bleeding heart

No, but my bad. Let me rephrase. I personally cannot understand what it must be like to be in their shoes. But I trust their opinions about their own lives, their own identities; and I find it difficult to believe they'd undergo such a profound and life-changing process if they didn't feel powerfully compelled to do so. So, unless we're going to assume they're lunatics, we take their word for it. And accept it the matter as perfectly fine. Why not? What's the problem? I see it as not much different from homosexuality; I don't "get" the sexual attraction to males, who are physically rather grotesque, but I certainly don't dispute the objective reality as lived by most women and a small number of males. Further, I take it for granted that there's not something "wrong" with them.

Most militias are not the Oathkeepers. That was against a foreign invader....and after decades on intrnal dictatorship.... and complicated by sectarian strife and terrorism. I"m not saying things couldn't go violently bad, in the US, Canada, or anywehere else. I'm disputing the self-serving, childish fanatsy, cribbed from action movies asnd defined by a narrow and self-aggrandizing view of history, that freedom-lovers, perhaps led by teen-girl diddler Ted Nugent, are going to rise up and overthrow the governemnt by force of arms. I think they're more worried about sloppy, unorganized leftist uprisings than militia overthrows of the government! They're weak, they're reactionary, they're statist, they're obedient (to government!), and they're stupid. The rest of America has little cause to be concerned about them. The government certainly isn't, beyond a mild irritant.

Just so. It's ridiculous; we are co-operative, social creatures....biologically. It's inherent to what humans are. Why this plain fact actively offends some people, I can't say.

It won't happn, though right-wing militias fantasize about it (probably want it to occur) because they're little boys playing games in their minds. But the fact is that a well-armed citizenry will not be able to fight the much-better armed machinery of government. You might kill the first two agents who show up at your door...but the second group will ensure that you (and your family) are detained or in body bags. Besides, guns aside, the American public, like democratic publics generally, are extremely obedient and statist. They applaud the Surveillance State--the majority do so. They hate whistleblowers like wikileaks. They believe there is genuinely such a thing as a "war on terror." They love powerful people. They are not individualist rebels. At all. That's a self-serving fantasy.

True enough. A guilty plea can be nothing more than the practical application of the lesser of two evils.

When I have more time, I'll try to find the relevant quote. It's long ago enough that, yes, possibly I misread it, or am viewing it through the distortions of time. (I do remember being almost gobsmacked when I first read it, but we'll see.) Insufficient, I agree. Fair enough. I don't know if he was a good president, or what constitutes that (war crimes, for example?). But I think, yes, he is basically a charming and affable creep.

One can "learn" both of them "in school"...so they're exactly the same. And some posters, after having mistakes exposed, can laugh at themselves and concede their error. And some cannot possibly do this.

No, I don't think he ever lost a strong moral sense; his moral sensibilities were forever being offended, for good and for bad. I simply think he was too often thoughtless (and quick to underline it, rather than remain quiet and think things through), and too sensitive to dispute.

We have to be cautious of the power of big private entities as well...the elephant in the room, in terms of libertarian sentiment. The idea that there are two single forces--public vs. government--simply doesn't cut it.

Yep. That was cheap and Canada-smug. But his political editorializing is often really good.

What is he talking about....community and co-operation? Frigging commie. We are atomized individuals seeking personal gain. And nothing else.

Yeah. Except that's not entirely true, is it?

Well, most of them depend on low-wage labour. Without scarcity, they aren't going to be able to pay low wages; and they aren't going to have labour pool that is insecure financially, and so feels dependent on a crappy job no matter how they are treated. It's not a conspiracy by evildoers. Corporations are run by ordinary human beings, and there are indeed benefits that derive from these entities. The bad things that happen are wholly institutional matters. But to get sensitive about it, and presume there are no problems and no issues, verges on lunacy.

I strongly suspect that he did interview knowledgeable Americans....and, well, left those parts on the editing room floor.

