Perusing the comments section, one particular person noted that “both Israelis and Arabs” have been aggressors in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
It’s a common theme: “both sides” are to blame for something. The truth necessarily lies “somewhere in the middle.” We need to “split the difference” in some way. We’ve all heard it.
Your child is bullied at school? “Well, let’s look at both sides.”
A building is bombed? “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
A man commits thievery? “Well, let’s look at why he stole — maybe it’s society’s fault in some fashion.”
No one’s ever really at fault.
Members of the cult think that it’s a mark of their unyielding rationality, pragmatism, and maturity. It is truly merely a gateway for evil men to get away with evil deeds. It’s a mark of the abdication of their duties as (allegedly) freedom-loving, moral men and women.
Of course, we live in an age where people scoff at the notion of evil. Truths are “relative.” Everything’s merely subjective, and who are we to say that any one set of moral values is better than any other? Reason, hard work, and personal responsibility — aren’t these all just archaic, outmoded “values,” holding us back?
The cultural Marxists, relativists, and subjectivists are using our open society to kill it. It’s a form of cultural and moral terrorism. They do not “mean well.” They mean to tear down man’s rights.
Virtuous men must remember what Richard Dawkins has noted: when two opposing views are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie “somewhere in the middle.” It is possible for one side to simply be wrong.
We need to start calling bullies by their name. We need to stop “splitting the difference” when it comes to evil. We need to identity predators for what they are. We need to call a terrorist a terrorist and stop apologizing for doing so. We need to stop “empathizing” with cruelty in schools and start caring about our children.
Most importantly, we must be as unrelenting as our enemies — we must not surrender to their tactics of intimidation and fear. Your arsenal is loaded: proper moral judgment, intellectual honesty, and the truth are in your toolbox. Deploy those weapons. They are strong in the hands of the virtuous.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Alex Knepper may be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
July 6th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
First off Alex, I emphatically agreed with your sentiments here.
But I will make one contention… You are disheartened by, “The cultural Marxists, relativists, and subjectivists are using our open society to kill it.” This is why The Founders stated that our rights are inalienable because they are endowed to us by our Creator, as Man does not have the moral authority to take away what God has endowed to us.
If our rights emanate from Man, or from a piece of paper, they are subject (to quote Pride and Prejudice) to “the winds of caprice” and tyranny ensues.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
What are you even talking about. Was that whole thing about Arab Israel fight. Expand on your “cultural Marxists, relativists, and subjectivists” thing. “Cruelty in our schools?”I am just wanting the govt to get out of our lives, not claim Dems are terrorists, because the GOP has been going down the same route the last 15 years. All they want is political power. There are no virtuous political parties nowdays.
I am all for only my political side but I bet mine and yours differ in some areas, and I bet you think you have the truth on your side, while I the same.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Kavon – I don’t believe that our rights emanate from Man or from a piece of paper. I believe that they are natural rights, derived from logic and reason.
In a ‘technical’ sense, I believe that many morals are subjective, but they’re about as “subjective” as debating whether Lil’ Bow Wow or Mozart was a better musician. Yeah, ‘technically’ it’s subjective, but any person with half a brain cell can see which is superior.
Either way, whether you accept the premise or not, it’s not an argument in favor of (or against, for that matter) the existence of God. If you don’t believe that rights exist without God, I’ll mark God up as a ‘noble lie’ in favor of a virtuous end.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
And I have a contention with you, Kavon. Nowhere in Pride and Prejudice do the phrase, “the winds of caprice”, appear. The word “caprice” only appears four times in the book. Chapter 1 in describing Mr. Bennet. Chapter 24 in Elizabeth’s assessment of Caroline Bingley’s letter declaring the family would not be returning to Netherfield. Chapter 33 in Elizabeth describing Darcy’s interference with Bingley and Jane. And Chapter 34 — the Glorious Proposal chapter — when Elizabeth is accusing Darcy of exposing Bingley to the censure of the world.
“the winds of caprice” don’t appear once. Sorry.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Good article Alex K… this is where I agree with you the most. Keep up the fight for freedom and democracy!!
