bleeding heart

Preaching to the choir......

...or free marketers decrying the regulatory oppression of Big Government on the richest entities.....

Wow. We can trust Father Harper to know what's "fair" questioning and what is not. Poor little Harper, bravely standing up to media "bullies."

Yeah, it doesn't apply here.

I think cybercoma's response is dead on, in that we're talking about profitable versus non-profitble, at least in a general sense. But even aside from that: without the initial outlay by the public sector--the costs of research and development on the public dime--there wouldn't be internet, email, et al. In other words, we already gave de facto tax breaks to the corporations which have profited from public monies.

Nor do gangs of free marketers, reactionaries and union busters collect, secretly or otherwise, for the purposes of lambasting Islam. The caricature is, well, a caricature, and is empty. My point--an observational fact, not an arguable opinion--is that lefties do abhor and denounce the horrible behaviours under discussion here. Just not at the convenience of those who denouce it within a context of other political discussions. It's just that when we're having a conversation about Bad Islam, with the correlative implication that "we" (the Western nations) are fighting such practices, often militarily, on principle...obviously folks aren't going to start nodding along in agreement. Because said premise is hostile to thought, morally relativist, and ultimately masturbatory. Not on the whole, no. But in particular instances, yes, there is a politically correct tendency to downplay abhorrent things, and without good cause. I'm not defending that; I'm pointing out that this is a phenomenon that has nothing particularly to do with the political Left. Every political discussion and debate has a whole history of things behind it, and it virtually always has other subtext in play. For example, harshly criticize Israel, sit back, and watch the responses roll in. They're educational. Or point out that the leading Western states themselves have routinely engaged in massive terrorist atrocities, at least through collusion and precipitation....and watch the profoundly unintelligent--and belligerent--remarks come flooding in....when people have the guts to engage the discussion at all, which they normally do not. This is not a tu quoque argument--I'm not saying, "Oh yeah, but then what about [insert whatever]." I'm simply responding to your implication--maybe your explication--that this is something "the left" does, rather than an everday, common, multi-partisan component of political debate. Conservatives are every bit as beset by political correctness and other such weaknesses as are the Left. So you think the entire phenomenon of the cultural and military clashes are of muslim behaviour followed by legtimate Western reaction to it? It's...oversimplified, to put it generously. I don't know how you can "generally agree with the response," when each and every situation is unique, and must be deciphered on its own merits or demerits. It reminds of people defending the toppling of democracies, the torture of dissidents by the (Western-imposed) dictators, mass murders and, yes, terrorism....by saying, blandly, "The Cold War." As if that covers, and justifies, everything. I agree with you about valid criticism, but none of this is ever going to be viewed in a vacuum, for reasons I've already suggested. So when I've criticized Islam (as when I recently called it a "superstition," and Muhammad "a fraud") I contend there's nothing wrong with this...but to suggest it can somehow be free from contemporary political matters seems an amazing claim to me. If a person takes exception to my remarks because of related political matters, I think that's at least a reasonable approach; to be discussed in its own particulars, and then dismissed or accepted....and that it has nothing to do with "the right" or "the left" or whathaveyou. For an analogy, again, look at Israel. Harsh criticisms of Israel are certainly not "wrong" unto themselves. But people often take exception to them, thanks to a larger history, and ongoing events. That is understandable...and it also doesn't change the potential truth of the criticisms. In othe words, we're not in total disagreement....it's just that one of us thinks this ubiquitous process is the fault of something called "the Left"... whereas the other guy thinks it is everywhere, and that the Left's guilt here is of holding itself to the same low standards of everyone else...which rather changes the indictment.

Well, if one of you has to go...I know who I'm rooting for. Hint: it ain't the guy whose every response is a lengthy soliloquy about my ignorance.

There are stakes (how high depends on one's perception) for two posters here; punk'd and kraychik have made a bet.

