Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Well, every ideology has its faults. What sets conservatives apart, in my opinion, is the ability to admit that faults exist. I'm a conservative in the fact that tax cuts and smaller government work. However, I don't come anywhere near the conservative philosophy of the Church. I hold my theory that religion is a man-made structure and faith is what God gave us. Religion causes war and strife, faith helps us.

Posted by Mac at March 26, 2007 10:04 AM

You have to admit, though, that I flat Earth would have its uses...

Take your rocket to the edge, and jump!

Posted by David Summers at March 26, 2007 01:07 PM

But dodging the Fel Reavers all the time would really be annoying.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 26, 2007 01:16 PM

Mac: "What sets conservatives apart, in my opinion, is the ability to admit that faults exist."

I don't know what conservative sites you frequent, but the overwhelming majority are ideologically fundamentalist: No recognition whatsoever, under any circumstances, that any conservative policy could be the wrong approach. They don't see policy as a means to an end, but as satisfaction of political aesthetics--tax cuts are always good; tax increases are always bad; more funding of nearly all government outside the military is "big government," and always bad; more funding for the military is "patriotic," and always good; etc etc.

And while the business types may feel uncomfortable with the anti-reality crowd that (for some inexplicable reason, smirk) is attracted to their politics, they still forge a much more cohesive unit than the left's vast assortment of constituents. The only self-criticism I ever hear from conservatives--and it is QUITE rare--is to lament, after an election defeat, that certain among them aren't conservative *enough*: IOW, "We've become impure, so we must cleanse ourselves."

Leftists, when they aren't ignoring the most glaring indictments of conservatism to focus on petty minutiae, are tearing themselves apart over minor points of micro-constituent politics: e.g., whether non-Aztec Mexican-Indians are underrepresented in Chicano politics. Every single thing wrong with the left, and quite a bit that isn't, is endlessly expounded upon and examined on virtually every left-wing discussion site I've been to.

If you want a perfect example of what I'm talking about, get this: In San Francisco, there have been street brawls between pro-troop antiwar demonstrators and anti-troop antiwar demonstrators. A better illustration couldn't be had of how self-critical and endlessly argumentative the left is.

But conservatives, to one degree or another, are on a mission from God, whether that God be the one in the Bible or the one they see in the mirror, and that mission is Power with a capital P. To obtain power, you must first preserve the ideas that reinforce it (religion, tradition, conformity, hierarchy, etc.) and crush those that undermine it (e.g., freedom, individualism, etc). While engaged in this struggle, internal conflict and criticism is kept to a minimum, since obviously the enemies of Power are a greater threat than those who would preserve and compete for it. But like in Islam, the worst wrath of conservatives is reserved for apostates from their cause, whose very existence is a repudiation to their underlying values. While a left-winger rejoices in the cacophany of petty squabbles, a right-winger rejoices in the deathly silence of absolute submission to a single Will.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 26, 2007 01:26 PM

What a remarkable (mis)-equation between a small, unrepresentative example of American Protestant religious claim-holders, and "conservatives".

Do I need to draw the Venn diagram for you?

Mr. Swiderski, you have written a fine piece of projection. Please, for your own health, get the psychologicl counseling you need.

Posted by MG at March 26, 2007 02:29 PM

...the earth does not spin on its axis and does not revolve around the Sun .. and that everything in the known universe revolves around the Earth?

It's all relative. They're relativists. Or relatives.

Posted by D Anghelone at March 26, 2007 02:36 PM

Both Romney (sp?) and Newt have stated on several occasions that the way we went about Iraq was a mistake. The mistakes were logistical and tactical in nature. If we continue to mull about and not take a more definitive stance on Iran's act of war against Britain, it will be a mistake. See, I've admitted a mistake before it happens!

Posted by Mac at March 26, 2007 03:08 PM

Mac: "What sets conservatives apart, in my opinion, is the ability to admit that faults exist."

With all due respect to Mac, "admitting" that a fault exists in the beliefs of one's factional opponents is not exactly self-criticism. Intra-group factional snark and bile are, alas, no respecters of ideological tilt.

...street brawls between pro-troop antiwar demonstrators and anti-troop antiwar demonstrators.

This isn't self-criticism, Brian, it's a faction fight. Something not exactly unknown on the Right either. There is, truth to tell, not much actual self-criticism on either side of the Left/Right divide, however, defined. I've seen a few lefties express the opinion that just maybe gun confiscation is not an inherently liberal position. A few others have been known to question reflexive obeisance to the demands of the insatiable teacher unions. On the right, there are some who are annoyed with the importance attached to issues involving homosexuality by many "social" conservatives. Even these examples are hardly free of some faction-fight admixture. Are there significant voices on either side arguing, "Hey, maybe we've really been out to lunch on this or that," in a serious way? Not so's I've noticed.

...like in Islam, the worst wrath of conservatives is reserved for apostates from their cause...

Again, I think you are likely misidentifying faction fights. One aspect of faction fights is their frequent degeneration into competitions for the doctrinial purity prize and the insinuation or outright assertion that the opponents are apostates, turncoats, traitors, pick the opprobrium of your choice. Actual side-switching is fairly rare and, to the extent it occurs, seems to heavily favor the Right. About the only high-profile example of a Right-to-Left switch that comes to mind in recent years is Arianna Huffington, though I'd probably award partial credit for David Brooks too.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at March 26, 2007 03:34 PM

...how do you counter the "conservatives are ignorant" argument...

It's easy to counter, you say,"NOT all conservatives are Christians." It's easy to counter, you say, "NOT all conservative Christians believe this!" If that still doesn't cover it, "I'm not a Christian, I'm a (enter your group here) and here's what I do believe about..."