July 6th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
What are you talking about? Is that your last post before you walk into the endowment for the arts with a suicide vest on. I thought the Ron Paul supporters were hardcore.
I’ll bet your “truth” is not the same as my truth on some issues, does not make Dems or Libertarians terrorists.
Hope there are less posts like this.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Did the Toppling of Saddam Hussein Lead to Recent Events in Iran?
Given the connections between Iraq and Iran, it’s not as unlikely as it sounds.
By Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2222254
Obama: Hard on Israel, soft on Egypt
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443728807&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Our World: Avoiding an American ambush
by Caroline Glick
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443736579&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
July 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
marK.
You are right, I should have said “world of caprice” instead of “winds of caprice.” I am quoting from the 2005 film version, which is why I said P&P rather than “Jane Austen.”
BTW, check your email in about 20 minutes.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
What are you talking about? Is that your last post before you walk into the endowment for the arts with a suicide vest on. I thought the Ron Paul supporters were hardcore.
Yeah.
I’ll bet your “truth” is not the same as my truth on some issues, does not make Dems or Libertarians terrorists.
Please point to where I called Democrats and Libertarians terrorists.
Hope there are less posts like this.
Bawwww.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Oh, pray do not mention that odious production!
One of the beautiful things about the book is Jane Austen deliberate avoidance of all the hackneyed romantic cliches that have existed since time immemorial. She knew them all. While she winked at them once or twice in the book, (“Pray, how violent was Mr. Bingley’s love?”) she kept them at arm’s length, not allowing them into her masterpiece.
The 2005 Keira Knightley version deliberately put them all back in. The Proposal in the Rainstorm. Darcy appearing out of the morning mist for the second proposal. The whole ball of wax. Ugh! Or to be more exact, Erp! as in one is about to lose their lunch.
I have to be in a very good mood before I will sit down and watch that version. Otherwise, I will start throwing things.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Very unrelated, but good news for the GOP in the Ohio Governors race…
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1346
July 6th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Not sure I get this post. It keeps leading us somewhere but never arrives. At least that is what it seems to me. I agree that far to often we dance around issues. I do agree with much of your sentiment, for example you are spot on about bullying and the over abundance of relativism. But ultimately, I am not lead to much.
Also, are you saying that either the Israeli’s or the Palestinians are wholly responsible for what is going on between them? While there is never an excuse for blowing up a bus full of innocent civilians, it is hard for me to believe that the Israeli’s are free from fault for the entire conflict. They are both equally wrong and stubborn and equally caused the mess they are in. That is one issue where looking at the whole picture tells a different story.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
it is hard for me to believe that the Israeli’s are free from fault for the entire conflict. They are both equally wrong and stubborn and equally caused the mess they are in. That is one issue where looking at the whole picture tells a different story.
The irony abounds!
July 6th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
There are times when this approach is warranted, but if you’re going to say “I’m right because you’re evil,” you better be pretty sure you actually are right … and I think it’s pretty rare that a large, lumbering political state is rarely going to be 100% in the right (or exactly 50% in the right).
In light of Mr. McNamara death, I hope you’ve seen the Fog of War. McNamara contrasts the Cuban Missile Crises (in which we avoided war because we had Kruschev’s former neighbor in the Cabinet) and the Vietnam war, (where we knew far too little about who we were fighting, what they wanted, or what they thought the war was about).
The simple fact is the attitude of “we’re America, we’re right” is only going to get us into more Iraq-like problems. Terrorism should be rightly condemned, but a little humility while we use far larger guns and kill far more people than the original terrorists did probably wouldn’t hurt.
To pretend that you know you’re “good” and they’re “evil” means that you know everything about yourself, and everything about your enemy … and Alex, for even someone as smart as you, I think that’s a pretty tall order.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
To pretend that you know you’re “good” and they’re “evil” means that you know everything about yourself, and everything about your enemy …
That’s an absurd set of prerequisites. It’s nothing more than an excuse to refrain from exercising your judgment.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Jackie O, RFK had steamy affair, book claims
New biography reports details of long-rumored and complex relationship
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/31763650/?gt1=43001
July 6th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I’m not advocating restraint of judgment. I’m asking for more of it.