I'm inclined to agree. I think Harris, the late Hitchens, and some others, having intellectually and emotionally immersed themselves so thoroughly in the (quite real, yes) lesser qualities of religion have missed, or at least insuffiently explored, a crucial point: Religion did not cause the bad qualities of humankind: it inherited them. Religion is not the big picture. It's more an effect than a cause, if I can simplify a complex, reciprocal relationship.

I know. I used the scare quotes to delineate between the common "well, it's a theory" notion with what a theory actually is.

There exists no "left" as this monolithic entity of which you are broadlyy remarking. There's some truth to this, but it has nothing specifically to do with the political Left. When differing worldviews become calcified as ideologies (which they seemingly inevitably do) then genuine battle lines are drawn. So yes, people become reluctant to criticise what obviously demands critique. (Though they do criticize it; just not when speaking to the hawks, basically.) At any rate, a big part of the reluctance is fear of casting votes for an omnibus bill. To clarify: Some lefty, let's say, might be profoundly disturbed by what he sees as power-politics, rapacious geostrategic meddling, a sort of neo-imperialism which dares not speak its name. Further still, he sees (as I do, incidentally) that this thing called the "War on Terror" is farcical on its face, its adherents not slightly different from religious believers. So while he agrees wholeheartedly with the critiques of political Islam, with the shoddy treatment of people, particularly of women, he objects to what he views as the guiding premise behind the rhetoric: a defense of militarized, de facto global rule by a little cabal...who just happen to be behaving the same way they've behaved towards Muslim-majority nations when "terrorism" was not even a buzzword. Further still, they object to another premise which they see as pretty plainly implied: that a benevolent little group of allied countries flits about with excellent intentions...intentions that are always misunderstood by bad-tempered Muslims, godless communists, uneducated Latin American peasants, the very women whom our Feminists-in-Chiefs claim are a guiding principle of our military actions...and of course, the fifth Columnist self-haters, the contemporary domestic "Left." This is what a lot of folks critical of Western power view as undergirding so many debates and discussions on the matter. Now obviously, conservatives (and self-described moderates) indulge in exactly the same behaviour, and it comes from a similar impulse, also thanks to the drawing of battle lines, and of the genuine concerns about supporting some greater (say, "socialist," or insert boogeyman of choice) notion which they find distressing.

Sure. Heck, The National Enquirer has broken stories on occasion, which had remained assiduously uninvestigated...big stories, even. That doesn't mean that the NE is gnerally a good publication; it's not. In fact, it's protective legal knowledge aside, it is actually dishonest in spirit, if less often in letter. But you're right. While suspicion is reasonable, the proof is ultimately in the facts, not the source. Of course.

And there Bonam has aptly delineated a major problem with the "leftist media bias" theme in a few swift strokes.

Every criticism of religion contains the entirety of the singular mess within it. If it makes you happy, I eagerly announce that Islam is a superstition, the doctrines are often ludicrous, and Muhammad was a fraud. I mean...what in hell would one expect from a religion founded by a Businessman?

The very definition of a rhetorical question.

But really, who are these people? If you mean the End-Times religious sector of the Republican party (who interestingly enough are pro-Israel and anti-Jewish)...then sure. They hold lots of fascinating opinions. Aside from them..who are we talking about?

By whom?

As you no doubt understand well enough, Hamas would despise Dre's version of events, and his views of the ongoing conflict generally. So not really a fair comment.

Sure, we all have our little forum histories with one another that might occasionally skew our perceptions.

Personally, I didn't read it as defensive; I read it as respectful.

As I said, I was only responding to the word "mischief" and what it plainly implies. The rest is a separate discussion.

Yes, hasn't it? To the point. Well done.

"Mischief" demands intent...and I seriously doubt that Cybercoma was slyly channeling his inner Stormfront enthusiast.

I don't know if you're wrong, or offering a sane voice of perspective on an overblown issue. I like you, so I'm going with the latter......

And like I said (or didn't, explicitly, though I thought it clear) I agree with you. I'm for it. I only opined that i prefer citizens with firearms...in which they can mostly be trusted...rather than with tasers...because people are monumentally stupid with tasers, in the way they aren't with other weapons.