Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

These leftist pack attacks are astonishing. One of my co-bloggers was subjected to such an assault for arguing that gays have an interest in the victory of the West against Islamism. If you read the comments at the link (which include a link to the attacking blog post) you can see where we tried to have a rational discussion with one of the less-crazy leftists. It was impossible.

I suppose that this kind of mob behavior happens also on the Right, but it doesn't seem to happen nearly as often or to be nearly as intensely nasty or irrational. Perhaps in the 1930s these kinds of people would have been fascists. Nowadays it's the Left that provides a supportive environment for them and their emotional and secular-religious needs.

Posted by Jonathan at December 27, 2007 07:24 PM

It does seem the left is dammned to corner the market on intolerance, bigotry and hate as they accuse others of their very crime.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 27, 2007 09:35 PM

Johnathan, I clicked on your link, and tried to read it. Thanks a lot - now my brain hurts.

Mike, don't worry, as long as people continue to complain in blanket generalities about "the left" and "the right" committing crimes, there will be plenty of intolerance to go around.

Actually, in all seriousness, do you really think that one side has values which invites intolerance more than the other side? Do you think one side has inspired more intolerant regimes in history than the other side?

I know it is folly to say "it is just obvious..." but I can't help it: To me, it is just obvious that both sides have lots of sensible ideas and fine values to offer. I'm not saying this out some sense of fairness, but rather,from a conviction if you divide all the non-evil people in the world and find that half are one side and half on the other of some intellectual divide, there must be good things to admire about both sides. And on the flip side, I'm sure that both stances can be perverted by silliness or fanaticism into something that can't be admired.

I guess I'm just shocked that this isn't what everyone thinks, and that people can actually complain with a straight face about "the left" and "the right". (I missed the joke, right?)

Posted by Abominable at December 27, 2007 10:06 PM

"Actually, in all seriousness, do you really think that one side has values which invites intolerance more than the other side? "

Absolutely! The left tends to largely favor emotion over reason. The right tends to favor reason over emotion.

You will know a tree by the fruits it bears.

Hatred is an emotion. No wonder whos side the moonbats are on.

Bush Derangement Syndrome anyone?

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 27, 2007 10:09 PM

BDS was preceded, and may yet be followed, by CDS. ;^)

Posted by Jay Manifold at December 28, 2007 05:41 AM

When exactly did FDR "intern tens of thousands based on their race"?

Posted by Artemus at December 28, 2007 09:01 AM

"BDS was preceded, and may yet be followed, by CDS. ;^)"

Several orders of magnitude difference. One was a Cold, the other is Ebola.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 28, 2007 09:03 AM

> When exactly did FDR "intern tens of thousands based on their race"?

Mainland Japanese were interned in the US during WWII.

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 28, 2007 09:19 AM

Jay,
CDS was founded on facts, not feelings. Facts like repeated accusations of sexual assault, questionable investment schemes, nefarious business partners and that was all well before the now infamous BJ and rampant lying on that matter.

While I "felt" that Clinton should have been impeached, my "feelings" were based on facts.

BDS is all about hate. But who can blame them, he stole an election.

I did notice that while FRD was bunched in with Fascists and Socialists for the internment camps, that the fact that his Administration, as well as his Congress were all Democrat controlled was left out. So Democrats were in charge, but that went unmentioned.

It never goes that way when 9/11 is talked about.

Posted by Steve at December 28, 2007 09:55 AM

> Mainland Japanese were interned in the US during WWII.

Japanese-Americans were interned based on their ancestors' nationality, not their race. No Chinese, Koreans, etc. were interned. Internment may have been wrong, but saying it was done on the basis of race makes it a lot less defensible than it actually was.

Also, initially anyway, Japanese-Americans were free to leave the 'exclusion zones' voluntarily instead of being interned. Simply being Japanese-American was not enough to get you interned - you also had to be unwilling or unable to leave the exclusion zones. Again, I'm not saying internment was right, just pointing out some inaccuracies in the way you stated it.