Why wear or defend Mr. Schlaflys opinion and beliefs? Do all engineers believe "X" idea, do all insurance salesman believe "Y" idea? No, they don't. I know these two groups aren't religious groups but why pigeon hole Conservatives and/or Christians and their beliefs based on one man's web site? Why assume any group is ignorant because of the words of one person who is neither an elected, nor chosen, official representative of that group. Do you suppose Mr. Schlafly follows the Popes every word? Or does he follow every word of Jimmy Swaggart, if he's not Catholic?

Technically it is , Christian "S", plural is properly correct. Being Christian simply means being a member of a collection of group"S", who believe that a Nazarene carpenter was God's son and is our Saviour. After that there is a ton of wiggle room, sect to sect and belief wise. So lumping Christians together and saying "THIS" is what they believe, is ridiculous.

What Mr Schlafly is stating, is known as New Earth Philosophy. The opposite is Old Earth Philosophy, obviously. Let me 'splain it and let me first preface this all by saying I am not and don't intent to be speaking for everyone from either side of this and that I am an old earth person. A point I think that escapes Mr. Schlafly is that he doesn't have a lock on possibilities or truth. As with all of us, at the end of the day, all he has is his own personal beliefs.

New earth people believe that God created the world about 4000 years ago, just as it says in Genesis, if you count it down. It says that God created all we see in 6, 24 hour days. That would include creating the dinosaurs or their bones in the ground. (that alone is another split) He created geological evidence of advanced age and all the rest of the science that would make someone say it wasn't done in just 144 hours. They believe that God did in fact do all this in just 6, 24 hour days, 4000 years ago. Many young earth people find it as almost heresy to think that God's days aren't, and weren't, 24 hour days like ours. They find it lack of faith to think God need longer or that the earth is other than what it says in Genesis..

Old earth people think that God created the world, just as it says in Genesis. It says that God did all this in 6 days. We just don't believe that it was 6, 24 hour days. Genesis does not include a picture of God's wrist watch, nor any meter for measuring his days. From both a geologic and zoological stand point, given that we don't know the length of God's days, Genesis holds up for me.

I have way simplified this explanation, and like I said there is divergent thought even inside these schools of thought.

Let me also say that there are those of us who believe that John 10:16

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold"

gives credence for life elsewhere in the universe. OK, I'm done kick me.

Posted by Steve at March 26, 2007 04:54 PM

Off topic, but I just found this link in a comment at Belmont Club, and I figured some people here might get a kick out of it:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-junkyard25mar25,0,2782733,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Posted by rickl at March 26, 2007 05:01 PM

Sounds like a job for quantum religion. From one femtosecond to the next anything is possible. We very well could be living in a universe where the Earth is flat and everything revolves around us. It just isn't happening in this universe or the shift in reality happens so quick we don't even notice.

Posted by Josh Reiter at March 26, 2007 05:27 PM

MG: "What a remarkable (mis)-equation between a small, unrepresentative example of American Protestant religious claim-holders, and "conservatives"."

The fundies call themselves conservatives, the conservative party in America is infested with them, and Republican presidential candidates need their imprimatur to be nominated. So apparently their appellation of choice is valid.

MG: "Mr. Swiderski, you have written a fine piece of projection."

Here's a free lesson in debate: "I know you are, but what am I" is not a rebuttal.

MG: "Please, for your own health, get the psychologicl counseling you need."

How could I ever be depressed with people like you to entertain me?

Dick: "This isn't self-criticism, Brian, it's a faction fight."

True, it was a poor example. However, if you cruise the more liberal sites, you're bound to find people (like me) who don't shy from criticizing the inherent flaws of their own set. On the other hand, I've never run into a self-described conservative who felt the same, and most of what passes for critical reflection on the right is delusional and self-aggrandizing--i.e., "We're too nice" or "we let liberals get away with too much."

Dick: "I've seen a few lefties express the opinion that just maybe gun confiscation is not an inherently liberal position."

Without a specific context, nothing is an inherently liberal or conservative position. E.g., nobody would refer to confiscating guns from violent felons as having a political color, and a genuine liberal wouldn't argue for taking guns away from rural families who live 50 miles from the nearest police station.

Dick: "A few others have been known to question reflexive obeisance to the demands of the insatiable teacher unions."

Let's just be honest and admit the idea of public education is not in line with conservative values--they don't want their taxes educating other people's children, so everything associated with public education is demonized by default.

Dick: "On the right, there are some who are annoyed with the importance attached to issues involving homosexuality by many "social" conservatives."

Annoyed with the lack of priorities, but not in fundamental disagreement.

Dick: "Are there significant voices on either side arguing, "Hey, maybe we've really been out to lunch on this or that," in a serious way?"

Yes, at least among liberals. We are responsible for letting Communism get out of control and turn into what it did, and those who were around at the time (e.g., Orwell) took it upon themselves to warn the world that the bastard child of otherwise laudable ideals had become a threat to civilization.

But the same is not true on the right in any way, shape, or form. The moment conservative values lead to atrocities, no matter how conservatives at the time cheer, the next generation will either pretend it never happened, deny that those who did it were conservatives, or make up some absurd rationalization to blame it on their enemies. This happens with conservatives in any country, anywhere--Japanese conservatives belittling Imperial war crimes; German conservatives testing the limits of the law against Holocaust denial; American conservatives blaming the Vietnam War on the very people who tried to stop it from happening, and now doing the same with Iraq. There is zero accountability to the truth or sense of responsibility for anything--conservatism as an ideology would shoot someone in the head, deny it'd just shot someone, then reload and do it again, denying each shot while reloading the next.

