Tuesday's Brain: Those Cold, Uncaring Stars

[elfs]

Clinton Slams Democratic Activists At Private Fundraiser

It used to be that if you wanted to win an election, you needed the party activists behind you. Hillary, it seems, does not have them. And she's mad. She's so mad that she's willing to diss her own party, even lie about it, and adopt Rush Limbaugh's talking points to do it. Another reason we don't want another Clinton in the White House.

Right Wing Political Correctness

I always suspected the right's disdain for political correctness was a Sam-and-Diane sort of enmity, an animus that could only end with a lusty, guilty romp in the hay. Last month in Bellevue, Washington, they finally consummated their union, after years of catty insults, coy flirtation, and occasional bouts of heavy petting.

"Any functioning democratic state would insist upon arms belonging to the state, not private hands."

Condoleeza Rice on our Second Amendment. Yes, she really said that. She was talking about Iraq. I guess those people are somehow different.

Worldnet Lies about the Day of Silence

The crazy just gets higher every year, doesn't it? For the record, students honoring the Day of Silence are required to participate in class, speaking when spoken to, and are not permitted to disrupt classtime with their activities. Worldnet, of course, tells you just the opposite.

Bush ♥ Marx

Publius says he doesn't buy the Obama camp's argument that the current blue collar Republican vote would shift if workers felt more economically secure. I agree with him. But then he makes the fascinating point that, while Republicans dismiss this argument here, it's exactly the argument being made about Iraq: the religious radicalism of Iraq is layered on top of other insecurities, and if we dealt with those, the radicalism would fade away.

Pat Boone Howls At The Moon ACLU

I have to point at this with amusement. Pat Boone, the leather-bound crooner of Christian gospel tunes, has a Worldnet article in which he wonders why the ACLU didn't protest the way the press and individuals (who happen to be in public office) treated him.

Here's a clue for Mr. Boone: no tax money was involved. The Catholic Church and its supporters paid for it. In no way was the United States recognizes the establishment or supremacy of the Catholic Faith over any other. Mr. Boone apparently cannot separate himself from his government: if he feels it, his government must. If it doesn't, something is wrong. The Stupid, It Burns.

J. Matt Barber, Liar

Jonathan Rowe tears Matt Barber, Concerned Woman For America, a new orifice over Barber's WorldNet article, Gay Sex Kills. Barber cites a study made during the height of the HIV epidemic about how HIV shortens lives by an average of 14 years, and then quotes from a new study showing that isn't the case anymore with retrovirals available, but doesn't mention the new study's conclusion because he wants to be able to parrot the 14 year figure. Worldnet is such a deep pool of PASWO. (via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Comments

[blaisepascal]

The right-wing political correctness link isn't correct. I tried to follow it, and I came right back to this page.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Condoleeza Rice on our Second Amendment. Yes, she really said that. She was talking about Iraq. I guess those people are somehow different.

She was talking about armed, violent, and aggressive militias, not people defending themselves with their own weapons.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Fixed. Thanks.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Those people (http://mosquewatch.blogspot.com/2006/02/muslim-threat-fire-throughout-world.html) are somehow different from our people (http://www.bowlesforpresident.com).

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Those people are somehow different from our people.

They are behaving differently. You are conflating people who simply own guns for self-defense with people who are attempting the violent overthrow of a democratically-elected regime.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

The 2nd Amendment does not mention self defense. It mentions militias. The existence of which, Jefferson maintained, is "for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another," or at the least to have that ability.

Yes, I know, this is the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" argument, and many of the militias don't hold to values for which you and I hold any respect. But the entire conflict is borne out of a miscarriage of imperial power, one which I have never approved and, frankly, if our values are not applicable in that setting, then we should never have gotten in there in the first place, and we should get out now.

[tagryn]

There's recent precedents in the USA for confronting armed groups and militias; the Montana Freemen and the Branch Davidians at Waco come to mind. So, there's not really a double-standard at work here.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The 2nd Amendment does not mention self defense. It mentions militias. The existence of which, Jefferson maintained, is "for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another," or at the least to have that ability.

Sigh.

If you're talking "original intent," the Federalist Papers make it very plain that the Founders considered it essential to have an armed populace both for self-defense and to make revolution possible if necessary. "If necessary" would not mean against a democratically-elected and governing regime in favor of a totalitarian theocracy.

The problem with al-Sadr's militias is not that they are armed, it is that they are actively attacking other Iraqis who are merely trying to exercise the will of the regime which the Iraqis are elected. Al-Sadr is also poorly positioned to claim to be leading a native revolt against occupiers, given his location in Iran.

But the entire conflict is borne out of a miscarriage of imperial power, one which I have never approved and, frankly, if our values are not applicable in that setting, then we should never have gotten in there in the first place, and we should get out now.

First of all, Iraq started the war with us, by breaking the truth.

Secondly, who says "our values are not applicable in that setting?" Our values do not include rebellion against a democratic regime, and the rebellion has, by and large, failed. The Iraqi people have elected and are successfully defending their democracy -- why should we pull out now, when we've almost won?

Why are you so horrified at the prospect of victory, that you would attempt to snatch defeat from its jaws?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

There's recent precedents in the USA for confronting armed groups and militias; the Montana Freemen and the Branch Davidians at Waco come to mind. So, there's not really a double-standard at work here.

