- Got tips? Send them to tips (at) r8ny (dot) com
- Blog on Room Eight
- sign-up to receive a daily digest by email
- Advertise on Room Eight
- Login / Sign-up
Me and Paul
It's been rough and rocky travelin', It started simply enough. I was a geeky junior high school smart ass; by contrast, Paul was a popular junior high smart ass. He thought it would be a goof, and a heart attack for the administration, for me to be student council president, and he ran a gonzo campaign to elect me. Incredibly, we beat out Heidi, a popular and leggy blonde teacher’s pet for a spot in the runoff, but lost in the end to Lloyd, a golden-boy who went on to produce “Watchmen.” Paul is now counsel to a conservative think tank; we recently reacquainted on Facebook, where we’ve agreed on nothing but to agree to disagree. Recently, Paul “friended” Eric, another junior high school acquaintance (who ran the Golden-boy’s campaign), who spends his life as a crusading Liberal Lawyer. GATEMOUTH: Probably a good idea for you guys to avoid talking politics PAUL: I have many liberal friends who, like you and Eric (I suspect) really want to help the "little guy" and just because they don't see that their policies make things worse, doesn't make them bad people. GATE: I'm worse than that--I think policies like not privatizing Social Security, or giving money to poor school districts, or providing certain benefits to undocumented workers, or helping the homeless have places to live, not only helps the little guy, but are ultimately in society's self-interest. PAUL: Not privatizing Social Security"? What a noble goal. Every cent hardworking people invested, the govt. has squandered on myriad social experiments and entitlements. Even the most statist observer would have to admit it's a Ponzi scheme, and you or I would be jailed if we tried it. Yet you maintain that your wonderful, loving, beneficent govt. is the best guardian of these funds? You gotta be joking. GATE: The Ponzoid element of Social Security is how the government uses the regressive payroll tax as a source for general revenue. They should at the very least raise the cap on the income they tax. PAUL: Redistributionist pap. "Regressive" is just a word liberals have given to "Fair". I'd rather trust my funds to myself than to some bureaucrat that never made an honest dollar in his life, and most folks would agree. Those who believe they're too ignorant to manage their own funds (even by putting it in very specific managed accounts, with various and published risk parameters) , would be free to let the govt. keep doing what they do, i.e. mismanage at best, steal at worst, their hard earned savings. GATE: "Fair?" Perhaps you could argue a "non-progressive" tax like a flat tax would be "fair." But, the Social Security payroll tax is not merely non-progressive, by cutting off at a certain point, it taxes higher earners less than those of lower income. That sir, is not "fair", that sir is not "flat", that sir is "regressive." Which "liberals" are you talking about anyway? Leftists maybe--the liberals I know are divided between two other categories--the liberal (as opposed to leftist) debate is between those who see this guy as a psychopath, and those who see him as a Jihadist. I am in the middle, and think that the categories are not mutually exclusive and that he is probably both. But no liberal (as opposed to leftist) I know considers this guy a victim. I had to laugh when I heard Obama speak last night saying that the administration is open to suggestions on how to reduce unemployment. He's open to all but the one that has been proven to work. If he would lower corporate, individual, and capital gains taxes, (any one or combo would help) and we'd be booming in no time! As far as "Jihad Boy" I didn't put you in any category. If you'll reread my post you'll see I simply asked how you and my other liberal FB friends see it. Just trying to stimulate dialogue. Good day, Sir! GATE: You should be happy, you stimulated dialogue, but I didn't ask you how you saw the idiots with the holocaust imagery on their health care posters, because I assumed that you were a person of decency and that there was no need to ask you to repudiate something you would never embrace, nor did I solicit your opinion about it in a manner which implied that some conservatives (as opposed to right-wing nut cases) thought such tactics were dandy. PAUL: Fair enough, my bad. Sorry.
