called the "Hater of Light" (Mephistopheles), the "Lord of the Flies" (Beelzebub), and the "Adversary" (Satan). Indymedia shuns the light of truth and reason, wallows in filth and offal (drawing flies), and is the adversary of whatever is Good, noble, pure or wholesome.
They are living like children of demons. The love that dares not speak it name.
Wednesday, May 21, 2003
On Sanctions
I ran a comparison of the "death rate" in various countries from the Population statistics in Encarta, and was surprised to find that Iraq and Israel's death rate per 1000 is nearly identical: 6.8 v. 6.5
Israel's infant mortality rate is far lower, as its number of physicians per 1000 is so much higher. (But didn't Saddam provide free medical care, like Castro?) The longevity stats were very similar for bordering states, Jordan being the highest, Iran the lowest.
Then I compared states in Africa with Iraq. Angola's death rate was about 24 per 1000. Sudan, Chad, Rwanda, all very high as well.
And we never imposed sanctions on any of those countries to the best of my knowledge.
So the question is, given that Iraq's rate of death is not far out of line with the region as a whole, and is nearly identical with a "first world" nation, how exactly is the USA in any way culpable for "500,000 Iraqis killed by the sanctions" ?
Further, in light of the Oil-for-food program, how can we be held to any accountability for a single death caused by Saddam's abuse and theft?
Were the sanctions lifted prior to the war, is there any evidence or statistical likelihood that the death rate or any other health factor would be different? The UN program should have prevented any humanitarian consequence from the sanctions... and it didn't, due to the evil regime.
Removing Saddam should have been a welcome decision by those who complained of the sanctions, wouldn't you think?
I don't ask rhetorically, I really would like to know.
I ran a comparison of the "death rate" in various countries from the Population statistics in Encarta, and was surprised to find that Iraq and Israel's death rate per 1000 is nearly identical: 6.8 v. 6.5
Israel's infant mortality rate is far lower, as its number of physicians per 1000 is so much higher. (But didn't Saddam provide free medical care, like Castro?) The longevity stats were very similar for bordering states, Jordan being the highest, Iran the lowest.
Then I compared states in Africa with Iraq. Angola's death rate was about 24 per 1000. Sudan, Chad, Rwanda, all very high as well.
And we never imposed sanctions on any of those countries to the best of my knowledge.
So the question is, given that Iraq's rate of death is not far out of line with the region as a whole, and is nearly identical with a "first world" nation, how exactly is the USA in any way culpable for "500,000 Iraqis killed by the sanctions" ?
Further, in light of the Oil-for-food program, how can we be held to any accountability for a single death caused by Saddam's abuse and theft?
Were the sanctions lifted prior to the war, is there any evidence or statistical likelihood that the death rate or any other health factor would be different? The UN program should have prevented any humanitarian consequence from the sanctions... and it didn't, due to the evil regime.
Removing Saddam should have been a welcome decision by those who complained of the sanctions, wouldn't you think?
I don't ask rhetorically, I really would like to know.
Saturday, May 17, 2003
The Blog I visit most often is Little Green Footballs. Charles Johnson does a wonderful job finding news that most media ignore or bury. He also adds salient commentary that I almost always agree with, pointing out inconsistencies, historical context, and contrasting news from other sources. It's a dynamic site with a great readership.
I had seen some ideological attacks on Charles in the reader-comments section. He was often called "right-wing" by those that sought to pigeonhole him....
I posted the following, and some of my fellow LGF readers emailed me to ask me to start my own blog. Since that post on May 9th that was the genesis of this new weblog, I post it again here.
#26
No Gordon,
it is you who lives inside of an illusion. "Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so." Doug Adams
Charles is not right wing. He is not left wing. Those paradigms don't fit him, nor do they fit this blog. Or most of those in the real world...
The necessary dynamic of liberal/conservative is at tension within him as it is in most of us... It's a healthy dynamic, so that no ideology can become the tyranny of the masses. It allows for reality and pragmatism to bend to the occasional aspiration to idealism, and protects us simultaneously from utopian fruitlessness.