I'm not thinking of 12 words written by Christopher Hitchens; I"m talking of years of a downward spiral, in comparison to the way he once wrote. I should no doubt have added that he was, in later years, rather returning to his earlier, better polemicist and thinker. For instance, no one could argue atheism better than he could. No one. Further, he almost completly stopped writing about Iraq, a subject which contained the lion's share of his foolishness (including his explicitly anti-democratic opinions, as when he said the Bush administration had no choice but to lie the country into the war. (An astonishing declaration, in my view, and contradictory to virtually his entire canon on political subjects.) That is, I believe 9/11 drove him a little mad...but that he was quite possibly beginning to regain his senses, precisely when he became fatally ill. The "anti-Zionism" bit, too, was not some remark he once made, to be taken out of context; he returned to the subject many times, and his disgust for Zionism was a constant, and quite visceral. But I should also have added that on this particular point, I didn't mean to denounce him; I'm not an anti-Zionist, but I don't believe it's an evil stance, or that it's anti-semitic. However, many of Hitchens' 21st century admirers, particularly from the Western political Right, do equate anti-Zionism with anti-semitism...and I was poking at them on this point, not at Hitchens. (Yes, I was carelessly unclear.) Some of his arguments are quite nuanced, I agree. But calling critics of President Bush "fat fucking slags" is not; it's unhinged, a common problem with Hitchens between 2001 and, say, 2009 or so. Totalitarian-style, he would simply brook no dissent. Anyone who disagreed with the Iraq War (ie most people on Earth) were "objectively pro-Saddam," and "proto-fascists." (I use quotation marks because they're direct quotes.) That's not a complicated and nuanced argument; it's the direct, literal opposite. He even tried to explain that, after many decades of venal and corrupt behaviour, the United States, through its government, had institutionally and suddenly reformed itself--without a word, and without warning--and was now a noble and humanitarian force for good under George Bush Jr....and his evidence of this? "Conversations I've had in Washington." Such outright credulity, sycophancy even, is amazing from a mind like his, but there it stood for all to see. However, even his close friends expressed relief that the Hitchens who had veered to the militaristic Right was starting to ease back in his last couple of years. ("Less on Iraq, more on Bosnia," Rushdie reports he pleaded with him...concerned about his legacy, perhaps.) How am I being disingenuous? I'm trying to be expansive in my explanation.

Exactly; pitch-perfect.

Then you might, I dunno, perform the courtesy of explaining why you think I'm wrong about the man, just as I made some attempt to explain my objections to him. After all, I can directly source his remarks on zionism and Israel, his defense of anti-democratic measures undertaken by the Bush administration, his hyper-sensitivity to any criticism of the administration (particularly from the Dixie Chicks, whom he deemed "sluts" and "fat fucking slags" because they didn't admire his heroes properly....) And so on. I know a bit, because I was a longtime admirer of the man, never quite able to admit to myself that he was a moral weakling, until he started pissing this truth right into everyone's face. (Not coincidentally, this was when he was embraced by the hawkish right wing...who liked to pretend he didn't say whay he did about Israel...a thousand times over. ) I could also cite his far better work: his scathing critiques of Kissinger and Clinton, his sharp wit, and etc. Presumably, so could you. Conversely, you can just blithely say someone doesn't know dick about a subject, and then not bother to explain yourself. Your current method of "debate."

I'm afraid I don't quite follow. Are you talking about me?

Actually, you, blueblood, have determined that you should be able to draw parameters of your choosing around each debate; and when punkd decides not to play by your tautological demands, he is "moving the goal posts." And like punkd pointed out: if you were told, "work for $40 000 at 10% tax...or work for a hundred million at 90% tax"...the choice is obvious. Simple. You would choose the latter too. Without blinking. If you dispute this, I call, as you say, BS. He didn't say he'd be fine with it. (And our "job," as citizxens, is not to ensure that the very wealthy are pleased and happy with their tax rates. there is no obligaiton to think this way, even if you, oh-aptly-named elitist, believe their delight is our life's work. What he said was he'd choose ten million a year over $36 000. that's it. And so would you. As for all his hard work and whatnot: there's not a job in the world in which ten million is not enough. To Government? To society, blueblood. Punkd believes in Civic Reponsibility.

But I'm not proposing a 90% tax. I only thought the "yes or no" demand in another post wasn't a fair debating practice.

Exactly, the unfair, attempted debate-killing "yes or no" demand notwithstanding. And every person, rich and poor, would agree with you. Obviously.

Actually--and this is according to his closest friends, like Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis--Hitchens always had a deep, if sometimes contradictory, aristocratic bent, and adored the upper classes. It's why his political turnaround made sense; he was more at home staring at Paul Wolfowitz with dewy eyes, scorning the "potluckistas" in protest movements while he attended posh Vanity Fair soirees, insisting that he believed the charges of rape against Clinton because a woman who made the claim was "upwardly mobile" (only poor women lie about rape, you see ). And so on. A fairly sharp mind, and a formidably sharp pen...and also an elitist little dickwad. (Too soon? Nah.) But he could be an entertaining read, no question about that. Oh, I almost forgot....he was a rabid, total, complete anti-Zionist, right up till the end. A great many of his admirers are unaware of this, or, more interestingly, like to ignore it as a matter of convenience.

It's silly, yes. Worse than silly.

I'm not sure if that's true; it certainly hasn't been objectively proven. But either way, I was responding directly to the notion of "generous," which, like I said, is a comparative measure (inherently).

You believe they are performing out of empathy??? I don't know what you're responding to...but it isn't any of my posts.