bleeding heart

And if you run around pissing on wasp's nests, and then get morally sanctimonious when you get stung, you will be met with howls of amused derision.

There's no easy answer. I would without hesitation deem our society as ordered in a more moral and intelligent way overall. But that doesn't begin to touch on a lot of issues. For example, we explicitly aid and have aided regimes in their oppression, in their draconian laws, in the mistreatment of citizens. That's not to say that all would be roses without our interference; only that it's a bit rich to talk about our moral superiority, when we collude in the degradation of countries...and then point to that selfsame degradation as proof of their inferiority. Well, I was extrapolating from a weak analogy, so obviously mine is going to be imperfect as well. My point in this regard is that I was suggesting nothing about "liberal equality," mythological or otherwise. Simply put: we f*** people over; we are responsible every time we f*** people over; and there can be consequences, for them and for us. They're also complemented by compassion, by empathy and sympathy, and by the basic scientific understanding that we are social animals. By definition. Self-preservation is enhanced by such "collectivism" (as it's misnamed), not undermined by it. We can't even talk about the human species without accepting these integral parts of our nature, our very genetic make-up. Such a declarative statement needs an expansive set of qualifiers to make it meaningful. Exactly what you mean by way of life, and exactly how our behavior is even for our own good, is paramount. We in the West, for example, have largely determined that gangsters are not to be condoned for their behavior--which is all about "Self-interest" and "greed"...done at the expense of others for the sake of one's "way of life." I'm not suggesting anything more radical than that we should not behave as gangsters. No, I'm firmly on the subject of the initial shoe and foot; I'm asking what you would consider improper behavior...even though it profit you, or (more accurately) your country (or the allies you most admire, which is very nearly the same question). Are there limits? (I ask the supporters of torture policies the same question, that of proposed limits...and why said limits...but therein ends the discussion in every instance, unfortunately.) Yes, I think you're right. Well, such beliefs are at bottom little more than frailties and weaknesses. If they're for oneself personally, they're explicitly sociopathic; if for the vague notion of one's "nation," it's just the reflexes of the sycophant. The disagreements over our own culture (from within) are vast and, at times, quite fundamental, so I don't buy your Manichean view on this. Further to the point, get two Palestinians, or two Iranians, or two Chinese or two Canadians together....and the chasm can be immense indeed. We're talking about ideas here--important ones, to be sure--but I think you're overstating the agreement within cultures, and also the disagreement between them. For one example, the "moral and intelligent" cultures that comprise NATO chose actively not to work with their supposed ideological compatriots in Afghanistan: the liberal secularists, the feminists, the humanists, the democratically-minded activists. They chose instead to work with the Taliban's equal-but-combative ideological cousins (the "Northern Alliance" sounds better than ""Theocratic Warlords," does it not?). Now sure, there are reasons (for everything, in fact, give or take)...but the point remains about "morality," if not as obviously "intelligence." That is, we are in many ways opposed to those who share our ideals, and allied with those who do not. Now, if your answer to this is about some notion of doing evil for the Greater Good...I think we're going to have to get into a very specific and case-by-case discussion. Because I don't for a second buy into your "always justifiable" view of Western behavior. Heck, the sheer mathematics makes that idea vanishingly unlikely...given, as you say, human nature. Now you're edging dangerously close into that "cultural equality" theme which elsewhere has you rather exercised.

I think that roughly sums it up, yes.