The biggest problem I have with your post is applying the idea of good and evil to people or countries. The fact is no country or person is entirely good or evil. People or countries do evil things and hopefully as we all get older and wiser we are smarter about what those things are.
However, once you start elevating yourself to the status of ‘good’ or demeaning others by reducing them to ‘evil’ it is going to cause you problems.
If you’re looking for someone with an an excuse to refrain from exercising judgment look for a person whose world view is so simplistic that everyone else is ‘evil’ and is so egotistical they think of themselves as always right.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
The biggest problem I have with your post is applying the idea of good and evil to people or countries. The fact is no country or person is entirely good or evil.
Obviously, but to abandon drawing clear distinctions between a 90-10 good-evil and a 90-10 evil-good is lunacy. That’s what the Israeli-Arab conflict is like.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Alex,
“Obviously, but to abandon drawing clear distinctions between a 90-10 good-evil and a 90-10 evil-good is lunacy. That’s what the Israeli-Arab conflict is like.”
Glad to see you make that concession. I was beginning to think it was your belief that Jews are genetically incapable of doing anything wrong. At least now you concede they can be 10% wrong.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Israel has more potential to become a good nation than Palestine in the short-run.
That’s why I support Israel annexing the West Bank and giving human rights to all of the residents of the West Bank. That offers more opportunity for peace and prosperity to all the residents of the area.
In a few areas our interests are shared with Israel. It makes sense to work with them in those areas. However when Israel spies on us or steals from us we ought not to excuse it. They ought to face consequences when they act against us.
My loyalty is to America. If someone puts Israeli interests ahead of American interests, they ought to go to the nation they have the greater allegiance to.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Israel has never been the aggressor against the Arabs, though.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Israel has more potential to become a good nation than Palestine in the short-run.
Yeah, thanks for that concession.
That’s why I support Israel annexing the West Bank and giving human rights to all of the residents of the West Bank. That offers more opportunity for peace and prosperity to all the residents of the area.
Impossible. Israel will never give up its status as a Jewish state.
Human rights have been offered to the residents of the West Bank about ten billion times, but they keep voting in barbarians.
In a few areas our interests are shared with Israel. It makes sense to work with them in those areas. However when Israel spies on us or steals from us we ought not to excuse it. They ought to face consequences when they act against us.
As with all nations, it depends on the motivation, the type of intelligence, etc. But generally I agree.
My loyalty is to America. If someone puts Israeli interests ahead of American interests, they ought to go to the nation they have the greater allegiance to.
Our interests are typically shared. I support Israel because I support America — and also because I support modernity, reason, and secularism over barbarism and terrorism.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Israel invaded Egypt in 1956.
Egypt had closed the Suez Canal to them as was their sovereign right.
In that war America stood against the imperialist designs of France and the United Kingdom as they used Israel to regain the Suez Canal.
The Protocol of Sèvres is clear proof that Israel has committed premeditated aggression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_of_S%C3%A8vres
However I’m sure those who have greater loyalty to Israel than America won’t see that.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Alex,
“Israel will never give up its status as a Jewish state…….. I support Israel because…… I support….. secularism.”
July 6th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
…..and that was all in one post.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Israel ought to be a democracy not a nation based on racist impulses.
However Israel would remain Jewish if it absorbed the 1.3 million Arabs of the West Bank.
If you use the West Banks voting rolls (purged of overseas voters) and the last Israeli election, in a Greater Israel, Arab parties would comprise ~25% of the electorate. If Israel can’t handle that size minority group it makes me question their democratic credentials.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
23 – Egypt long abandoned its “right to sovereignty” with its gross human rights violations and international aggression.
Tyrants have no moral right to the land they “own.”
Thinking men always side with the modern against the primitive and barbaric.
“Israel will never give up its status as a Jewish state…….. I support Israel because…… I support….. secularism.”