Dick: "Actual side-switching is fairly rare and, to the extent it occurs, seems to heavily favor the Right."

Politics is like health--more likely to decline with age. The "rightening" of American politics is a big part of why we need space exploration, because it's a sign of decay.

Dick: "About the only high-profile example of a Right-to-Left switch that comes to mind in recent years is Arianna Huffington, though I'd probably award partial credit for David Brooks too."

Madness to reason is a harder road to travel than the opposite direction. I was fortunate enough to be born with the proper equipment for recognizing the obvious pretty early in life, but some people actually have to learn the basic principles of morality and reason from experience. If the morons who belittle or rationalize torture were actually subjected to it, how many of them would still talk like they do? If verbally agreeing with a war became tantamount to an enlistment contract, how many people would open their mouths in support of occupying Iraq? People who have any sense of decency discover a lot in common with liberalism when they're put to the test by life.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 26, 2007 09:15 PM

"American conservatives blaming the Vietnam War on the very people who tried to stop it from happening, and now doing the same with Iraq."

Well, I think it's blaming the outcome of the Vietnam War and subsequent horrors that followed, on the protestors and others who affected the course of the war; not the war itself.

Or maybe that's what you actually meant to say.

Posted by Norm at March 26, 2007 10:22 PM

Norm: "Well, I think it's blaming the outcome of the Vietnam War and subsequent horrors that followed on the protestors and others who affected the course of the war; not the war itself."

Herein lies two crucial points: For one, the right didn't care about the horrors that occurred in the Vietnam War, nor about whether it was legitimate, and they still don't--they only care that it failed. If every single man, woman, and child alive in Vietnam in 1965 was dead by 1970 and the country had to be repopulated from outside, but the NVA never took the South, would you doubt that most conservatives would have considered that a "success"? Historically, it's hard to deny that conservatism is characterized by moral vacuum.

Secondly, even though they care that it failed, conservatives in general are not capable of accepting responsibility for it or anything else. They cannot, under any circumstances, admit that a war against a country or ideology they've labeled "the Enemy" could be other than totally righteous, totally justified, and guaranteed of victory so long as nobody questions or opposes it. Ipso facto, if it does fail, then it must be because "traitors" made it fail, because it's inconceivable that war wasn't the proper response in the first place.

Moreover, there is an Orwellian irrationalism on the right that blames people for the content of true statements--i.e., calling people who report on racism "racists," and people who note failure "defeatists," etc etc. An example of that is what you're talking about, the attempt to blame antiwar demonstrators for causing wars that were unwinnable in the first place to fail, or for daring to imply that war is not good in and of itself. Somehow conservatives believe the American people would have stood for another decade of seeing their children slaughtered in jungles toward no apparent end if not for those pesky hippies "putting idears in their heads." That's utterly insane, but it's typical and happens *every time* conservatives fail.

To a conservative, the greatest crime their enemies could possibly commit is being right, and it's a crime they can never forgive no matter how often it happens. I could tell a conservative not to stick a fork in an electrical socket, and they would do it just to show who's boss, then sputter in outrage "Look what you made me do!"

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 27, 2007 12:31 AM

I was fortunate enough to be born with the proper equipment for recognizing the obvious pretty early in life

Brian, I don't think that I've ever previously encountered anyone so insufferably full of himself (which is to say, full of shit) as you. I think that most here (even people who might otherwise agree with you on the issues) would concur when I ask to to kindly eat yourself and die.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 27, 2007 05:26 AM

Throwing the bullshit flag. You may not agree with Brian, but he presented his argument in a civilized manner. Therefore, no need to resort to ad hominems. Even though this is your blog, Rand, acting like a child does not encourage debate (unless you are only interested in the opinions of sycophants).

Posted by Andy at March 27, 2007 05:49 AM

To a conservative, the greatest crime their enemies could possibly commit is being right, and it's a crime they can never forgive no matter how often it happens.

Interesting comment... So tell us BS, what crime have you committed?

Posted by Leland at March 27, 2007 05:56 AM

You may not agree with Brian, but he presented his argument in a civilized manner.

Please. You're joking, right?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 27, 2007 06:16 AM

Andy, did you read Squidward's posts, or did you just assume that because of their extreme length, they must have had some viable content? If so, you made an incorrect assumption.

Posted by John Irving at March 27, 2007 06:20 AM

"...like in Islam, the worst wrath of conservatives is reserved for apostates from their cause..."

Like the conservatives did to Joe Biden....oh snap!....that was the libtards...my mistake!

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 27, 2007 06:40 AM

Make that Joe Liberman, not Biden.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 27, 2007 06:41 AM

And the AJC is full of it. Boortz's link to the video of humans and dinosaurs on the earth at the same time is the opening of the old kiddie show "Land of the Lost". I also went to Conservapedia and found this:
"Some Young Earth Creationists and Biblical literalists also dispute the shape of the earth, saying that according to the Bible, the earth is flat rather than spherical. However, no credible organization has ever expressed support for this theory.[6] Some Biblical literalists also dispute the idea that the Earth Rotates around the Sun.[7]"

The article is sparse, but talks about the 4004 BC dating of creation, mentions the scientific evidence for an old Earth, etc. It looked like a stripped down version of the main Wikipedia. In short, the AJC writer was misquoting, and Boortz fell for it.

BTW, I'm a firm believer in an old Earth and evolution, and a libertarianish classic liberal.