Since you're using quotation marks, you no doubt can find where any such thing was stated...or implied? Well, that's not so clear--to quote an old joke: "who's this 'we,' kemosabe"?--but at any rate, it's a different conversation. The analogy which you unaccountably deemed "good" was premised on the idea that we are not wasps. You mean returning to the theme that you believe undergirded my argument, even though it was not relevant to it. Those are not the human emotional body entire. But it's a moot point anyway, as you assume an automatic conflation between "self interest" and "self-preservation." They're not always the same animal. Further, the main thrust of my post--as is perfectly clear--is that the policies of exploitation which you support (while extolling "morality," in an astonishing moment of lack of relfection) are not plainly in the interests of "self-preservation." So what exactly would you not have done to others that might profit you? This is not a rhetorical question, nor a general one, so I humbly ask you for a concrete response. I already responded directly to this: again, it was one of the chief points I made. I'm not sure why you bypass it, only to re-summon the question itself. So your argument--explicitly--is that Western nations (and presumably only Western nations, as the sole "moral" agents) are justified in all the violence of our foreign policies? That your theory is broadly applicable across all cases? That's preposterous. It sure is. So it's a good thing I don't think that way, isn't it? But what I called "sober" was the idea of holding ourselves accountable for our actions....normally an uncontroversial truism for a person of conservative or libertarian leanings...but one which, tellingly, evokes such strange responses as yours in this case. Few things are more crudely and corruptingly Collectivist than the nationalist view of violent foreign policy...a view which I presume is part of your "moral" perspective." What was I saying about Commissars again.......Oh yeah....

Ms. Coulter does this sort of thing from time to time. "You have spoken of the heroism of Pat Tilman, whom you said was "virtuous and pure, as only an American male can be." But Tilman was an admirer of Noam Chomsky, and his mother has said that he had made arrangements to meet with the leftist professor." Coulter: "No, I don't believe it." "Well, his mother made the claim, and Mr. Chomsky confirms it." Coulter: "No, I just don't believe that." But then...how could she, possibly?

No, the analogy doesn't work, because it's premised on self-serving myths. It works, first of all, if we think of ourselves as more powerful wasps...rather than innately more moral and intelligent creatures being attacked by lesser ones of a different species. Then we analogize further: that we wasps have routinely attacked or otherwise diminished other yards; sometimes out of genuine security concerns, sometimes out of less justifiable reasons. We have supported and buttressed very powerful and dangerous wasps, colluding in the victimization of wasp populations elsewhere, for profit and for other purposes; and then, some wasps with justifiable outrage but with rotten and perverse notions of how to correct injustice determine to attack us. None of this means that we don't try to stop them from behaving this way...terrorism is murder, and we have a right and a duty to protect ourselves, and especially our innocent wasps and our larvae, from such behavior. But the rational--some might even say conservative--approach is to stop behaving in ways that increases wasp attacks in the first place. But for some reason I haven't fully parsed out--the inherent tribal weaknesses of nationalism might be part of it--the Commissar class of our wasp societies (weak-minded sycophants, without exception) consider this notion itself to be outrageous, to be "self-hatred" or "radical leftism." When actually it's merely sober self-reflection based on bedrock democratic principles of holding ourselves accountable, and on moral principles so elementary that we teach them to our five-year-olds.

Yes, and yes. Bitterness is, popularly speaking, an under-appreciated asset of beer and coffee.

just don't accuse the practitioners of said witchcraft of the fascist-state-indoctrinated heresy of "science," and we're good to go.

"Pushing him out"? Obama, like most everybody else, waited until the writing was on the wall, until it was a done deal, before offering some tepid "support" for the uprising. Until it could make no difference, he followed precisely your preferred policy of hoping the dictator would stay in place. That is, he largely agrees with you that every country's domestic situation should be beneficial to US policy interests rather than what the people there might want. In the usual elitist formulation. Since this is your preferred policy, I don't see why you're not applauding Obama..

I dunno...once I know what Sensenbrunner's girlfriend does for a living, perhaps I'll be able to add some sensible opinion on the worthiness of his opinion....