Posted by Artemus at December 28, 2007 09:58 AM

Goldberg's book reminds me of a joke that briefly made the rounds during the late Seventies. I think it may have been a commentary on "liberals'" response to the burgeoning tax revolt and the anti-statist themes in Reagan's speeches. That was the first time I recall when the libs were becoming more blatant about the iron fist under the velvet glove. In any event, the joke was:

"Q. What's the difference between a fascist and a liberal? A. The fascist wears jackboots and the liberal wears Hush Puppies." (Are Hush Puppies still around? Maybe the joke needs to be uptated, changing "Hush Puppies" to "Birkenstocks" or "jogging shoes.")

Posted by Bilwick at December 28, 2007 10:09 AM

"Absolutely! The insert other group here tends to largely favor emotion over reason. The insert my group tends to favor reason over emotion."

Rinse and repeat over the entirety of human history. Because no one has ever admitted their current position is unreasonable, reason being defined by the current state of ones gut.

Funny how everyone seem to have forgotten the group stalking of a 12 year old boy not three months ago led by noted internment defender Michelle Malkin.

A final note on the thoughtful review: A Democrat of 1912 != liberal. And Lend-Lease, declarations of war, saturation bombing and Normandy represent a funny kind of mutual admiration between FDR and Hitler. Didn't we have an extended rant by Bill Whittle recently on these very pages, whose first point was that loud nationalist displays do not mean ideological equivalence? But that reasoning, reworked fifteen different ways, is basically Goldberg's entire thesis.

The confusion here is obvious: fascism is indeed coupled with a fundamental element of liberalism, and that is democracy. Fascism is the popular will, with all its undiluted neuroses and self contained logic, run amok and become incarnate. Both Hitler and Mussolini were elected, and proto-fascist Napoleon won much of his power through referendum. Liberalism tempers things down with impersonal law, "red tape" and, ideally, doubt of heroic personal claims. Same root - modernism - but Goldberg has the sense of convergence very wrong.

Posted by Duncan Young at December 28, 2007 10:21 AM

Artemus: That's a reasonable analysis if one decides that "Asian" counts as a race, but "Japanese" doesn't... and you won't have much fun convincing the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese that they're all "the same race".

(Stupid as racial classification might be, it still has profound cultural resonance. For that matter, my impression of the racial politics of 1942 suggests that "the Japanese race" would have been understood as a category distinct from "the Chinese race" at that time, even by Americans, not just Chinese and Japanese nationals.)

The practical and moral difference between "race" and "national origin of your forebears" is also nil.

Neither factor is one that the target has control over, and in this context, neither is a significant factor for disloyalty, thus removing the practical justification. After all, the Nisei were born and raised in the United States; they weren't Japanese national immigrants.

(Likewise, it's not inaccurate to say that Jim Crow oppressed black people, even though it only oppressed black people who were unable or unwilling to leave areas that had Jim Crow laws.

My point is that the original description of the internment policy is, while not maximally nuanced, still correct.)

Posted by Sigivald at December 28, 2007 10:23 AM

Sigivald: Hear, hear! The Straight Dope says that "hear hear!" isan abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!" This thread has left me dumbfounded, but I'm glad that racism, even racism expressed without any malice, hasn't gone unanswered.

Posted by Abominable at December 28, 2007 10:42 AM

Duncan, you ignorant slut. Graeme Young wasn't "stalked" by anybody. The ad and the people who produced it were criticized and the circumstances of the family were questioned (and rightly so, given the appearances). The 12-year old boy wasn't criticized by any responsible person, including Michelle Malkin, it was the seemingly dishonest use of him by others that was criticized.

Posted by Larry at December 28, 2007 11:26 AM

Larry,
don't talk to Duncan that way! Especially when all you have for ammo is the truth. It's not "fair".

Posted by Steve at December 28, 2007 11:35 AM

The problems with "Fascists = Liberals" are several. First, Hitler and Mussolini (sp?) would say and do anything to get elected. They therefore stole whatever piece of ideology that was popular at the time.