Posted by ech at March 27, 2007 06:47 AM

Rand: "Brian, I don't think that I've ever previously encountered anyone so insufferably full of himself (which is to say, full of shit) as you."

I understand your frustration, Rand. In fact, I just got finished discussing how being confronted by reality drives conservatives (or the like) into a spastic, incoherent rage.

Rand: "I think that most here (even people who might otherwise agree with you on the issues) would concur when I ask to to kindly eat yourself and die."

Why you wanna hurt-a mah feeeeeeelings?

Leland: "Interesting comment... So tell us BS, what crime have you committed?"

The most glaring recent example is being right about Iraq, although I have a habit of being right in general. It's quite a talent. See, what I do is I find reliable information from credible sources, think about it, and then draw conclusions that make sense. Real abstruse process.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 27, 2007 06:47 AM

...reality drives conservatives (or the like) into a spastic, incoherent rage.

Now we know you are conservative.

Your replies are not arguments but hopscotching screeds. An argument would require sticking to a topic.

Posted by D Anghelone at March 27, 2007 07:12 AM

The most glaring recent example is being right about Iraq, although I have a habit of being right in general.

Do you mean right about this:

Excuse me, it's the job of troops to support this country, not the other way around. My tax money goes to the military under the promise of defending the Constitution, and my support is conditional on how well they uphold that pledge. Right now they're doing the exact opposite, and I am hopping mad like ever real American is.this:
"Aren't you the individual who claimed he was banned from this site?"

Yes, and I had been.

BS, you're a liar. You can try and convince the casual observer of this website that you're not, but most of us know otherwise. I would say "give it up", but your intent is to lie. For all your accusations of "Orwellian", you utilize the tactics of MiniTru on a regular basis.

Posted by Leland at March 27, 2007 07:20 AM

oops, made a few coding errors... Anyway, I was trying to point out BS disdain for the US military for doing their job, and point out BS original lie of having been banned from the site, which everyone else knows never happened (unless he is the AM sock puppet, which could be). It did look good in preview.

Having read this (Hat tip: Glenn); I do wonder suspect Islamic Terrorist are not the first people to develop such a strategy. Indeed, the strategy seems exactly like Brian's original claim of being banned.

I know others can read English, but I'm sure BS will try to make the claim that I'm equating him, rather than his strategy of making false claims, to Islamic Terrorist's strategy. Of course, I did not do so, but he'll try anyway. If not this thread, he'll do it in another.

Posted by Leland at March 27, 2007 07:34 AM

For one, the right didn't care about the horrors that occurred in the Vietnam War, nor about whether it was legitimate, and they still don't--they only care that it failed. If every single man, woman, and child alive in Vietnam in 1965 was dead by 1970 and the country had to be repopulated from outside, but the NVA never took the South, would you doubt that most conservatives would have considered that a "success"? Historically, it's hard to deny that conservatism is characterized by moral vacuum.

This is undoubtedly the most obvious pile of bullshit Brian has posted yet. To make a near statement that anyone who was for continuing the war in Viet Nam would except the annihilation of an entire people as success is abhorrent thinking. Anyone who is smart enough to log on and post here should be put off by it. Regardless of which side you were on during that war or this one. It's an accusation of homicidal aggression toward innocent people and it's simply over the top.

I was a war protester then. I believed that the war was wrong because we had not been attacked by anyone. That was a civil war and we should never gotten above supporting the side we wanted to win.

I am now a war supporter because we were attacked by people with ties to Bin Laden and ties to Saddam Hussein. That was a "small war", this is a world war we are fighting now. We've even discussed whether it's WWIII or WWIV.

I served in the Navy after Viet Nam was done. I knew then and know now plenty of guys who were in country. I've met hard core bikers here in the beautiful U.S.A who never went to the war, who would fight and kill for the club. Guys who could best be described as blood thirsty. I've never seen or heard of that among those veterans of Nam I've come in contact with. I've NEVER met one of those veterans who was ready to kill anyone indiscriminately. Certainly I've never met any who I thought were in favor of what Brian suggests.

There were plenty of those guys who care, and cared, dearly for the Viet Namese people. They care that their friends and brothers who were killed there too. I know these things from talking to them. Oddly most of them wanted to win for all these reasons. They did not want to leave without winning. It's about a great deal more than just a failure flag to wave at the Democrats for political gains or reasons.

There is the pedigree for what I am about to say.

Rand,
this is your site, you have run it and will continue to run it as you see fit. But you recently said BS was on notice. I think making this genocidal acceptance accusation is absolutely over the top. This is the kind of ridiculous statement, as I remember, that got the anon troll boy ousted from here. I think accusations of homicidal intent are too much. It goes beyond a loud discussion or even name calling, it's just too much.

If Brian truly believes that you either believe as he does or you are a homicidal murdering thug, then he has lost what little credibility he ever had. Accusing his opponents of supporting genocide takes all the steam out of any argument he could ever make on any topic.

Here's to your ouster Brian. It has NOT been a pleasure.

Posted by Steve at March 27, 2007 07:39 AM

Stupid conservatives have their irrational beliefs; but not all conservatives--especially not the more libertarianish--believe in them. On the other hand, all "liberals" I have met or heard or read believe in the Cult of the State and the "Need=Right" superstition, among other dopey dogma.

Posted by Bilwick at March 27, 2007 08:16 AM

Not to mention that if the loopey left had mantra it would be "The ends always justify the means, regardless of the cost."