To my embarrassment, I must apologize to Paul and concede that the phenomena he talked about does exist. Now, I happen to like Robert Wright, one of the few liberal thinkers who shares my distaste for preachy atheists of the Richard Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens school. As a member of the liberal wing of a minority religion which disdains proselytizing, and whose skin equally crawls from men in black hats asking me my religion, Protestant ministers opening the Indiana legislature with prayers calling for the conversions of non-Christians, or Jehovah’s Witnesses knocking on my door on my Sabbath, I’ve always considered atheists’ primary attraction the fact that they mind their own business. But preachy atheists are almost as bad as preachy vegetarians and preachy non-smokers (actually, the non-smokers have more of a point; I’ve never heard of anyone complaining about second-hand meat). When I hear the likes of Dawkins complaining about all the millions killed in the name of some deity as the cause of all the world’s ills, it only calls to mind the names of Joe Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, all of whom killed millions in the absence of such divine inspiration. But Wright’s laudable expressions of tolerance for the views of religious illiberals who would not extend us the same seems to have gone off the deep end: Seeing the Fort Hood shooting as an act of Islamist terrorism is the first step toward seeing how misguided a hawkish approach to fighting terrorism has been... One reason killing terrorists can spread terrorism is that various technologies — notably the Internet and increasingly pervasive video — help emotionally powerful messages reach receptive audiences. When American wars kill lots of Muslims, inevitably including some civilians, incendiary images magically find their way to the people who will be most inflamed by them. This calls into question our nearly obsessive focus on Al Qaeda — the deployment of whole armies to uproot the organization and to finally harpoon America’s white whale, Osama bin Laden. If you’re a Muslim teetering toward radicalism and you have a modem, it doesn’t take Mr. bin Laden to push you over the edge. All it takes is selected battlefield footage and a little ad hoc encouragement: a jihadist chat group here, a radical imam there — whether in your local mosque or on a Web site in your local computer… Exhibit A in this argument is Nidal Hasan. By all accounts he was pushed over the edge by his perception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He also drew inspiration from a radical imam, Anwar al-Awlaki. Notably, it had been eight years since Major Hasan actually saw Mr. Awlaki, who moved from America to Yemen after 9/11. And for most of those years the two men don’t seem to have communicated at all. But as Major Hasan got more radicalized by two American wars and God knows what else, the Internet made it easy to reconnect via e-mail. The Fort Hood shooting, then, is an example of Islamist terrorism being spread partly by the war on terrorism …And Fort Hood is the biggest data point we have — the most lethal Islamist terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11... …It’s true that Major Hasan was unbalanced and alienated — and, by my lights, crazy…Like all viruses, terrorism infects people with low resistance. And surely Major Hasan isn’t the only American Muslim who, for reasons of personal history, has become unbalanced and thus vulnerable. Any religious or ethnic group includes people like that, and the post-9/11 environment hasn’t made it easier for American Muslims to keep their balance… ..And the Fort Hood shooting wasn’t the only recent step along that slope. Six months ago a 24-year-old American named Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad…fatally shot a soldier outside a recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark. ABC News reported, “It was not known what path Muhammad ... had followed to radicalization.” Well, here’s a clue: After being arrested he started babbling to the police about the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were supposed to reduce the number of anti-American terrorists abroad…Meanwhile, on the other side of the ledger, they’ve inspired homegrown terrorism — a small-scale incident in June, a larger-scale incident this month. Can't say I disagree with every last thing Wright says here, since I do agree that American actions abroad are not without the risk of such responses (and that the risk of such responses is one factor to consider among many when undertaking such actions), but I find his tone distasteful, since he seems to be saying that the crazed actions of unbalanced lunatics (a necessary part of the arsenal of any terrorist operation requiring suicides) are somehow our fault. Frankly, I don't remember the United States being engaged in combat anywhere in the Middle East on September 10, 2001. Do you? The strangest aspect of Wright’s argument is its resemblance to those made by Rudy Giuliani, on why the 9/11 suspects should not be tired in New York City: "Of course it's going to create more