Blogcritics: Comments on Liberal Like Me

Comment by bhw

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:07:53 EST

Keep the guy with "misfiring synapses" away from the button that launches the nuclear arsenal. Or keep the terrorists away from the stolen/missing Russian nuclear armaments. Or from instruction on how to detonate a dirty bomb with radioactive material. Oh wait, too late!

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:57:13 EST

I think four years is probably enough to establish a presumptive floor of stability

Comment by JR

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 10:53:54 EST

Certainly the worst-case scenarios are always a very present danger, so what do we do about it? Keep the guy with "misfiring synapses" away from the button that launches the nuclear arsenal.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:42:30 EST

Certainly the worst-case scenarios are always a very present danger, so what do we do about it?

Comment by bhw

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:35:24 EST

Thanks for the acronym help, Shark. So the problem with MAD, then, is that you need an enemy that cares about preventing it's own destruction enough to avoid trying to destroy you. Unfortunately, our current enemy not only doesn't care if he is destroyed, but he's looking forward to being destroyed in the act of destroying us. Good news!

Comment by Shark

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:33:40 EST

HOW 'BOUT SOME: ...Pandemic virus? (see latest news!) ...More war? (see GOP 'foreign policy') ...Nuclear annihilation? (See Pakistan-India-Iran-Israel, et al) ...end of earth's short-term homeostasis? (see global warming, projected growth of 'ocean-front property', et al) Apparently, either God or Gaia depends on certain "natural" cosmic controls to limit the size of our fucked up species. So we're pushing Mother Nature to "cull of the herd" --- and She doesn't really care "how" she does it. Pandemic virus? More war? Nuclear annihilation? Hey, don't worry: the big-whammy of "Overpopulation" sorta suggests we'll get all 'at once', kinda yer planet-wide Kervorkian Kocktail. Cheers!

Comment by Shark

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:22:37 EST

For those neophytes in the vernacular of man's ever-present self-destructive tendancies, MAD = mutually assured destruction ie, ...I won't kill you, commit suicide, and ruin the planet if you don't. Yah, Manning, that's always been a HUGE comfort to me. And as far as our "record" holding a lit match in a roomful of TNT (ie, nukes in the hands of militaristic dogma thumping reptilian adolescents) -- YES, it's been a full SIXTY YEARS -- about .0000001 percent of man's "historical" period. I suggest we'll see nukes again used in our lifetime. Possibly suitcase sized. Maybe tomorrow. Cassandra sez "Have a MAD day."

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:57:53 EST

MAD has worked from a "rational state" perspective but that is no longer the primary concern as "nonrational nonstate" entities become more vicious and ambitious

Comment by bhw

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:34:03 EST

Really? 'Cause I could swear I saw two planes fly into tall buildings in NY. And I could swear I've seen terrorist acts perpetrated against our overseas embassies for decades. Nuclear weapons are only a temporary deterrent, and only against some people. They certainly don't seem to be deterring people who don't have nukes. Besides, it's only a matter of time before someone drops a "real" nuke or a dirty bomb of some sort. It still strikes me as odd that many people think having enough nukes on the planet to destroy the planet a couple of times over is a good thing. The big chest thumping "don't blow me away because I'll blow you away before the bombs land" kind of diplomacy doesn't work for me.

Comment by Mark Edward Manning

Wed, 8 Dec 2004 07:53:22 EST

Eric: "I do not minimize the ever-looming problem of nuclear weapons, although I will note they have not been used in almost 60 years." That's because, for those brainless "No Nukes" activists, past, present and future, they have acted as a deterrence.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:50:52 EST

I would say we (in the West) have been "recognizing and ealing" with overpopulation and pollution for about 35 years now. Surely even a skeptic/realist can take some comfort from the results of those efforts. I do not minimize the ever-looming problem of nuclear weapons, although I will note they have not been used in almost 60 years.