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 27, 2007 08:56 AM

Steve, Brian is not so wrong as all that. Goldwater suggested using nuclear weapons to win the Vietnam War. Curtis LeMay said that we should bomb North Vietnam into the Stone Age. Lieutenant William Calley really did kill hundreds of Vietnamese indiscriminately, but the day after he was convicted, Nixon ordered him released from prison. In the end, Calley served less than four years of house arrest for 22 counts of murder.

Goldwater, LeMay, and Nixon were not numbskulls who went off the deep end to please nobody. They were all seasoned political figures and they knew that they had an audience. There is a genocidal streak in every society, most certainly including America. Of course, in hindsight, most people who harbor that streak will always say: "It couldn't have been me; I cared deeply; I have always been milk and honey."

Posted by at March 27, 2007 09:07 AM

Another reason I'm not a conservative

The comments support the obvious followup to this. It may feel therapeutic to dust off reasons that you're not a conservative from time to time, but don't worry, after a few minutes you'll remember that liberals are incomparably worse.

Posted by at March 27, 2007 09:13 AM

I understand your frustration, Rand.

Continue on in your cocoonic delusions, Brian.

Why you wanna hurt-a mah feeeeeeelings?

I'm not trying to hurt your "feeeeeeeeelings," Brian. I've seen no evidence that intolerant bigots like you have any. Other than impotent rage, of course, because others don't see the world as clearly and obviously as you do.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 27, 2007 09:42 AM

That paragraph bothered me as well, Steve. There are a variety of moral codes that manifest in what are usually considered conservatives (particularly of the judeo-christian/western civilization tradition) to fill the "moral vacuum" that Mr. Swiderski seems to think exists. I think this betrays an almost stupifying level of bias. Anyone with half a wit can talk to conservatives (say in Rand's blog where they've been known to show up) and see that while they might be radically different in outlook from themselves, most of them don't operate in a moral vacuum.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 27, 2007 10:02 AM

"Bilwick" wrote: 'On the other hand, all
"liberals" I have met or heard or read believe in
the Cult of the State and the "Need=Right"
superstition, among other dopey dogma.'

It's interesting the way "conservative" arguments
tend to make generalized statements about "the
liberals" as a category, as if everyone who
presumed to be disturbed by the recent direction
of American governance had to be reading from
the same script.

I mean, am I a "liberal"?

I don't call myself a "conservative", and
I don't generally identify with many of those
who call themselves that, although I'm against
Gun Control and don't generally think much of
Big Government - but I'm not sure that a sane
society has no place for some sort of public
service or collective "safety net", and I'm
against banning abortion, and in favor of
Legalized Marijuana and Gay Rights... generally
pacifist, and thought "oh $#!+ here we go again;
did we learn nothing from Vietnam?" when we
started the Iraq war (but grudgingly willing to
listen to those who think that a sudden pull-out
right now might just make things worse). Oh, and
I think there well may be grounds to think that
some of the scientists may have oversold some of
the politicians on the urgency of "the climate
change problem"...

So which side am I on? Am I one of
"the liberals"?

-dave w

Posted by dave w at March 27, 2007 10:14 AM

It's interesting the way "conservative" arguments tend to make generalized statements about "the liberals" as a category

And you haven't noticed anyone doing exactly the same thing about "the conservatives"? Like right in this very comments section?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 27, 2007 10:19 AM

no name,
There is a huge difference in Goldwater and LeMay suggesting using nukes in Viet Nam and ALL conservatives thinking genocide would have been a win.

What Rusty Calley did was wrong, but you can't tar everyone with his deeds. Nixon should never have let him out from UNDER the jail. Calley's superiors should have gone to a courts martial too. They were in overall command and they lost track of how bad things were in that platoon. That crap didn't happen in a vacuum.

I see these names in your blurb,

Goldwater, LeMay, Calley and Nixon

There are a few missing if we are looking for blame for the war.

Kennedy, Johnson, Rusk, McNamara, Clifford...

This was not a Republican war. From a western view point, it was started by the French, propped up by Kennedy and ramped up by Lyndon Johnson. But Liberals and Democrats always say Nixon's War.

and finally,

There is a genocidal streak in every society, most certainly including America.

That would make you and BS genocidal too, unless you post here from outside the country. Or are you guys just the milk and honey types?

Posted by Steve at March 27, 2007 10:38 AM

There is a huge difference in Goldwater and LeMay suggesting using nukes in Viet Nam and ALL conservatives thinking genocide would have been a win.

Brian never said "all", he said "most". I wouldn't quite say "most" myself, although the words of these conservative leaders certainly do support "many".

What Rusty Calley did was wrong

More precisely, it was mass murder. My point here is not what Calley himself did, but the fact that Nixon whisked him out of prison. Nixon was no dummy, and he also willing to betray his friends and hang scapegoats out to dry. Why would he do something as blatant and outrageous as granting clemency to a convicted mass murderer? Obviously, Nixon was catering to a large faction of American conservatives.

There are a few missing if we are looking for blame for the war.

Of course the Democrats of the Vietnam War period had a lot of blood and guilt on their hands. But this discussion was not about Republicans vs Democrats, it was about liberals versus conservatives. The Democrats were also capable of catering to conservatives, which is largely what they in expanding the Vietnam War. Lyndon Johnson clearly grabbed the hard line away from Goldwater while at the same time he portrayed Goldwater as ultra-hardline.

Or are you guys just the milk and honey types?

I'm certainly not a pacifist; there are times when you have to give war a chance. But the pacifists are not wrong by any means. War can bring out the worst in anybody; I won't exclude myself from that.

But it is better to be a mild hypocrite who sincerely tries to oppose war atrocities, but does not quite always succeed; than to be a denialist zealot who wants war and only resents accusations. The zealots may sometimes say, "war is hell"; but as the example of Curtis LeMay shows, they often mean that more as an excuse than a warning. Or even as a threat and a vow, in some cases.