There is right and there is wrong. Logic and common sense fill in the blanks for most of us, others are more doctrinaire, defining ideology as an empyrean enlightenment, from an intellectual pinnacle, or from a spiritual one, be it from Hegel, Marx, Smith, Burke, Gandhi, St Paul.
Our ideas flow from a wellspring that is not easily constrained by simple patterns of predictable dogma, and is synthesis of most of these ideas...
And Charles is one who could see the logic in adhering to the idea that-- in each heart is the capacity for good and evil.
He saw after 9/11 that a group of radicals were dedicated to the idea that (perceived) collective responsibility on our part for (perceived) collective victimhood on their part justifed murderous extremism. Their offense at a subjectively determined injustice lead to far greater injustice and inhumanity.
It also exposed to him that policies that diluted our rights to defence against a defined and real threat, based on flawed ideology that maintains focus on echoing the perceptions of the radicals, were anathema to logic, and self-destructive.
Among and amidst those who perceived the disparity between practicality and idealism, the zeitgeist of the USA, he now espouses policies that might fall under the rubric "right wing:" but then you would have to explain how such an idea has no place on the left.
However, even a cursory examination of him and most of the posters here will reveal that many right wing ideas are to them just as anathemic as Islamic radicalism. They cannot be labeled right wing in totem, in fairness. (Some can of course.)
Many would be considered liberals, many are Democrats, most are moderates. If a clear idea must be given a label, when the idea is demonstrably true, it is a disservice to truth and inquiry to decide that all tenets of one political viewpoint are therefore universally accepted.
Thus I would be wrong in saying that all antiwar demonsrators are commies, but I would be right in saying that the mainstream protestors should beware and eschew the far left.
Little Green Footballs is not a right wing weblog. Taxes, social programs, moral behavior, tradition, these topics generate widely disparate views among its readership. Instead it proposes a clear and practical idea to which many with a practical mindset ascribe.
We are in danger. Your country is the home of your liberty and your future, and not your enemy.
I had seen some ideological attacks on Charles in the reader-comments section. He was often called "right-wing" by those that sought to pigeonhole him....
I posted the following, and some of my fellow LGF readers emailed me to ask me to start my own blog. Since that post on May 9th that was the genesis of this new weblog, I post it again here.
#26
No Gordon,
it is you who lives inside of an illusion. "Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so." Doug Adams
Charles is not right wing. He is not left wing. Those paradigms don't fit him, nor do they fit this blog. Or most of those in the real world...
The necessary dynamic of liberal/conservative is at tension within him as it is in most of us... It's a healthy dynamic, so that no ideology can become the tyranny of the masses. It allows for reality and pragmatism to bend to the occasional aspiration to idealism, and protects us simultaneously from utopian fruitlessness.
There is right and there is wrong. Logic and common sense fill in the blanks for most of us, others are more doctrinaire, defining ideology as an empyrean enlightenment, from an intellectual pinnacle, or from a spiritual one, be it from Hegel, Marx, Smith, Burke, Gandhi, St Paul.
Our ideas flow from a wellspring that is not easily constrained by simple patterns of predictable dogma, and is synthesis of most of these ideas...
And Charles is one who could see the logic in adhering to the idea that-- in each heart is the capacity for good and evil.
He saw after 9/11 that a group of radicals were dedicated to the idea that (perceived) collective responsibility on our part for (perceived) collective victimhood on their part justifed murderous extremism. Their offense at a subjectively determined injustice lead to far greater injustice and inhumanity.
It also exposed to him that policies that diluted our rights to defence against a defined and real threat, based on flawed ideology that maintains focus on echoing the perceptions of the radicals, were anathema to logic, and self-destructive.
Among and amidst those who perceived the disparity between practicality and idealism, the zeitgeist of the USA, he now espouses policies that might fall under the rubric "right wing:" but then you would have to explain how such an idea has no place on the left.
However, even a cursory examination of him and most of the posters here will reveal that many right wing ideas are to them just as anathemic as Islamic radicalism. They cannot be labeled right wing in totem, in fairness. (Some can of course.)
