Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

many in the pseudo-intellectual liberal inteligentsia accuse me of being a myopic shill for W. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth as I am nothing but a peaceful emissary of the light of the babyjesi and a philosophy of tolerance, anti-bias and love of freedom and capitalist markets for all mankind.

My break with W on the Harryette Miers thing is one example. Another is my support of the First Amendment freedoms of all artists and as such my opposition to jackbooted actions of the Justice department such as those taken against the film artiste Max Hardcore.

ALTA DENA, Calif. – The offices of Max Hardcore’s Max World Entertainment were raided Wednesday under the authority of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department.

If Max's ouevre can be classified obscene then I question who is at asleep at the wheel for failing to prosecute this subhuman filth monger:

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
Exactly what we're doing. Crazed beater is still trying to get at the kid. We've got troops there to stop him, and, if it comes down to it, they'll shoot him. His choice. - he can stop, or die.

The no-fly zone and sanctions were a joke - thank the UN for that, I guess.

And Clinton for the assist.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm don't think he's being offensive deliberately. I just think he's a simple man, without wit or art.

Wow, that's not an offensive cheap PoPD shot at all. Spanky is not only the most coherent poster on this board, but he is also the most politically accomplished. This is the saddest personal attack yet that I have seen on these boards.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
many in the pseudo-intellectual liberal inteligentsia accuse me of being a myopic shill for W. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth as I am nothing but a peaceful emissary of the light of the babyjesi and a philosophy of tolerance, anti-bias and love of freedom and capitalist markets for all mankind.

My break with W on the Harryette Miers thing is one example. Another is my support of the First Amendment freedoms of all artists and as such my opposition to jackbooted actions of the Justice department such as those taken against the film artiste Max Hardcore.

ALTA DENA, Calif. – The offices of Max Hardcore’s Max World Entertainment were raided Wednesday under the authority of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department.

If Max's ouevre can be classified obscene then I question who is at asleep at the wheel for failing to prosecute this subhuman filth monger:

You better explain who this is. All the libs here deny having seen the movie.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
. . . we were morally compelled to attack Iraq and occupy it against the will of the Iraqi people . . .

Where do you GET this shit? Against the will of the Baathist thugs? Sure. Against the will of the people? Hardly, as any pre and post-invasion poll will show you. If I preface every argument I make with "the liberal viewpoint, which is proven to cause massive death to all", yeah, I suppose my arguments will take on greater weight. too.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Could you just re-print it for those who do not want to register?

The power of a moderator, yet such a low regard for copyright. Your moral relativism will be our downfall, Penske.

Below are portions:

1. American debacle
   By Zbigniew Brzezinski, ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI was national security advisor to President Carter.
   
   Some 60 years ago Arnold Toynbee concluded, in his monumental "Study of History," that the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was "suicidal statecraft." Sadly for George W. Bush's place in history and - much more important - ominously for America's future, that adroit phrase increasingly seems applicable to the policies pursued by the United States since the cataclysm of 9/11.
   
   Though there have been some hints that the Bush administration may be beginning to reassess the goals, so far defined largely by slogans, of its unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq, President Bush's speech Thursday was a throwback to the demagogic formulations he employed during the 2004 presidential campaign to justify a war that he himself started.
   
   That war, advocated by a narrow circle of decision-makers for motives still not fully exposed, propagated publicly by rhetoric reliant on false assertions, has turned out to be much more costly in blood and money than anticipated. It has precipitated worldwide criticism. In the Middle East it has stamped the United States as the imperialistic successor to Britain and as a partner of Israel in the military repression of the Arabs. Fair or not, that perception has become widespread throughout the world of Islam.
   
   Now, however, more than a reformulation of U.S. goals in Iraq is needed. The persistent reluctance of the administration to confront the political background of the terrorist menace has reinforced sympathy among Muslims for the terrorists. It is a self-delusion for Americans to be told that the terrorists are motivated mainly by an abstract "hatred of freedom" and that their acts are a reflection of a profound cultural hostility. If that were so, Stockholm or Rio de Janeiro would be as much at risk as New York City. Yet, in addition to New Yorkers, the principal victims of serious terrorist attacks have been Australians in Bali, Spaniards in Madrid, Israelis in Tel Aviv, Egyptians in the Sinai and Britons in London.
   
   There is an obvious political thread connecting these events: The targets are America's allies and client states in its deepening military intervention in the Middle East. Terrorists are not born but shaped by events, experiences, impressions, hatreds, ethnic myths, historical memories, religious fanaticism and deliberate brainwashing. They are also shaped by images of what they see on television, and especially by feelings of outrage at what they perceive to be the brutal denigration of their religious kin's dignity by heavily armed foreigners. An intense political hatred for America, Britain and Israel is drawing recruits for terrorism not only from the Middle East but as far away as Ethiopia, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia and even the Caribbean.
   