Posted by at March 27, 2007 11:05 AM

This was not a Republican war. From a western view point, it was started by the French, propped up by Kennedy and ramped up by Lyndon Johnson. But Liberals and Democrats always say Nixon's War.

That's how I remember it as well.

Posted by Leland at March 27, 2007 11:08 AM

Squidward says: See, what I do is I find reliable information from credible sources, think about it, and then draw conclusions that make sense.

That's really a good way to do it, except it doesn't make you right. Your opinion of yourself is so high, you always believe yourself right. I think much more left, than right.

Posted by Mac at March 27, 2007 12:22 PM

This was not a Republican war. From a western view point, it was started by the French, propped up by Kennedy and ramped up by Lyndon Johnson. But Liberals and Democrats always say Nixon's War.

The French were propped up first by Truman and then Eisenhower. But Eisenhower rebuffed pressures to get the US military involved in the hopeless situation at Dien Bien Phu and later in taking up the fight abandoned by the French. That is, turning it into a war as Kennedy did.

Posted by D Anghelone at March 27, 2007 01:41 PM

This has come a long way from Simberg's reason number xx for his not being conservative. Don't follow the endless diversions and people like BS will have to stick to the topic.

Posted by D Anghelone at March 27, 2007 01:48 PM

This whole discussion is coloured by the fact that there seem to be only two kinds of stickers to slap on each other. Conservative and Liberal. That's silly as anyone with half a mind knows. We have a two party system and so politically at least we have no choice but to use one or the other sticker. To then proceed to argue that nearly 50% of either group has specific verifiable nasty and awful particular characteristics is nuts. I'm pretty much a liberal but I know lots of wonderful conservatives with deep moral values. Brian, I think you let your writing run away with your head. At least I hope that's what it is. It was unnecessary and rude, and perhaps an apology is in order. The same holds for those on the other side leveling blanket charges on those who wear the opposite sticker.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 27, 2007 05:22 PM

TnT,
go back to the top. That was my initial point. That you can't just say things like, "...all Conservatives think.X" or "..all Christians think X" It just doesn't work.

Several others down through the comments said so too.

Posted by Steve at March 27, 2007 05:59 PM

Yeah, what Steve said. Unfortunately, that's a standard that has to work both ways. Most of the commentary around here tends to sh*t on the Left. No one says "some of the Left..." or "a few/some/many Liberals..." When the Conservatives (and Libertarians) around here complain about the Left, it is "The Left" and "The Liberals."

Now, you're all up in arms because someone sh*t on the Conservatives as a group. Hey, turnabout is fair play.

Just for clarification, I'm not a Liberal, but I ain't no Conservative either. I find interesting ideas on both Left and Right, but I do derive more pleasure, I must admit, from the constant teeth-gnashing, arm waving and hysterics from the Right.

Posted by Andy at March 28, 2007 06:00 AM

Gee, and here I thought I was very clear that I thought BS arguments were, well BS. That's not a generalization of the left or right, but a specific complaint about a persons comments.

I have yet to read anyone in this comment thread who agrees with Andrew Schlafly. Mac simply agreed with Rand, but acknowledged that he, Mac, still considers himself conservative and excepts that the umbrella for that group covers a few others for which he disagrees. For that, a self proclaimed leftist flung BS at Mac. Sorry Andy, but I don't consider that fair play.

Posted by Leland at March 28, 2007 06:35 AM

Squidward said (many moons ago): Let's just be honest and admit the idea of public education is not in line with conservative values--they don't want their taxes educating other people's children, so everything associated with public education is demonized by default.

Not correct. Conservatives want education that is effective. Liberals want education that is effective. The problem is that our education system is ineffective. The system to start fixing education proposed by conservatives in 2000 would work at least to get things going in the right direction. The method used, THROW MORE MONEY at it has been ineffective every time its been used, and every time its been used, the liberals have been in charge of it. Over 60 years of throwing money into education and it still doesn't work. That's not demonizing, that's historical fact.
Using vouchers to incorporate competition in schools is a good start. Just like Arena football. If you want the big money, play the game well. If you want people to bring their children to your school, prove you can teach.

Posted by Mac at March 28, 2007 10:32 AM

"Yeah, what Steve said. Unfortunately, that's a standard that has to work both ways. Most of the commentary around here tends to sh*t on the Left. No one says "some of the Left..." or "a few/some/many Liberals..." When the Conservatives (and Libertarians) around here complain about the Left, it is "The Left" and "The Liberals."

Note I used the term the 'looney' left and did not broad brush all the left.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 28, 2007 03:54 PM

It could be worse. America could be run by people who think the universe revolves around Washington. Oh wait...

Posted by Fletcher Christian at March 28, 2007 04:50 PM

Andy, I too like listening to the loony right; it's much more amusing than the loony left. Sometimes I just tune in to Hannity in particular for sheer lunatic amusement at the absurdity of his arguments, always so righteously phrased, the indictment of anyone with that dreaded word - "liberal." There is a whole other alternate "conservative reality" out there on talk radio. Fortunately, the majority of Americans have the good sense to view their ranting with skepticism. At least Limbaugh is genuinely funny sometimes; these other guys, Hannity, Mark Levin etc., what explains their appeal? I don't get it. And their callers, Lord what a sad bunch. I guess it must be some form psychotherapy that one gets out of it. I have a co-worker who spends four to five hours a day listening to this stuff. He considers himself a rock solid conservative. I don't think he is a conservative; I think he is nuts. I'm not sure what kind of "sticker" TnT would want on him.