Comment by JR

Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:17:26 EST

yes, but the regular and recurring cry of Cassandra is almost a source of comfort I think that's called "taking the threat seriously". Contrast with the Bush administration's "War on Terror" which entails invading random countries, declaring victory, and then distracting us from the resulting mess by screaming about gay marriage come election time. "The terrorists are on the move", when they ought to be dead or in jail by now. The Bush administration didn't take terrorism the least bit seriously before 9/11, and they still don't take it seriously enough to see it as anything more than a military challenge (and a good marketing campaign if the voters don't look to closely at results).

Comment by Shark

Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:13:44 EST

"This is the kind of negativity rampant among liberals..." Manning on Shark Actually, I think the greatest implicit "negativity" is your blindness to current problems. (see Iraq for more) Anyone who is optimistic about Homo Sapiens' future isn't paying attention. By the way: Cassandra never met overpopulation, massive environmental pollution, and nuclear weapons. We'll never solve our problems until we recognize and confront them. Just because the Ostrich doesn't see doesn't mean it isn't doomed. Have a nice day.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 7 Dec 2004 07:47:00 EST

yes, but the regular and recurring cry of Cassandra is almost a source of comfort

Comment by Mark Edward Manning

Tue, 7 Dec 2004 05:12:58 EST

Shark: "Have I mentioned we're doomed?" This is the kind of negativity rampant among liberals to which Eric refers.

Comment by Steve S

Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:14:41 EST

My recollection of the election, was that the Swift Vets did not dispute that Kerry was shot at and did not dispute the valor he exhibited in saving the life of another. It was what he did when he got home from the war that got everybody mad. So to portray Kerry as a 'pussy' is falsehood to me. I believe he has shown far more gumption, valor and courage than Bush has shown from the protective confines of his oval office. Also, to portray the concept of reaching out to other nations, listening to their concerns, and working together to combat terrorism as wimping out, or being a pussy, is just as sad as portraying a dissenter of the Iraq invasion as a traitor. The saddest of all is that progressives are no longer combatting this destruction of the truth. This is how democracy dies. Kerry might not have been the Democrats best choice, but when you put him beside Bush, it's clear that pussy, as the sexist term is used here, is much more synonymous with Bush than with Kerry. It does not take courage to make unpopular decisions from the security of an ivory tower.

Comment by Shark

Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:53:22 EST

Claire: "I don't a want a pussy President..." I dunno -- for me -- some strange reason, this statement epitomizes the entire predicament of humanity in the 21st century. We're apparently given the finite options between a neo-cortex, transcendental Pussy -- and a limbic driven, reptilian-brained GOP Cowboy. Have I mentioned we're doomed? "Stop the world and let me off..." -- Merle Haggard

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:16:34 EST

I agree militarism is only part of the solution, but it is a fundamental part, on the ground and psychologically. I don't know what what "permanent war" means, but if it means remaining aggessive and on the offense against Islamic extremists and those who support their efforts, then I'm all for it. And as to "waging war against entities who can't or won't muster a responsive challenge": this strikes me as so obtuse as to border on insanity. Who, what or where have we attacked anyone who didn't "muster a responsive challenge"? WE were attacked by al Qaeda, not the other way around. And the Taliban fostered, protected and allied itself with al Qaeda. And no response in Iraq? Tell that to the coalition casualties. This isn't some fucking tennis match: it's a GOOD thing when we can overwhelm our enemies and achieve our objectives with minimal - ideally zero - casualties. Whe should only fight when it's "fair"? Interesting perspective.

Comment by Aaman

Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:44:29 EST

The old "City On the Hill" argument sure went down well with those in the Palatine Quarter, and the Caesars justified their continued value by military spending against the barbarians at the gates This is not intended as a defense of Moore, moveon.org, et al, purely as a reminder that history judges differently from current social context, and militarism is not the solution, or more accurately, only part of the solution.