It’s a Jewish state, but a secular one. I dislike the notion of a “Jewish state,” but I also dislike the notion of a “British state.” I would prefer a state based upon values, but just as British wants to remain Britain, the Jewish state wants to remain Jewish. You’d think that a Buchanan supporter would understand that one. (Of course, you Buchananites always seem to hold the Jews to different standards, don’t you?)
However Israel would remain Jewish if it absorbed the 1.3 million Arabs of the West Bank.
Neither side even wants that. But the demographic trends spell doom for Israel. If Israel annexed the West Bank, it would spell doom for Israel as the Jewish state.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
#27 “Neither side even wants that. But the demographic trends spell doom for Israel. If Israel annexed the West Bank, it would spell doom for Israel as the Jewish state.”
That myth has been debunked by the American Enterprise Institute in a several studies. Essentially the PCS inflated Arab birth rates and immigration rates. Right now the demographic trends outside of Gaza benefit Jews… not that that should matter to a state based on democratic ideals.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Alex,
“I would prefer a state based upon values, but just as British wants to remain Britain, the Jewish state wants to remain Jewish. You’d think that a Buchanan supporter would understand that one.”
I do. You’re the one who contradicted himself.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Huh. Who woulda thot.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Nasser was no tyrant after he overthrew King Farouk.
He didn’t become oppressive within Egypt until 1961-62.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Alex,
“It’s a Jewish state, but a secular one.”
So it’s a racist state? You claim it’s not religious. I know it isn’t cultural, since it is drawing immigrants all over the globe. Surely you don’t believe Hitler’s lunacy that Jews are a distinct race do you?
July 6th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
So it’s a racist state? You claim it’s not religious. I know it isn’t cultural, since it is drawing immigrants all over the globe. Surely you don’t believe Hitler’s lunacy that Jews are a distinct race do you?
The Jews are a distinct ethnic group.
The Jews seem to believe it.
Nasser was no tyrant after he overthrew King Farouk. He didn’t become oppressive within Egypt until 1961-62.
We clearly have different standards.
That myth has been debunked by the American Enterprise Institute in a several studies. Essentially the PCS inflated Arab birth rates and immigration rates. Right now the demographic trends outside of Gaza benefit Jews… not that that should matter to a state based on democratic ideals.
The Arabs have no interest in assimilating into Israel. Israel doesn’t want the Arabs. If neither side wants it, why should that be the case? It’s just a dumb proposal. Jordan should take the West Bank and Egypt should take Gaza. But the Arab leaders know that the Palestinians are trouble and would rather leave them to Israel to deal with.
I do. You’re the one who contradicted himself.
I didn’t.
Huh. Who woulda thot.
Anyone who’s been paying attention at all to me.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Alex,
“But the demographic trends spell doom for Israel. If Israel annexed the West Bank, it would spell doom for Israel as the Jewish state.”
But you just claimed you don’t like the idea of a Jewish state. I’m confused…………
July 6th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Alex,
“The Jews are a distinct ethnic group.”
And what does that mean? As an example, you could tell me what Steven Spielberg and say, Tevya from Fiddler on the Roof have in common….. ethnically.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
#33 Jordan and Egypt are non-democratic states. They don’t want threats to their current regimes.
The best thing for Israeli security and Palestinian peace is a united nation.
Gaza probably ought to go to Egypt though.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Myths & Facts: The Road to Suez
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf5.html
July 6th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
But you just claimed you don’t like the idea of a Jewish state. I’m confused…………
Yes, but I understand it. Remember the 90/10 principle?
And what does that mean? As an example, you could tell me what Steven Spielberg and say, Tevya from Fiddler on the Roof have in common….. ethnically.
Ethnicity is based upon a shared cultural experience, usually stemming from a common diaspora. You know that. Don’t play dumb. The Jews are clearly a distinct ethnic group, as Jews acknowledge.
#33 Jordan and Egypt are non-democratic states. They don’t want threats to their current regimes. The best thing for Israeli security and Palestinian peace is a united nation. Gaza probably ought to go to Egypt though.