Posted by Offside at March 28, 2007 07:14 PM

Offside,
the appeal to us is that we agree with much of their "rantings". That of course varies from day to day and topic to topic. I say much of their rantings, as there is only one person with whom I agree with 100% and that is me.

Everyone else's opinions or ideals I weigh, consider and then and throw out some of it.

There must be much more to the popularity of talk radio than just people listening because they want to here the "nutty right". That would mean the non-nutty non-right people were just tuning in for entertainment. But when some real entertainers from the non-nutty non-right tried talk radio, Air America, it failed miserably. Mostly due to no one listening.

This could explain why Al Franken's show failed. I guess the non-nutty non-right people were all busy over at Limbaugh's laughing at him.

Posted by Steve at March 29, 2007 07:03 AM

Mike: "Make that Joe Liberman, not Biden."

So what you're saying is that a rare grassroots success by Connecticut bloggers in denying Lieberman renomination was equivalent to organized, heavily-funded, and routine GOP retaliation campaigns operated from the highest levels of government, up to and including criminal conspiracies?

Leland: "Do you mean right about this"

That too, but I meant that I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the beginning.

Leland: "BS, you're a liar."

No, I'm not. And you have no basis for accusing me of lying other than a desire to rationalize your personal contempt for me. A conservative feels first, then arranges their perception of reality accordingly--it's a foolproof way of never being hurt by the world, and it's also dishonest and completely chickenshit.

Leland: "For all your accusations of "Orwellian", you utilize the tactics of MiniTru on a regular basis."

There is not a single statement of mine you can justify labeling as newspeak, and all you're doing is being mindlessly defensive because you can't deal with what I'm saying.

Leland: "and point out BS original lie of having been banned from the site, which everyone else knows never happened"

Excuse me if your clairvoyant powers are less credible to me than my memories, Criswell.

Steve: "To make a near statement that anyone who was for continuing the war in Viet Nam would except the annihilation of an entire people as success is abhorrent thinking."

I implied no such thing. My statement regarded "most," not "any," and I was specifically addressing conservatives, not the set of all who favored continuing.

Steve: "It's an accusation of homicidal aggression toward innocent people and it's simply over the top."

Homicidal aggression toward innocent people is indeed over the top, and I wish more conservatives were capable of understanding that. But most of them aren't, and will continue to make excuses for the horrors their ideology causes while blaming those who would hold them accountable.

Steve: "I am now a war supporter because we were attacked by people with ties to Bin Laden and ties to Saddam Hussein."

The second part is a lie. While I don't say it's your lie, it is nevertheless a lie, and if you still believe it after all this time then you must have limited yourself to a very small range of sources for several years running. The only television source that ever claimed such a connection was Fox News; and I personally have never seen the claim in the non-opinion sections of print publications, even though I routinely read Time, Newsweek, USN&WR, NYT, LAT, New Yorker, and WSJ. Even they, some of whom faced scandals for uncritically reporting White House talking points on Iraq without so much as fact-checking, never went so far as what you're saying. The 9/11 Commission found nothing of the sort, the alleged meeting between Atta and an Iraqi agent was determined to be noncredible, and the ONLY people even in the Bush regime who would go on record as making such a connection were Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice.

I'm sorry if you sincerely believed what you heard, wherever you heard it. Honest people can be misled, and find themselves gradually surrounded by propaganda without noticing what's happened, but there was never any connection whatsoever between 9/11 and Saddam. Bush's people came to office with a plan to invade Iraq, and some of the first words out of his mouth after the attack were whether such a connection could be made. Not even whether it WAS Saddam, but simply whether it was close enough to be argued.

They're homicidal maniacs, Steve. I'm not a hippie, peacenik, PETA member, or street demonstrator, and I'm not repeating some phrase I heard on Air America or read in the Nation. These are the facts as I WATCHED THEM UNFOLD, across the media spectrum, for years. They pushed every button to get the American people to shut up and obey, to terrorize Congress into authorizing their desired war, and for every button that failed a new one was found and pushed in short order. Their story changed on a daily basis, from one press release to another, and from one official to another. If one false or dubious claim got swatted down, ten more were on their way, and even the honest journalists couldn't possibly keep up. They wanted to start a war, and they used every means necessary to do so. They're liars, and they're murderers.

Steve: "That was a "small war", this is a world war we are fighting now."

No, it isn't. You're listening to propaganda that has no connection to reality whatsoever. We were attacked by a terrorist group with a couple thousand active members and a few thousand supporters living in Afghanistan, but most of those people (with the exception of Zawahiri and Bin Laden) are now dead. Virtually every single enemy we now face was created in the occupation of Iraq, either among Iraqis themselves or in the outrage of foreign Muslims.

Steve: "Certainly I've never met any who I thought were in favor of what Brian suggests."

The group in question is conservatives, not the distinct group of soldiers. Moreover, there is no way that conservatives in general would have stopped at any given point and said "Okay, this has cost too much, we've lost." They would have us keep fighting indefinitely, insist that we not "dishonor the fallen" by withdrawing, and basically keep any given war going as an institutionalized conflict with no inherent purpose other than itself. If the enemy surrendered, they would insist on fighting a new enemy as soon as possible; if no enemies were forthcoming, they would attack and be the aggressor, because continuing the war is more important than being on the right side of it. Such people are naturally rare among the actual fighting men, but historically well represented in the officer class and conservative political parties of the world.

Steve: "I think accusations of homicidal intent are too much."