Many would be considered liberals, many are Democrats, most are moderates. If a clear idea must be given a label, when the idea is demonstrably true, it is a disservice to truth and inquiry to decide that all tenets of one political viewpoint are therefore universally accepted.
Thus I would be wrong in saying that all antiwar demonsrators are commies, but I would be right in saying that the mainstream protestors should beware and eschew the far left.
Little Green Footballs is not a right wing weblog. Taxes, social programs, moral behavior, tradition, these topics generate widely disparate views among its readership. Instead it proposes a clear and practical idea to which many with a practical mindset ascribe.
We are in danger. Your country is the home of your liberty and your future, and not your enemy.
This was written as a contemplation on the continuing suicide bomber attacks against Israeli civilians. It asks a question about reality in religion.
On Muslim Fundamentalism. An enigma:
The Palestinian grievance is ostensibly territorial. A matter of justice, they say. They've been "humiliated, persecuted, oppressed, dispossessed."
Yet they insist on "elevating" suicide bombings to a transcendent plane, one with eternal consequences.
In light of this, how could what is temporal matter to them? In the face of eternity, what does 10, 50 or 100 years of terrestrial suffering matter?
Here's a story, probably apocryphal in Origin, from Leonard Ravenhill's "Why Revival Tarries":
Charlie Peace was a criminal. He was caught and condemned to death. On the fatal morning in Armley jail, Leeds, England, he was taken on the death walk. Before him went the prison chaplain, routinely and sleepily reading some bible verses. The criminal touched the preacher and asked what he was reading. "The Consolation of Religion" was the reply. Charlie was shocked at the way he professionally read about hell. Could a man be so unmoved under the very shadow of the scaffold as to lead a fellow human there and yet, dry eyed, read of a pit that has no bottom… into which this fellow must fall? All this was too much for Charlie.
"Sir", addressing the preacher ,"if I believed what you and the church say that you believe, even if England were covered with broken glass from coast to coast, I would walk over it, if need be, on hand and knees and think it worth-while living , just to save one soul from an eternal hell like that.”
Whether you believe this or have any religious convictions or not is beside the point-- it's intended to be illustrative.
Let's assume a Muslim that believes that the antithesis to the plastic palmtree and goldfish heaven depicted at Al-Najah University is an eternal damnation--choking sulfurous flames and biting demons-- that those whom he kills as a shahid in order to obtain heaven will, as a corollary, be cast into hell.
It's more than a desire to kill: it means that he is willing, eager even, to consign another human soul to an eternal damnation (under his belief system)-- not just ignore it, not just accept it like the priest above, but actually work to put them there, while seeking eternal reward for himself.
In short, the single most utterly selfish cosmology one can imagine. A depth of dehumanization scarcely comprehensible.
Wouldn't "Allah the merciful and compassionate" inspire pity or mercy, and a desire to convert, proselytize... to walk across Israel "on broken glass on hand and knees” if necessary, to spare a soul?
How could someone as convinced as they claim to be of the rectitude of their cause, so certain of eternal verities, sleep at night knowing billions will suffer so much? And how could they perceive themselves as victims if they have been "blessed" with a future of eternal reward?
Criticism of the rich emanates from the assumption they have so much that they should see their fortune as an impetus to help the poor, a matter of justice... in the same way, shouldn't the existentially wealthy, the ones facing eternal bliss, be generous of spirit enough to abide with some short-term pain? Having apprehended the "truth" how can they not be compassionate? Shouldn't they, with their special revelation, regard the West, the USA or Israel with a lump in their throats, tearfully wishing we could be "spared our destiny"?
As many many others have written, self-examination, introspection, self-criticism and logic should at least give some pause to the jihadists and their "martyrs."
I think those who zealously seek hell for others must be creatures of hell themselves.
Think of it, would you want to share a heaven with souls who eagerly sought for hell to be filled with their enemies? Or would you rather enjoy raptured eternity with those who hoped everyone else could come along?