Ah, but we should threaten the stability of the Israeli state by importing over a million new Arabs, which have nothing in common with Jews culturally or religiously, in?
It recalls Pat Buchanan’s truthful statement about importing Zulus into Virginia…
July 6th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
37 – inb4 MWS “omfg Aron u cnnot post from a Jew site it is filled with bias~~~”
July 6th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Alex,
“Ethnicity is based upon a shared cultural experience, usually stemming from a common diaspora.”
What is the cultural experience that Spielberg and Tevya share?
As for the second part, the diaspora would be the exception, rather the rule, I think. German ethnicity is not based on a common diaspora, not is Italian, Chinese, Xhosa, etc…. While some of these groups are more or less dispersed, the dispersed element share less and less in common with the ancestral ethnicity, and certainly such dispersion is not fundamental to the ethnicity.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Alex,
“omfg Aron u cnnot post from a Jew site it is filled with bias~~~””
Oh, don’t start with your Al Sharpton Knepper schtick. Between the two of us, you are the only one who sees Jews as distinctly “other.”
July 6th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
What is the cultural experience that Spielberg and Tevya share?
A dumb question, but the answer is: little to nothing, I imagine. But I have Finnish ancestry. I share little to no Finnish cultural experience with the residents of Finland. But let’s get real: Finnish is a legitimate nationality.
As for the second part, the diaspora would be the exception, rather the rule, I think. German ethnicity is not based on a common diaspora, not is Italian, Chinese, Xhosa, etc…. While some of these groups are more or less dispersed, the dispersed element share less and less in common with the ancestral ethnicity, and certainly such dispersion is not fundamental to the ethnicity.
Doesn’t mean it’s not a real ancestry.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Oh, don’t start with your Al Sharpton Knepper schtick. Between the two of us, you are the only one who sees Jews as distinctly “other.”
Your boy Buchanan’s book is featured on the website of the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust-denying website.
“What does that have to do with anything?”
Nothing. Just thought I’d point it out.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Alex,
I guess the question is, what makes a Jew a Jew? You say ethnicity, but it seems the word must become so elastic to encompass all Jews that it is emptied of any descriptive meaning.
I reject the notion that Jews are a distinct race (and consider the whole concept of “race” highly problematic to begin with).
I don’t see how there is any common “ethnic” link between all Jews. It’s not like they all share a common language, religion (although they’re supposed to), history, symbols, music, literature, etc….
Now, RELIGIOUS Jews share most, if not all of those things. But you reject Judaism as a religious concept. For you, it seems, “Jewishness” is something in the blood. Something inherited. Something genetic. Something that comes eerily similar to what the anti-Semites of old believed; namely that a Jew is born a Jew, must always be a Jew, and as such is based upon some kind of genetic determinism.
I reject those notions. But I suppose rejecting the belief that Jews are genetically different makes me “anti-Semitic,” right, Al Sharpton Knepper?
July 6th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Alex,
“I share little to no Finnish cultural experience with the residents of Finland. But let’s get real: Finnish is a legitimate nationality.”
Right. BUT YOU AREN’T A PART OF IT. Blood doesn’t determine it. You are no more “Finnish,” despite your family tree, than Michael Jackson. IT’S….. NOT….. IN….. THE…… BLOOD.
Maybe now you’re starting to get it?
July 6th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Alex,
“Your boy Buchanan’s book is featured on the website of the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust-denying website.”
And Hitler was a big fan of Darwin. I guess you’re a Young Earther now?
July 6th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Alex,
“A dumb question, but the answer is: little to nothing, I imagine.”
No. An UNCOMFORTABLE question for you, because you see Jewishness as racial, but won’t quite come out and say it. So you hide behind the word “ethnic.” So I ask you what Spielberg and Tevya- both “Jews”- have in common ethnically. You say little to nothing.
So how are they both Jews? You are going to have to figure out your own position.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
It can be for Jews to decide. I don’t particularly care. They can do what they want as a collective.
I don’t really see it as racial; I think the entire concept of race is kind of silly. But I go by the standards I’ve been handed.