The second problem was that Communism was, in the time period, seen as a "liberal" philosophy. Fascism was very explicitly anti-communist, and thus at least in part a rejection of leftist thought.

Neither left nor right has any monopoly on intolerance of dissent. One could hardly call Europe's monarchs leftists, yet they supressed dissent quite vigorously.

Posted by Chris Gerrib at December 28, 2007 12:10 PM

...that reasoning, reworked fifteen different ways, is basically Goldberg's entire thesis.

I would humbly suggest that if you haven't read the book, you haven't clue one about any of his thesis, let alone his "entire" thesis. And if all you know about it is from enraged "reviewers" (who also haven't read it), you know less than nothing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 28, 2007 12:11 PM

>Artemus: That's a reasonable analysis if one decides that "Asian" counts as a race, but "Japanese" doesn't...my impression of the racial politics of 1942 suggests that "the Japanese race" would have been understood as a category distinct from "the Chinese race" at that time, even by Americans, not just Chinese and Japanese nationals.)

I believe I am using the definition of race most commonly accepted by the likely readers of this blog, i.e. black, white, yellow, red...

>The practical and moral difference between "race" and "national origin of your forebears" is also nil.

I disagree, and this was precisely my point. Are you claiming that Japanese-Americans were no more likely than, say, Chinese-Americans to commit espionage against the U.S. during WW II?

The internment policy was heavy-handed, unconstitutional, and ultimately counterproductive. But I cannot find fault with the basic idea that Japanese-Americans represented a potential security threat.

Posted by Artemus at December 28, 2007 12:19 PM

Artemus, type "definition of race" into google. There isn't any definition of race which isn't absurd, and, less objectively, I'd say there isn't any definition which isn't pernicious.

Posted by Abominable at December 28, 2007 12:34 PM

I just realized that the word "race" is ambigious - ie race horse. Try "Genetic diversity" and "Race".

Posted by Abomiable at December 28, 2007 12:37 PM

Brad & Gavin at Sadly No are slogging through it - posting large chunks and dissecting them line by line.

Like the bit on how the Nazi were actually pro-gay.

Or how Nazis = PETA.

Or the fascism of whole grains.

Or how the KKK are "ironically" called fascists

The basic, (poorly written), thesis is here.

And the basic rebuttal is that if you tried the same analysis on any Western thread of political thought, it would come out as totalitarian, fascist and with analogs in 1930's Germany. What Jonah has stumbled on to is the fact that modern Western politics was pretty much homogenized by the Industrial Revolution. Hitler ran on a pro-armament family values platform, after all.

"The white male is the Jew of liberal fascism"

Please, I've seen enough.

Posted by Duncan Young at December 28, 2007 01:07 PM

Larry,
It wasn't an ad.
His name is Graeme Frost.
Free Republic posted their home address. The family was bombarded with email and phone calls.
And posts like this:
"Hang 'em. Publically," the [Redstate] contributor wrote. "Let 'em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens. Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice.
Health insurance for two injured kids would run $1,200/month.
Do you suggest that should have refinanced their house?

Posted by Duncan Young at December 28, 2007 01:23 PM

Sorry, Graeme Frost. Don't know where the Young came from, probably something on the radio at the same time. Okay, it wasn't a radio *ad*, it was a radio *address* for the Democratic Party. That out of the way, I reiterate that no responsible person attacked or stalked Graeme Frost in any way. Even the vile comments made by ignorant yahoos on a public website were nearly all directed at the parents, the producers and the Democratic Party in general, not the 12-year old, you twit.

Not to mention, it's pretty easy anymore to find the address, email and home phone number of most ordinary individuals in a matter of minutes.

Also, the $1200/mo for insurance for two injured children completely begs the question of WTF do you and they think insurance is for? If you're too stupid to buy insurance before you're sick or injured, you're probably too stupid to realize that it will be a lot more expensive or impossible to buy afterwards.