How so, exactly? I have a few minor quibbles with a few things Tarantino does, but for the most part I find his movies engaging. Plot is almost literally, and almost always, more or less irrelevant. Delivery is everything. Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code has an interesting and very well-delineated plot....and it's a terrible novel. Whereas Maugham's The Painted Veil (I bring it up because you said you liked it)...well, let's look at the plot of this fine novel: Kitty and Walter get married, though kitty doesn't love him. She has an affair. Walter finds out, and offers an ultimatum, which leads her to the East during a cholera epidemic. She discovers that the cold and austere Walter is a man of great compassion who is loved and respected. Growing as a person, she actually falls in love with him before his death. Oh, and she's pregnant. That's the plot, August. It's not much...but it doesn't matter that it's not much. I too have heard good things about the Elmore Leonard book upon which JB is based...but again, it's Leonard's style, his dialogue, his use of time, place and character that make him good. "Plot" is little more than a coat-rack upon which excellence (or its lack) rests. I disagree. The murder is offscreen...we don't really see her get shot, so I don't think there's much "blow-em-away" satisfaction to be found there. It does advance the story, despite what you say; first, "nice-guy" Louis is, as we see, not some affable and addle-minded petty thief as he appears, but a cold-blooded killer, and totally remorseless. It's a matter of character. Further...well, I already pointed out why the murder matters to the story. Similarly, I don't quite see what is "throwaway" about the dialogue, and I've already pointed out why. And yes, one of the arguments against Tarantino is the matter of excess dialogue that doesn't clearly add to the story. Like Bruce Willis and his girlfriend in bed in Pulp Fiction. Personally, I'm on the fence about such bits. Occasionally I'm even slightly irritated, though not much. But either way, I don't think that criticism applies in this particular case.

If you can't keep up with a relatively easy discussion, based on terms that are conventionally understood (and have zero to do with my personal assessment)...then why bother responding at all? Well, Chinatown is a classic, a fantastic film. One of that pederast's finer works, in my view. Other than that...."context"? The discussion directly precedes (and directly causes) the murder of one of the characters, and is the beginning of the ultimate downward spiral of the other, as every ally is now dead; further, arguably at least, the volatile situation also helps enable Jackie to get away with stealing the money. So, by definition, you don't know what you're talking about. A circumstance which I suppose is as familiar and comfortable for you as an old pair of slippers.

Yeah...and the more sober of the Golden Age aficionados will be the first to point out that the percentage of dreck in the major releases was not different then than it is now.

Jeez. Every single time someone posts about the "leftist" media ignoring this or that....another poster comes along and breezily proves it incorrect. Irrefutably. How often can a person be demonstrably mistaken before getting bored with it?

I would dig it. This is me: (language warning) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eubi9YI2dKE

Yeah....well, I didn't mean to be especially pedantic about it. It sure seems as if there's broad public support for it, as you say.

AW: don't take this as disagreement--I'm inclined to think you're right on this--but just as a point of order, those "four polls" are actually two...and the support between the two polls differs by 15 percentage points, which is a large margin, poll-wise.

Well...I'm gonna go with Kimmy's ammo and child-porn witch-hunt scenarios as more plausible.

Yes, the NDP generally do a decent job, not especially remarkable, but on par with the other two big parties.. They're centre-left, not radical leftists with communist economics.....

I have seen more than one poster remark recently that there is no good acting in the movies. I think they tend to have a romantic view of the "Golden Age" as opposed to more contemporary stuff. In this funny clip from the underappreciated Jackie Brown, we can see the excellent interplay between the characters. De Niro especially knows how to work dialogue and body language. (Anticipating August's remarks: save it, brother. ) Note: rough language

Good lord. Robinson is a genuine menace. Maybe the third time he's involved in a killing, he'll have to perform some serious community service, or something.

There's one five posts up from yours...and another, one post down.

I use cash a lot. For me, it's practical for budgeting purposes. If I use debit (or credit), I later shuffle some paper (figuratively) to figure out what I've spent, and how much more I am able to spend. With cash, that "shuffling," the budgeting, is already done, in the first instance...I always know exactly how much money I have, and how much I have spent.

Well, perhaps I'm concentrating a little too heavily on official leadership, so I take your point. But I do believe that a rise in peaceful Palestinian tactics (which some people claim is already occurring) is going to have a salutary effect. The more of this that occurs, the more that both Israel and Hamas will be politically sidelined--I mean by their own citizens--so long as they maintain heavy-handed strategies.