It’s about values. The Palestinians/Arabs, overall, have little to nothing in common with Israelis.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Hold on a second. This is a pretty radical take on international laws and norms, in case you didn’t know that. There are a number of (recent and not-so-recent) cases of Western democracies (including our own) that could be judged illegitimate based on your standards here.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Hold on a second. This is a pretty radical take on international laws and norms, in case you didn’t know that. There are a number of (recent and not-so-recent) cases of Western democracies (including our own) that could be judged illegitimate based on your standards here.
Sovereignty, as a corollary, should include the standard that you use your land to a fairly proper effect.
No intellectually honest person can say that the US has violated such a standard and that Egypt hasn’t.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Alex,
“It can be for Jews to decide.”
That wouldn’t be the Elders of the Council of Zion, would it?
In all seriousness though, I think it’s an important question. When you give Jews- whatever that means- the white hats, and the Arabs the black hats, you ought to know who you’re talking about. I think ideas have consequences. And I think this notion of racial Jewishness- which Hitler among others espoused- is stupid and dangerous. Judaism is a religion, not a race. That’s why I consider “atheist Jew” an oxymoron. To consider it a “race” is to set whomever is considered a Jew apart- as if there is something inherent in them that makes them fundamentally different. This can be both to that individual’s advantage (such as getting hired at Goldman Sachs) or disadvantage (such as getting cornered by a gang of skinheads). But either way, it is wrong.
Treating Jews as a racial classification undermines conservative principles of individuality, and your stated goal of values trumping nationality.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
“Sovereignty, as a corollary, should include the standard that you use your land to a fairly proper effect.”
Like taking the land from the Red Man and giving it to Whitey?
July 6th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
In all seriousness though, I think it’s an important question. When you give Jews- whatever that means- the white hats, and the Arabs the black hats, you ought to know who you’re talking about. I think ideas have consequences. And I think this notion of racial Jewishness- which Hitler among others espoused- is stupid and dangerous. Judaism is a religion, not a race. That’s why I consider “atheist Jew” an oxymoron. To consider it a “race” is to set whomever is considered a Jew apart- as if there is something inherent in them that makes them fundamentally different. This can be both to that individual’s advantage (such as getting hired at Goldman Sachs) or disadvantage (such as getting cornered by a gang of skinheads). But either way, it is wrong.
See, but most Jews consider “atheist Jew” to be a completely legitimate phrase. I think that, as long as we’re going to play this dumb game, we should leave the rules up to the players. I myself have opted out of it, but the rest of the world seems not to want to.
Treating Jews as a racial classification undermines conservative principles of individuality, and your stated goal of values trumping nationality.
The very concept of race is anathema to me, but unfortunately, I can’t change the classification system that 90% of the world has accepted.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Like taking the land from the Red Man and giving it to Whitey?
I wouldn’t quite put it that way, but kind of, yes. Haha.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Alex,
“The very concept of race is anathema to me”
On that we are agreed. I hope we’ve reached a little better understanding on where we are each coming from regarding Israel and “the Jews.” I think I understand where you are coming from better now, though I’m not so willing to concede an inherently wrong classification system, even if 90% of the world accepts. But admittedly, I will often times consider Jewishness in the same way Adam Sandler does. It’s one of those quirks ingrained in our culture that is contrary to reason.
On a related front, I would get bemused when a former employee of mine proudly identified himself as “Lithuanian,” even though he didn’t speak the language, had never been there, and had nothing more in common with a real life Lithuanian than me or Alex Rodriguez. I think people can sometimes have a disordered (to use a term from another thread) attachment to ancestry. While I might call myself “German” if the topic of ancestry comes up, I know full well that I’m truly about as “German” as Prime Minister Trudeau.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Nothing pisses me off more than when someone says that they’re a “proud Irishman” or “proud Scotsman” or “proud Lebanese” — it’s collectivist BS. “Look what we Germans gave the world!”
Mozart gave the world what Mozart gave the world. You don’t get to claim the accomplishments of Mozart because your ancestors 400 years ago lived next door to him.