This dichotomy hints at the different kinds of cultural reality these opposing mindsets will manifest. Which perspective is more likely to tend towards a malicious, belligerent hell on earth, and which a compassionate, cooperative heaven?
The islamofascist terrorists are not experiencing much of any Creator I hope to meet... only what they've deduced from a book. And for that, they have my pity.
But due to their actions and desires, they also have my fiercest opposition.
(For a further exploration of this concept, I recommend "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis).
On Muslim Fundamentalism. An enigma:
The Palestinian grievance is ostensibly territorial. A matter of justice, they say. They've been "humiliated, persecuted, oppressed, dispossessed."
Yet they insist on "elevating" suicide bombings to a transcendent plane, one with eternal consequences.
In light of this, how could what is temporal matter to them? In the face of eternity, what does 10, 50 or 100 years of terrestrial suffering matter?
Here's a story, probably apocryphal in Origin, from Leonard Ravenhill's "Why Revival Tarries":
Charlie Peace was a criminal. He was caught and condemned to death. On the fatal morning in Armley jail, Leeds, England, he was taken on the death walk. Before him went the prison chaplain, routinely and sleepily reading some bible verses. The criminal touched the preacher and asked what he was reading. "The Consolation of Religion" was the reply. Charlie was shocked at the way he professionally read about hell. Could a man be so unmoved under the very shadow of the scaffold as to lead a fellow human there and yet, dry eyed, read of a pit that has no bottom… into which this fellow must fall? All this was too much for Charlie.
"Sir", addressing the preacher ,"if I believed what you and the church say that you believe, even if England were covered with broken glass from coast to coast, I would walk over it, if need be, on hand and knees and think it worth-while living , just to save one soul from an eternal hell like that.”
Whether you believe this or have any religious convictions or not is beside the point-- it's intended to be illustrative.
Let's assume a Muslim that believes that the antithesis to the plastic palmtree and goldfish heaven depicted at Al-Najah University is an eternal damnation--choking sulfurous flames and biting demons-- that those whom he kills as a shahid in order to obtain heaven will, as a corollary, be cast into hell.
It's more than a desire to kill: it means that he is willing, eager even, to consign another human soul to an eternal damnation (under his belief system)-- not just ignore it, not just accept it like the priest above, but actually work to put them there, while seeking eternal reward for himself.
In short, the single most utterly selfish cosmology one can imagine. A depth of dehumanization scarcely comprehensible.
Wouldn't "Allah the merciful and compassionate" inspire pity or mercy, and a desire to convert, proselytize... to walk across Israel "on broken glass on hand and knees” if necessary, to spare a soul?
How could someone as convinced as they claim to be of the rectitude of their cause, so certain of eternal verities, sleep at night knowing billions will suffer so much? And how could they perceive themselves as victims if they have been "blessed" with a future of eternal reward?
Criticism of the rich emanates from the assumption they have so much that they should see their fortune as an impetus to help the poor, a matter of justice... in the same way, shouldn't the existentially wealthy, the ones facing eternal bliss, be generous of spirit enough to abide with some short-term pain? Having apprehended the "truth" how can they not be compassionate? Shouldn't they, with their special revelation, regard the West, the USA or Israel with a lump in their throats, tearfully wishing we could be "spared our destiny"?
As many many others have written, self-examination, introspection, self-criticism and logic should at least give some pause to the jihadists and their "martyrs."
I think those who zealously seek hell for others must be creatures of hell themselves.
Think of it, would you want to share a heaven with souls who eagerly sought for hell to be filled with their enemies? Or would you rather enjoy raptured eternity with those who hoped everyone else could come along?
This dichotomy hints at the different kinds of cultural reality these opposing mindsets will manifest. Which perspective is more likely to tend towards a malicious, belligerent hell on earth, and which a compassionate, cooperative heaven?
The islamofascist terrorists are not experiencing much of any Creator I hope to meet... only what they've deduced from a book. And for that, they have my pity.
But due to their actions and desires, they also have my fiercest opposition.
(For a further exploration of this concept, I recommend "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis).