Geico: "Hello, this is Geico. How may we help you?"

LM: "Hi, I'd like to insure my car."

Geico: "Certainly, sir. What is it?"

LM: "It was a Volvo SUV until I had that head-on collision with the pickup truck a few minutes ago. The police are wanting to see my insurance, so I need it fast."

Geico: ""

LM: "Damned capitalist bitch!"

Seriously, the Frosts are a poster family for screwed-up priorities in life.

Posted by Larry at December 28, 2007 02:07 PM

Duncan- if they'd rather have kept their huge, unbelievably-appointed house and thier three SUV's... then reduced their lifestyle and paid for their children's care... they are greedy, self-centered jerks.
If YOU think that they're saints or martyrs for refusing to reduce an untenable lifestyle so as to provide for their kids... and further think it's all Bush's fault they're faced with that choice, instead of having their bad decisions underwritten by my tax dollars... YOU are almost certainly a Democrat.

And a jerk.

Posted by DaveP. at December 28, 2007 02:07 PM

DaveP, Larry,
I believe you would be the ones wanting those kids to remain maimed for their parent's financial choices.
At the end of the day, that is the practical detail here.

PS I misspoke: apparently the $1200/month was before the accident - a third of their income.

The very concept of giving up ones home to obtain basic healthcare is just bizarre.

Posted by Duncan Young at December 28, 2007 03:03 PM

No, Duncan, you were right the first time. $1200/mo was the cost Bonnie Frost had been quoted "recently":

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.frosts10oct10,0,2541063.story?page=2

The "obtain basic healthcare" is a crock, as well. What they needed (and got) was advanced, major medical care. Nothing basic about it.

And yes, they could have foregone the recent remodelling of their very nice home. Or one of their three new SUVs. They could drive older cars. They could, if necessary, move into a smaller, more affordable place. They could pick up a part-time job. There were lots of things they could have done and could do now.

What the the kids suffered was a tragedy. The parents were and are jerks. Then again, why not dare to be stupid? If it goes wrong, Uncle Sugar will bail you out. And set another example that helps lower the bar for moral and fiscal idiocy for everyone else in the future.

Posted by at December 28, 2007 04:18 PM

Artemus, type "definition of race" into google. There isn't any definition of race which isn't absurd, and, less objectively, I'd say there isn't any definition which isn't pernicious.

Abominable, it sounds like the problem is that you need to be more objective. What's particularly harmful about the idea of race or ethnicity?

Posted by Karl Hallowell at December 29, 2007 03:20 AM

Abominable, is Michael Jordan black?

Posted by Aretmus at December 29, 2007 06:56 AM

Heh, Aretmus, try a harder one - is Micheal Jackson black?

Personally, I put him in a race of one...

Posted by David Summers at December 29, 2007 02:32 PM

There is a difference between "stalking" the parents of a 12 year old boy and stalking the boy.

To return to the actual topic, I can't quite figure out the point of this blogswarm. Usually this treatment is reserved for people regarded as traitors to a movement. Is Jonah Goldberg a well-known ex-leftist?

Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger at December 29, 2007 10:10 PM

And another example of a deranged 'progressive':

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/12/anti-military-l.html

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 30, 2007 08:53 PM

Larry:
"Seriously, the Frosts are a poster family for screwed-up priorities in life."

Since the Frosts were covered by SCHIP, I don't see why their priorities were "screwed up". After all, they HAD insurance, it just happened to be public rather than private.

Similarly, Duncan Young:
"I believe you would be the ones wanting those kids to remain maimed for their parent's financial choices.
At the end of the day, that is the practical detail here."

Since the parents had SCHIP, why would their kids "remain maimed" if Bush vetoed the SCHIP expansion that was being debated? That was why the Frosts were dragged in to begin with, after all. And since they ALREADY HAD SCHIP, there was no reason to drag them into a discussion about EXPANDING SCHIP. Same with the Wilkersons, who were dragged in later when right-wing bloggers started questioning the Frosts' credentials for getting SCHIP.