   America's ability to cope with nuclear nonproliferation has also suffered. The contrast between the attack on the militarily weak Iraq and America's forbearance of a nuclear-armed North Korea has strengthened the conviction of the Iranians that their security can only be enhanced by nuclear weapons. Moreover, the recent U.S. decision to assist India's nuclear program, driven largely by the desire for India's support for the war in Iraq and as a hedge against China, has made the U.S. look like a selective promoter of nuclear weapons proliferation. This double standard will complicate the quest for a constructive resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.
   
   Compounding such political dilemmas is the degradation of America's moral standing in the world. The country that has for decades stood tall in opposition to political repression, torture and other violations of human rights has been exposed as sanctioning practices that hardly qualify as respect for human dignity. Even more reprehensible is the fact that the shameful abuse and/or torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was exposed not by an outraged administration but by the U.S. media. In response, the administration confined itself to punishing a few low-level perpetrators; none of the top civilian and military decision-makers in the Department of Defense and on the National Security Council who sanctioned "stress interrogations" (a.k.a. torture) were publicly disgraced, prosecuted or forced to resign. The administration's opposition to the International Criminal Court now seems quite self-serving.
   
   Finally, complicating this sorry foreign policy record are war-related economic trends. The budgets for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security are now larger than the total budget of any nation, and they are likely to continue escalating as budget and trade deficits transform America into the world's No. 1 debtor nation. At the same time, the direct and indirect costs of the war in Iraq are mounting, even beyond the pessimistic prognoses of its early opponents, making a mockery of the administration's initial predictions. Every dollar so committed is a dollar not spent on investment, on scientific innovation or on education, all fundamentally relevant to America's long-term economic primacy in a highly competitive world.
   
   It should be a source of special concern for thoughtful Americans that even nations known for their traditional affection for America have become openly critical of U.S. policy. As a result, large swathes of the world - including nations in East Asia, Europe and Latin America - have been quietly exploring ways of shaping regional associations tied less to the notions of transpacific, or transatlantic, or hemispheric cooperation with the United States. Geopolitical alienation from America could become a lasting and menacing reality.
   
   That trend would especially benefit America's historic ill-wishers and future rivals. Sitting on the sidelines and sneering at America's ineptitude are Russia and China - Russia, because it is delighted to see Muslim hostility diverted from itself toward America, despite its own crimes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and is eager to entice America into an anti-Islamic alliance; China, because it patiently follows the advice of its ancient strategic guru, Sun Tzu, who taught that the best way to win is to let your rival defeat himself.
   
   In a very real sense, during the last four years the Bush team has dangerously undercut America's seemingly secure perch on top of the global totem pole by transforming a manageable, though serious, challenge largely of regional origin into an international debacle. Because America is extraordinarily powerful and rich, it can afford, for a while longer, a policy articulated with rhetorical excess and pursued with historical blindness. But in the process, America is likely to become isolated in a hostile world, increasingly vulnerable to terrorist acts and less and less able to exercise constructive global influence. Flailing away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming "I will stay the course" is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.
   
   But it need not be so. A real course correction is still possible, and it could start soon with a modest and common-sense initiative by the president to engage the Democratic congressional leadership in a serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an increasingly divided and troubled nation. In a bipartisan setting, it would be easier not only to scale down the definition of success in Iraq but actually to get out - perhaps even as early as next year. And the sooner the U.S. leaves, the sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will either reach a political arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly prevail.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Leaving aside the historical inaccuracy of the suggesting that we had a big huge stockpile of A-bombs.....


On what theory -- other than "the interests of a nation justify the deaths of millions" -- can you possibly advocate "dropping A-bombs where we think Stalin is?"


As a history prof of mine put it -- we hanged people at Nuremberg for doing what you are suggesting, but they did it on a much smaller scale.

In September of 1945 what is the difference between Russia and Japan? Russia has invaded Poland and Finland. Japan had invaded islands in the Pacific. Both were nations with a history of aggression.

At this point with Japan the United States demanded unconditional surrender. We didn't have to ask for unconditional surrender. Japane would have done a peace deal, but we demanded full surrender because we did not trust their government to be peaceful. Why was the Japanese government any less trustworthy than Russia.

The only difference between the two countrys was that we had not gotten in Russia's way when it was trying to take chunks of Europe but we had gotten in the way of the Japanese we they were trying to take chunks of the Pacific.

Stalins government was infinitely more evil than the Japanese government. Stalin stepping down would have been a lot better for the Russias than Tojo stepping down in Japan (in otherwords if Tojo has stayed in power what he would have done to Japan would have been a lot less worse than what Stalin had in store for the USSR).

So why was it OK to bomb the Japanese until their government stepped down, but it was not OK for us to bomb Russia until Stalin stepped down?

Just because one attacked us and the other one did not? If they attack us we can demand unconditional surrender, but if they attack someone else (Poland and Finland) and have a much more hostile and aggresive government we have to leave them alone?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The power of a moderator, yet such a low regard for copyright. Your moral relativism will be our downfall, Penske.

I could be wrong, but I think different papers have different policies on this, I didn't know the LAT policy, but if you had said, it's the same as the WSJ's, I would have respected the non-posting.

I am tolerant and fair. Fair and balanced.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

As a history prof of mine put it -- we hanged people at Nuremberg for doing what you are suggesting, but they did it on a much smaller scale.