Or worse in this crap, someone “worrying about their family name.”
I treat people as individuals, first and foremost.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
That may be true, but I wonder where your cut-off really is. If we take your statements on the standards for sovereignty seriously, then the idea of national sovereignty becomes very flimsy. No country has anything close to a perfect human rights record, and international aggression is common even among the democracies that you would defend (yes, “preemptive war” is international aggression, and it was the policy of our last Administration – I note this without making a judgement on the validity of individual cases). It just seems that you’ll have a hard time actually defining your position without reducing it to “it’s OK for those who are on ‘our side’”, or making what should be a universal principle (as you initially implied) surprisingly specific to the situation you’re trying to apply it to.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Alex,
“Nothing pisses me off more than when someone says that they’re a “proud Irishman” or “proud Scotsman” or “proud Lebanese” — it’s collectivist BS.”
The exception- to your otherwise justified outrage- is when said affiliation is merely pretext for drinking beer.
Oktoberfest, for instance, which is one of my favorite events at my parish.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
That may be true, but I wonder where your cut-off really is. If we take your statements on the standards for sovereignty seriously, then the idea of national sovereignty becomes very flimsy. No country has anything close to a perfect human rights record, and international aggression is common even among the democracies that you would defend (yes, “preemptive war” is international aggression, and it was the policy of our last Administration – I note this without making a judgement on the validity of individual cases). It just seems that you’ll have a hard time actually defining your position without reducing it to “it’s OK for those who are on ‘our side’”, or making what should be a universal principle (as you initially implied) surprisingly specific to the situation you’re trying to apply it to.
Preemptive war is not aggression if it’s on a morally justified plane, which the Iraq War was. Only a knave or a fool could deny Saddam’s barbarism — and malicious intentions. To not differentiate between justifications for preemption is to fall into the trap of moral relativism. Of course it’s okay for those who are on “our side,” if our side is defined as: the morally virtuous. Is the US morally virtuous? In that case, yes, it was.
(FYI: A fair base test for human rights can be: are freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of conscience, freedom from political repression — allowed?)
July 6th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
The exception- to your otherwise justified outrage- is when said affiliation is merely pretext for drinking beer. Oktoberfest, for instance, which is one of my favorite events at my parish.
I side with Mittens & Co. when it comes to drinking: I’m 100% sober. No drugs, no drinking, no smoking. Period. (I know, I know, I poop on parties and all of that.)
July 6th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Alex,
Catholic SoCons are unique among SoCons in that regard. We’ll (I’ll) smoke a cigarette on the way to a pro-life rally, drink a beer at a Bible study, or play no-limit Texas hold ‘em with the guys from church (every fourth Thursday at my house, except for Nov. and Dec. when it’s the third Thursday).
Now, Catholics aren’t REQUIRED to appreciate the fruit of the earth, of course, but only a few of my hyper-orthodox friends DON’T drink.
Cussing in moderation is okay too, as long as it doesn’t reference a sex act or anatomy, use the name of the Lord in vain, and isn’t said in front of women…….
July 6th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
I’m a proud Irishmen but it’s a certainty my daughter won’t be.
I married an Italian-Czech and my Irishness is fairly dilute.
The influence of my very Irish Catholic father is regrettably gone. My native Irish grandparents are also dead.
I suppose that’s how ethnicity dies in America. We assimilate.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I suppose what bothers me about Alex is that he doesn’t show any openness to realism in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
I wonder if Israel began to ethnically cleanse the West Bank at great loss of civilian life if he would criticize Israel or defend Palestinian human rights.
I suppose when you think of a group as infallibly “good” and the other group as irredeemably “bad” that such extreme simplistic thinking is possible.
At least in Aron case he’s got an identity politics axe to grind. His extremist defense of Israel and greater allegiance to them is at least rational.
I would rather we leave the groups to resolve these matters. Both of them are unsavory and dangerous. Palestinians might commit terrorism. Israel spies on us, steals our secrets and undermines our national security.