I don't know HOW many times I asked this question, but I never got a straight answer: Why are the Frosts relevant to a question about expanding SCHIP, if they were covered by SCHIP to begin with and would still be whether or not the expansion was Bush's suggestion of $5 billion or the Democrats' demand of $35 billion? Yes, I have a good reason for using the two different verbs; the Democrats put forward $35 billion, Bush offered to negotiate starting with the SUGGESTION of $5 billion, and the Dems screamed "NO, we DEMAND $35 billion and we're going to get it too! Look at the Frosts! They already have SCHIP, but, um, it was good for them, so we should give it to more people!"

Posted by Math_Mage at December 30, 2007 09:13 PM

> But I cannot find fault with the basic idea that Japanese-Americans represented a potential security threat.

Nice, but irrelevant. The point is that FDR did "intern tens of thousands based on their race". (As has been pointed out, Japanese think that they're a different race. If they all look the same to you, that's your problem.) Quibbling about why he picked that race doesn't change the truth of the statement.

Posted by at December 30, 2007 10:19 PM

Math_Mage, their priorities were screwed up because they should've been able to re-arrange things so that they had insurance for the kids and didn't have to go suck on the taxpayers' tired teats for support.

Posted by Larry at December 31, 2007 01:55 PM

Larry:
"Math_Mage, their priorities were screwed up because they should've been able to re-arrange things so that they had insurance for the kids and didn't have to go suck on the taxpayers' tired teats for support."

Nonsense. It was a government program, it was available, and they took advantage of it. For the Frosts, the priority list goes:
Children's health
.
.
.
Remodeling for house
.
.
.
Making sure that somebody else's esoteric principles about independence from government are upheld by getting private insurance

SCHIP violated the bottom principle while allowing the family to fulfill both of the upper two. Whether or not that justifies the program is a separate issue. Whether or not that justifies an EXPANSION of the program is yet another separate issue. But don't pretend that the Frosts exercised poor judgment for having the gall (the gall, I say!) to use the public system. If they'd actually put "remodeling for home" ahead of "children's health", THEN you could complain about their judgment. But they didn't.

Now, if we take away SCHIP, the family probably gets private insurance, takes care of "children's health", and doesn't get the home remodeling. Quite frankly, I would be fine with that. But that doesn't mean the Frosts should have foregone the remodeling over moral qualms about taking public aid, since the aid was there.

Posted by Math_Mage at December 31, 2007 03:42 PM

But that's exactly what's wrong with the Frosts, Math_Mage, their lack of moral qualms about depending upon public aid. Not necessarily the fact that that they use when it was available, but that they made a conscious decision to *depend* upon it if something happened.

Yes, I have a very big problem with someone deciding that they will live irresponsibly and if something bad happens, depend (in part) on me to bail them out because their kids shouldn't have to suffer for their stupidity and callousness. What kind of message do you think that sends other other people about the proper way to live their lives? Why bother scrimping, saving and working your butt off off when you can depend on someone else to clean up your messes? That's the attitude of a small child and we're doing entirely too much as a society to promote that kind of infantilism.

Posted by Larry at January 2, 2008 05:46 PM

Larry:
"But that's exactly what's wrong with the Frosts, Math_Mage, their lack of moral qualms about depending upon public aid. Not necessarily the fact that that they use when it was available, but that they made a conscious decision to *depend* upon it if something happened."

Hmmm...nope, still doesn't make sense. For one thing, they might be from Britain. [/snark] For another, I don't see the difference between "use it when it was available" and "depending on it if something happened", since the whole point of using insurance is depending on it if something happens. For a third, I simply don't see why using a program that's available to you is morally wrong, just because it's a government program. That'd be like having moral qualms about your kid going to a public school, only without the factor of public schools being worse than the rest.

Posted by Math_Mage at January 3, 2008 12:36 AM

Post a comment