Your professor was a moron. We bombed the hell out of Japan and Germany to end the war. The people in Nuremburg killed people because they thought they were inferior and were subhuman. They killed people because they wanted to enslave and exterminate other races (to create breathing room for the Germans). We killed people to stop that.

When it comes to justice intentions count. If I kill someone to stop them from killing a defenseless child, or I kill someone because I don't like the color of their skin don't you think there is a differnce. Or is it just all killing to you?

If we were planning on bombing Aushwitz but decided not to because we might kill some of the guards families because they were innocent would that have been the right thing to do because killing is killing?

Only a moral relativistic ivory tower moron would make such a stupid statement.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
When you combine Scientific materialism and dictatorship of the prolitariate all communist atrocities that followed were forseable. When you have an elite that has full dictatorial power and believes that there are no "natural rights" and they must engineer society to increase the material benefits to all and it is OK to sacrifice individuals for the common good, that is a recipe for mass slaughter.

This was precisely the strategy that you proposed was not only acceptable, but morally compelled by the universal moral code.

When you like at human beings as cells of the state body politics there will always be lots of cancerous cells that need to be exterminated.

It is only when each cell has rights that are given by a higher power (as opposed to other cells) that there is no excuse to liquidate cells for the common good.

Again, as noted above, you were arguing yesterday that killing and war in the name of democracy was morally required. How does this differ from viewing Saddam as a "cancerous cell" that needs to be removed?

Note that I'm not defending Saddam. I'm simply pointing out here that you're condemning Stalin for doing exactly the same thing you were arguing in favor of, invading a nation for the purpose of imposong an ideology foreign from their own and killing all who get in your way.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Where do you GET this shit? Against the will of the Baathist thugs? Sure. Against the will of the people? Hardly, as any pre and post-invasion poll will show you.

No doubt. But limiting the opposition to the occupation to "the Baathist thugs" is also questionable. The people attacking us are hiding somewhere, using someone's resources, etc.

I have little faith that the majority of Sunnis really supports the US.

If I preface every argument I make with "the liberal viewpoint, which is proven to cause massive death to all", yeah, I suppose my arguments will take on greater weight. too.

Nah. It doesn't help Penske.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
In September of 1945 what is the difference between Russia and Japan? Russia has invaded Poland and Finland. Japan had invaded islands in the Pacific. Both were nations with a history of aggression.

At this point with Japan the United States demanded unconditional surrender. We didn't have to ask for unconditional surrender. Japane would have done a peace deal, but we demanded full surrender because we did not trust their government to be peaceful. Why was the Japanese government any less trustworthy than Russia.

The only difference between the two countrys was that we had not gotten in Russia's way when it was trying to take chunks of Europe but we had gotten in the way of the Japanese we they were trying to take chunks of the Pacific.

Stalins government was infinitely more evil than the Japanese government. Stalin stepping down would have been a lot better for the Russias than Tojo stepping down in Japan (in otherwords if Tojo has stayed in power what he would have done to Japan would have been a lot less worse than what Stalin had in store for the USSR).

So why was it OK to bomb the Japanese until their government stepped down, but it was not OK for us to bomb Russia until Stalin stepped down?

Just because one attacked us and the other one did not? If they attack us we can demand unconditional surrender, but if they attack someone else (Poland and Finland) and have a much more hostile and aggresive government we have to leave them alone?

Personally, the fact that Japan attacked us and declared war, and the USSR did not but was our ally against Germany and Japan, is significant to me. YMMV.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Personally, the fact that Japan attacked us and declared war, and the USSR did not but was our ally against Germany and Japan, is significant to me. YMMV.

Plus, had we demanded that Stalin let his people vote, they may well have re-elected Stalin.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Your professor was a moron. We bombed the hell out of Japan and Germany to end the war. The people in Nuremburg killed people because they thought they were inferior and were subhuman. They killed people because they wanted to enslave and exterminate other races (to create breathing room for the Germans). We killed people to stop that.

When it comes to justice intentions count. If I kill someone to stop them from killing a defenseless child, or I kill someone because I don't like the color of their skin don't you think there is a differnce. Or is it just all killing to you?

If we were planning on bombing Aushwitz but decided not to because we might kill some of the guards families because they were innocent would that have been the right thing to do because killing is killing?

Only a moral relativistic ivory tower moron would make such a stupid statement.

2. Probably a faux-intellectual psuedo elitist to boot.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't think that's an entirely fair characterization of Spanky's ideology. If I read him correctly, I believe he would assert that we were morally compelled to attack Iraq and occupy it against the will of the Iraqi people so that we could bring them liberty and democracy whether they wanted it or not. He also apparently believes that it's okay to kill them until they do want democracy.

I hope this helps straighten things up.

1) What makes you think the majority of Iraqis don't want liberty or democracy? Do you think all those people that voted did not want democracy?

2) Your last sentence is a joke. We are killing the people that don't want democracy in Iraq. That would be the insurgents. But we are not killing (or trying not kill) the peole that do want democracy.

Like I said before, you need to quote because I don't think you have ever correctly paraphrased me.