What angers me so much about Obama’s foreign policy is that he’s treating our real allies so shabbily. He’s been quite an ass to Britain.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Cussing in moderation is okay too, as long as it doesn’t reference a sex act or anatomy, use the name of the Lord in vain, and isn’t said in front of women…….
I’m only friends with women if they’re foul-mouthed, God-hatin’ misanthropic intellectuals like me.
That’s not true, but it sounds more interesting than my actual life.
I wonder if Israel began to ethnically cleanse the West Bank at great loss of civilian life if he would criticize Israel or defend Palestinian human rights.
Israel would never do such a thing.
At least in Aron case he’s got an identity politics axe to grind. His extremist defense of Israel and greater allegiance to them is at least rational.
A malicious libel against Aron.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:33 am
I doubt that Doug and I hold the same position on a single issue. It’s hilarious how we can be in the same party. I suppose it’s based upon what dominant strain we reject — he rejects capitalism and neoconservatism, I reject religion.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:36 am
It’s ironic that Doug would impugn the patriotism of Aron when it’s Doug who says that he doesn’t feel at home in the USA.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:13 am
What have I ever written that would cause you to characterize my defense of Israel as ‘extremist’? I support implementation of the Roadmap as it was agreed upon, meaning no outward expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and dismantling all illegal outposts. I support a two-state solution in which a commensurate amount of Israeli land would be ceded to a future Palestinian state in exchange for the disputed areas on which the settlements sit. I have no problem with the Palestinians establishing East Jerusalem as their capital. Upon such a final status agreement, there’s no reason 1.2 million Arabs shouldn’t continue to live in Israel proper in peace; nor should an equivalent number of Jews be denied the right to reside in a predominantly-Muslim Palestine. If the Palestinians fulfilled their initial obligations under the first phase of the Roadmap, and dismantled and disarmed Hamas, I’d go further than even the Obama administration and say that a Palestinian state wouldn’t necessarily have to be demilitarized. If I were in Israel, where, by the way, I’ve never been in my 38 years of life, I would by no means be considered a hardliner, or an extremist by Haaretz, or the left. On their political spectrum, my views on what a potential peace agreement would look like place me a couple of clicks to the left of Bibi’s Likud, and barely to the right of Livni’s left-of-center Kadima.
My allegiance is to the United States of America and no other nation.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:47 am
That’s quite a charge thrown out by Doug, heh heh.
I think the one of the strongest political victories by George W. Bush was his ability to merge the social cons with the socially liberal/moderate warhawks. It’s pretty odd that social conservatives were so ardently in favor of what was a very neoconservative in Bush’s first term considering that many Republicans were the isolationists in the 90s (see, e.g, then Congressman Sanford as an example).
Just remember that Clinton was able to divide us on ideological grounds when it came to foreign policy and we saw the results in the true landslide that was the 1996 election.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:42 am
Is Alex Jewish?
July 7th, 2009 at 10:00 am
#69, who cares?
July 7th, 2009 at 10:04 am
63-Jesus Christ, Doug.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:01 am
#65 “I doubt that Doug and I hold the same position on a single issue. It’s hilarious how we can be in the same party.”
You’re open to Pawlenty right? It would be sweet irony if you and I supported the same candidate in the Republican primary.
#67 Good to hear. That’s a positive shift in your rhetoric.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
69 – I agree with 70: who cares?
But no, I am not.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Alex, sometimes you can be such a moron. That was my comment you were referring to in your post, and I am by no means a Marxist or a relativist, though I am a subjectivist when it comes to “value” (because you’d have to be an idiot to believe that value is objective or intrinsic).
Only someone who’s utterly blind or incredibly intellectually dishonest would deny that both the Israeli government and Arab rulers aggress against innocent people on a regular basis.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:19 am
I have no use for relatvism. If I don’t think the Pope is correct, I
won’t mince words. I will use the language of absolutism if I believe
he is wrong. Of course, on his latest encyclical, he isn’t wrong. (BTW,
he pretty much trashes an unfettered free market and maybe even objectivism).