Comment by Claire

Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:22:44 EST

OK, Jim, you want the straight skinny? Never let it be said that I indulged in semantic thuggery. I want a strong military who would blow those who wish to destroy our way of life and those things and freedoms we hold dear off the map. You cannot reason with terrorists. Terrorists are not reasonable. They are misguided and are a product of their misguided teachings. I know we (americans) are accused of being arrogant and knowing what is best for the world. There is no reasonable man or woman who lives on the planet that would quarrel with the fact that oppression is bad, and the freedom to choose your way is good. And if they would argue that, they they have been indoctrinated by the extremists. I don't a want a pussy President who is afraid to do what he needs to do in order to facilitate that. Is that straight enough? Claire

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Sun, 5 Dec 2004 17:46:59 EST

I didn't write the following, but it expresses what I said before. So before you give me more of the bafflegab which I said clearly you were engaging in, please read and think about this:

Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent, and our language—so the argument runs—must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

But, if all you want to do is engage in semantic thuggery, just say so. If you want to engage in warmongery, just say so, don't make up excuses or lies. People respect and fear bullies more than weasels and liars. And isn't that something to be more marginally proud of?

Comment by Claire

Sun, 5 Dec 2004 17:28:27 EST

Jim, I disagree with your assessment. There is no Orwellian double-think here. There is considered opinion which blurs "party lines" and is the ideal to making decisions based on fact WITHOUT regard to platform. But I respect your opinion...as always. :) Claire

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Sun, 5 Dec 2004 17:22:34 EST

A classic example of Orwellian double-think. Liberal means restricting civil and human rights within arbitrary rules. Defence means waging war against entities who can't or won't muster a responsive challenge. And war on terror means whatever we say it means. Maybe you need a slogan: "Just Say No To Terror". Please do me a favour, and when you mean to say "permanent war without any responsibility or consequences", use that instead of "defence".

Comment by Claire

Sun, 5 Dec 2004 17:21:40 EST

I have never been so proud in my life of a person who has used his BRAIN to think out a position (regardless of labels), and speak his piece. *insert huge grin here. I won't belabor the points of national security, because you have already done that. But I couldn't help but express my 'atta boy, not because we agree, for on many levels we do not, but because you have a fine brain with which to reason and think. You are one of those people whose vote I support because you NOT a political sheep, or any other kind of sheep, and can think, even if your position is opposite to mine. Claire

Comment by Thad Anderson

Sun, 5 Dec 2004 16:51:32 EST

I definitely agree that a lot of people on the left: 1) are not taking the (very real) terrorist threat seriously, and 2) have gone too far in rationalizing the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist mindset as a result of US policies. The lack of respect for the seriousness of the terror threat was embodied by many New Yorkers' assumption that Homeland Security's August 2004 NYC warnings were merely political manuvering. A more extreme example is found in conspiracy theory circles, where people regularly claim that 9/11 was orchestrated someone other than Al Qaeda. Ironically, this denial of the terror threat seems rooted in an exaggerated perception of the US as omnipotent - and the rest of the world as totally irrelevant. The undeniable truth is that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are out there, they're very dedicated to attacking the US, and they have the money, the expertise, and the brains to pull it off. As to blaming US policies for terrorism, I think elements of the left are giving fundamentalist extremists way too much credit in assuming that they are rational entities, who might change their minds upon hearing about some change in US policies. I believe we'd still have terrorists trying to attack us even if someone like Dennis Kucinich was our President, with his proposed cabinet-level "Department of Peace" in place. That said, our policies do have an effect on these groups' popularity in the Islamic world. For example, I cannot think of better fodder for the proverbial Al Qaeda recruiting poster than Bush's numerous references to the crusades during speeches about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or his linkage of the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, despite a lack of evidence. The religious illusions affirmed the terrorists' otherwise absurd notion that we're engaged with a religious war with them; the 9/11-Iraq link, which relied on Americans' tendency to lump most Arabs together, gave the terrorists the race war they've always wanted.