Indeed. I don't know where Elf is getting the idea that Americans have, or even claim, a right to randomly rebel against the government. Not only was Jefferson the radical amongst the Founders, he envisioned rebellion as only being appropriate against tyrants, not against one's lawfully elected government! The equivalent of what Mukhti al-Sadr would be doing would be if American Catholics began murdering American Protestants and trying to overthrow the US Government at the behest of a leader residing in Vatican City!

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

So it's the behaviour that's the problem, you believe? Rice would support handing the guns the State takes control of back to civilians it took them from as soon as al-Sadr's militias are no longer actively attacking other Iraqis? Sure, because the State always gives back the powers it usurps "for the citizens' protection" peacufully and without a fuss.

Your really tack should be not that Iraqis are essentially different, but that the Iraqi constitution is. They have no 2nd amendment right, so really Rice can make any claims she wants to. Her statement is risible only because she didn't cover her ass with "Any functioning democratic state, except the United States, would insist upon arms belonging to the state, not private hands."

First of all, Iraq started the war with us, by breaking the truth.

What?

You're breaking my brain. Please stop or I'll nuke you from orbit!

[resonant.livejournal.com]

First of all, Iraq started the war with us, by breaking the truth.


Ummmm ... WTF????

[tagryn]

I'm guessing he meant "breaking the truce," though whether Jordan meant Sadr breaking his ceasefire, or going back to the '03 war, that I'm not certain of.

The actual legality of the '03 war isn't as cut-and-dried as either side makes it. In fine print, I think it would go back to the '91 ceasefire at Safwan airfield, which was violated when the Iraqis started firing at US jets in the no-fly zones (although those incidents were themselves preceded by "Operation Desert Fox", which was initiated by the USA over violations of UN Resolution 687 (the official ceasefire resolution) and AFAIK was the first military engagement between the two sides since the ceasefire). However, the no-fly zones themselves were under very iffy legal standing. In international law terms, someone would need to go through all the UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq and determine exactly what operations were authorized when and what resolutions were being violated when, assuming one accepts Security Council resolutions as being definers of international law in the first place.

[starbog.livejournal.com]

By breaking the 1991 ceasefire conditions, repeatedly.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

First of all, Iraq started the war with us, by breaking the truth.

What?

You're breaking my brain. Please stop or I'll nuke you from orbit!

LOL!! I meant, of course, "breaking the truce." Sorry about the confusion! :)

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

"Truce," sorry. I managed to do a sound-typo :)

Re: Political correctness

[gromm.livejournal.com]

The fact of the matter is that you can change from a liberal to a conservative in 20 years without ever changing an idea. All it takes, is to never change an idea.

Political correctness has had its 20 years.

[gromm.livejournal.com]

I know I'm violating Godwin's law and all that, but Germany's Nazi party was a democratically elected regime too.

"Democratically elected" is not a guarantee against "despotic", and most certainly not a guarantee against a tyranny of the majority. If the majority wants to exterminate $ScapegoatMinorityDuJour in a democratic country, well, it's entirely possible.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I know I'm violating Godwin's law and all that, but Germany's Nazi party was a democratically elected regime too.

True. And once they were elected, they proceeded to outlaw all other parties and rule with an iron fist.

This has not been the case in present-day Iraq, where only those parties which persisted in using extreme violence against their rivals have been outlawed, and only after they refused offers of conciliation.

Oh, and "Godwin's Law" is crap, it has the logical meaning of "TWEET! GOOGA! BAJINGLE!" It's a "law" mostly proposed to make it impossible to learn from the lessons of World War II, and I don't abide by it -- so you don't have to, either.

"Democratically elected" is not a guarantee against "despotic", and most certainly not a guarantee against a tyranny of the majority. If the majority wants to exterminate $ScapegoatMinorityDuJour in a democratic country, well, it's entirely possible.

Quite true. I don't see this happening right now in Iraq, but of course the "dissolution into civil war" scenario that America most fears would involve exactly that, either on the part of the regime or of one of the parties out of power.

It's an encouraging sign that the regime has finally begun to crack down on the Mahdi Militia, while simultaneously restraining elements that would attempt genocidal actions against Sunnis or Shi'ites in general.

[gromm.livejournal.com]

No, Godwin's law actually states that as a natural consequence of mentioning Hitler, the thread comes to an end by itself. In no small part because noone can keep a clear head long enough to keep the thread going anymore.

[gromm.livejournal.com]

And I think that you're missing my point. I'm not even using Iraq as an example. I'm just saying that people have a natural tendency towards chaotic mob rule, and things revert back to that state when there's a huge crisis. It's the reason why political extremists of all stripes (some would say *any* stripe available at the time) get elected when things get really bad. Socialists and Communists historically get elected when everyone is starving in the streets.

Likewise, minorities are persecuted as convenient scapegoats when the population is desperate for some kind of an answer to why they are suffering. It's one of those completely emotional, irrational responses you can expect from people under such extraordinary circumstances.

These are the inherent weaknesses of any democracy. It's the entire reason for the constitution, the checks and balances, all that stuff.