And I think campaigns to get people booted for offending you are too much. Nothing forces you to read what I write, nor to respond to it, but you do anyway and then decide that you need to be protected from seeing what I write. I'm not a troll, nor am I attacking anyone here personally, so what you're doing is very clearly trying to protect yourself from impersonal, articulated ideas you find disturbing.

Do you come to this place looking for a safe, unchallenging environment where you won't be offended? That's not what I look for when I come here, so maybe we just have differing agendas, and differing ideas about the purpose of discussion. I expect to be challenged, and hope to find a spirited and innovative debate, but a lot of times I just hear a lot of whining. That's okay, though, because we all started out that way.

Steve: "Here's to your ouster Brian."

I read and reply to people's (often idiotic) remarks because I enjoy it. If you are disturbed by what I say, or can't handle how you feel about it when responding, then there's a very simple solution--one that involves virtually no effort on your part, and spares you the indignity of begging Rand to throw me out. See my name? Skip past it until you see someone else's name. Congratulations, you've now defeated all my wily schemes to disrupt your peace of mind.

Bilwick: "On the other hand, all "liberals" I have met or heard or read believe in the Cult of the State and the "Need=Right" superstition, among other dopey dogma."

I don't, although you may simply be selectively interpreting what liberals say. The purpose of government is to do that which, in the opinion of society, the free market and/or nonprofit sector cannot do sufficiently well. But for some ideological libertarians, things the market doesn't handle well are inherently undesirable, and people who fail to succeed in the private sector are inferior, lazy, or incompetent. Their position, which borders on religious, is that we only need very small government because the almighty market already determines for us that which is worthy of being had, and We Must Listen to the divine invisible hand as it guides us. That which the hand rejects can be discarded, including people. Fortunately, reality isn't so gothic.

Markets are a tool, a means to an end. Liberals use markets to the degree they work for people, and move around them to the degree they don't, just like any other geographic feature. That's because liberalism is humanistic, and largely agrees with the old Hellenic admonition about man being the measure of all things. Libetarians, however, are a combination of Protestant belief in the sinfulness of poverty and prehistoric pagan naturalism whereby man is measured in relation to external cycles and forces.

They both work to some extent, but the libertarian model produces a nasty, degraded kind of subtropical ecosystem, full of small, angry, spiky things that either bitterly cling to what they have or aggressively trample everything else to become virally ubiquitous. Liberals tend to build economies more like redwood forests, with many complex, interlocking layers that both have the benefit of competition and contribute to the strength of the whole. The stark difference between the economy of Texas vs. California would be a good example of what I mean.

Mac: "Conservatives want education that is effective."

What they want is tax cuts. Less spending on public education means more gravy on the train, just like less spending on health care, police, fire, social services, road maintenance, etc etc. It won't be their neighborhood that turns gangrenous from the budget cuts, but it will be their tax cut that buys a new hot tub. And since they already prefer to send to their children to a private school, who cares if those who go to public school don't have textbooks? Screw'em. Or, even better, propose some harebrained voucher schemes that could free up even more money for tax cuts. More gravy for the train!

The only spending that is good is that which keeps the gravy train chugging, like the Pentagon to keep their Lockheed dividends coming and oil futures secure; it won't be their child who enlists, nor their family having to cower in a corner beneath a mattress while the bombs fall. It won't even be they who has to hear what their money costs, because they can just listen to Fox News and be told they're patriots. Protected on all sides from all pain and responsibility, and even protected from the shame of recognizing their insulation from reality, they then declare themselves "rugged individualists" and decide their lifestyle is heroic. The magnitude of the travesty is staggering.

Mac: "The problem is that our education system is ineffective."

We get out what we put into it, and I don't just mean money. When I went to school, we had music, art, and free reading time in a library with good books, in addition to math, science, and English. But I guess at some point the old gravy train just had to come chugging for the Reagan Cultural Revolution, and some bankers somewhere needed their tax cuts, so later generations didn't get the experiences that I did. Also, people are discouraged to think of education as anything but a tool of economics, and that attitude makes its way into how curriculum are formed. We're not educating people, we're training worker bees, and not even that very well.

Mac: "Over 60 years of throwing money into education and it still doesn't work."

Our culture doesn't work. Our children are hopped up on medications, caffeine, sugar, junk food, not enough sleep, not enough healthy physical activity, their brains kicked into ADHD land by split-second quick-cut editing of youth TV shows, their minds festooned with advertising placed there by companies hawking said unhealthy products, etc etc. A corporate-manufactured pop culture that glorifies dumb, and a society increasingly populated with adult children who can't think for themselves let alone act. It's like the film "Idiocracy."

Mac: "Using vouchers to incorporate competition in schools is a good start."

Competition for money, meaning that schools with the worst students get the least of it. IOW, they don't get an education, while the elite are trained to assume their place in the aristocracy. This is not a good idea.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 10:17 AM

"Mike: "Make that Joe Liberman, not Biden."

Yes because the former is the latter in non-bizarro universe. Your descriptions are reversed.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 1, 2007 12:48 PM

Leland: "BS, you're a liar."

No, I'm not. And you have no basis for accusing me of lying other than a desire to rationalize your personal contempt for me.

You're very first comment post claimed that Rand banned you. An interesting remark considering you were able to post it. You lied. The baseline was set at the beginning. You haven't strayed from the baseline. Nobody has forgotten your original lie. You're still a liar.

Posted by Leland at April 3, 2007 01:31 PM

"An interesting remark considering you were able to post it."

I posted it over a year later.

"You lied."

No, you're making ignorant assumptions.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 5, 2007 12:22 PM

Post a comment