security concerns. Just wait and see how much New York City spends on this in order to protect him…This gives all the benefits to the terrorists and much less benefits to the public." It also calls to mind the words of the New York Post: On a purely self-interested note, New Yorkers must be wondering whether it makes sense for their city -- still a high-priority terrorist target -- to have another bull's-eye painted on its buildings.Of course it doesn't. Of course, Wright, Giuliani and the Post are all being disingenuous; trying the 9/11 suspects in a Federal Court rather than a Military one increases the risk of attacks on American soil in the same manner as does continuing our efforts in Afghanistan, but you will see no article by Wright calling for the trials to be conducted in a military tribunal. Nor will you see Giuliani or the Post saying all American troops should be withdrawn from the Middle East. In each case, all have used the excuse of risks on American soil as an argument to oppose policies they do not like for other reasons, but all concerned have no interest in using such risks as reasons to oppose policies that they like. And one cannot blame them for supporting the policies they like; risks on American soil are a good reason to oppose such policies, but there may be others considerations which render such reasons not good enough. Despite his concerns about Jihadists, I’ve yet to see evidence that my friend Paul has any desire to use Fort Hood to declare a Jihad against immigrants, even against only those who practice Islam. Pound for pound, his ideology of “Social” Darwinism (the only sort the Right embraces) in the guise of a rising tide lifting all boats (like it did at Katrina) is just as reliable for as my social liberalism in its support for relatively open borders, requiring as it does a constantly renewable source of cheap labor to depress wages and encourage investment as an alternate means of acquiring wealth. Nonetheless, out in the world of talk radio (where a bunko artist like Lou Dobbs would seem like the voice of reason) which fires the conservative base, calls for profiling and worse against Islamic Americans has run rampant, even though no such profiling would have been necessary to justify early intervention in the case of Major Hasan, whose behavior was sending up more flares than a Fourth of July fireworks display. We’ve heard such arguments before about traitors in our midst; in the past such arguments, (fear of the other hitched to race hatred hitched and national security), were enough to convince great liberals like FDR and Earl Warren to incarcerate law-abiding Japanese-Americans in concentration camps. Those American citizens, deprived of their most fundamental right as Americans, nonetheless went on to produce the most decorated unit in US Military history. I am reminded of the wise words of Colin Powell: “I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America. I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.” Like Wright, Giuliani and the Post, I suspect that the red-meat eating Crescent bashers of talk radio, who Republicans candidates must now genuflect to as if they were Pat Robertson, are more concerned over advancement of their broader agenda then they are with public safety, or even, in this particular case, national security. But I could be wrong, so I will call their bluff. Again and again we’ve seen our Armed Forces lose Arabic interpreters to the idiocy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” For some reason it seems that the only two sources of such personnel in this country are practitioners of Islam or male homosexuals. Advocating as they now do, profiling procedures which would surely discourage Muslims from service in the military (if not outright bans), Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk need to answer whether they are now willing to break down the barrier preventing us from accessing the only other ready source of such essential personnel. If their concern for our security is really what motivates their frothing, they should have no problem allowing Lesbians and Gay Men to serve openly. They might even find other advantages. A homophobic soldier would no longer need fear the secret proclivities of the grunt showering next to him; he’d know. Further, in the event of a Republican restoration, Cheney-type torture policies like sexual humiliation of captured enemy combatants would be immeasurably improved by deployment in such operations of soldiers with different life experiences. Of course, it could be that, as in the case, of Wright, Giuliani and the Post, the professed concern for our safety and security articulated by the Teabag Right is not really their highest priority. Cool. Well written, but I think that Islam of almost any stripe is a profound danger to the west since it is a religion AND a political ideology. Furthermore, all Muslims are taught (and good Muslims believe) that EVERY word in the Koran is the infallible word of God and MUST be obeyed. As I'm sure you are aware, the Koran calls for the killing at worst , and subjugation at best of all Kafirs (i.e. nonbelievers) and the eventual rule of Islam over the world. If any Westerner proposed the adoption of the tenets of Sharia like honor killing, the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers, the subjugation of women, and death to apostates (to name but a few), WITHOUT the mention of a deity, they would be treated as psychotic, racist, misogynistic, scumbags. But because such evil concepts are shrouded in religion, relativists (and chill out, I'm not calling you one) say that Islam is a religion of peace. The fact remains that Islam was born of the sword, expanded almost exclusively through the use of the sword, and wants to reestablish the Caliphate through use of the sword (if conversion techniques aren't successful). Does any observer of world events really believe that if Islam had the means, it wouldn't attempt to dominate the world militarily right now? Don't give me any crap about the violence and wars based upon the teachings of Judaism and Christianity. Virtually all Jews and Christians stopped thinking in terms of God commanding them to kill unbelievers in about 1492. Conversely, the last reform of Islam took place circa NEVER. Islam is still living in the 7th century. People can delude themselves that Islam poses no real threat to western values or civilization, and we can all get along (if I see one more "COEXIST" bumper sticker I'm gonna puke), but the truth is we can't, anymore than we could get along with the Nazis. Unless serious reforms are undertaken in Islam, I'm afraid it's going to come down to "Us or Them". This is indeed a sad fact and I wish it were not so, But to close our eyes to the reality, (of what Islamists say, write, and do), is to embolden and strengthen those that want us either dead, living as Dhimmis (second class citizens), or prostrate 5 times a day. After subjugating Spain in 711, Islam's whirlwind expansion in Europe was stopped in its tracks at Tours in 732. Frankish King Charles "The Hammer" Martel hadn't been fed a steady diet of multiculturalism from teachers, the press, and most politicians. That's a good thing, or we might be having this dialogue in Arabic right now. To obtain a Cisco certifiation, you need to spend a lof of time and learning hardly.Though the ways of getting certificates are different from each other, the following steps are useful to all of them, for example, <a href="http://www.certsecret.com/category/Microsoft/">Microsoft certification</a> Pay attention if you are interest in Microsoft or MCSE certification or planning to obtain one. <a href="http://www.certsecret.com/tag/70-291/">70-291</a></br> <a href="http://www.certsecret.com/tag/70-270/">70-270</a></br> <a href="http://www.certsecret.com/tag/70-620/">70-620</a></br> The point of religion isn't simply to have some rituals but to teach someone how to live and what to believe. A conservative Christian who believes that abortion is murder and therefore abortion should be illegal is not merely being religious; they are following a political ideology based upon that religion (or at least a specific interpretation of it). Similarly, the Jewish community I grew up in taught me that every member of society deserves a fair shake, that, as Jews, we should worry about our neighbor's health and our own soul. While I may have departed from some other of those teachings, the moral code I learned from Judaism guides me today. It's just as much an ideology. Indeed, religion would be useless without ideology. Who would follow a religion that did not, either explicitly or implicitly, teach right from wrong? Whether the wrong is abortion, the millions without health care, or infidels, that wrong comes out of a religious ideology. Certainly, there are fundamental problems with some interpretations of Islam, but it's a result of crazy people who want to kill us, not Muslims as a whole. I am friends with several Muslims, some of them practicing, others not, and none of them have tried to blow me up. That's not because they don't subscribe to Islam, but because they aren't guided by a hateful ideology born out of one interpretation of the Qur'an. You don't even need to go to Saudi Arabia to find an ideology of hate that uses religion as a pretext. America, unfortunately, has many people who see everyone except conservative Christians as heathens and think the United States should submit to an ideology that they trace back to the Bible. Some on the far right even feel free to kills violators, including doctors who perform abortions. For my part, I feel safer with the Muslims on Atlantic Avenue. None of them have told me that I'm going to Hell.  Paul--you were right about liberals deluding themsleves--I assumed your attitudes re: the Islamic world were far more tolerant than they were, and I apologize for being so naive. I should note with some amazement that there are some points where we agree, as I said here concerning the infamous Danish cartoon fiasco, "and yes, I know we have our religious fanatics too; It seems like only yesterday when the Catholics burned the Brooklyn Museum to the ground over the elephant dung controversy." However, I will note that Muslims are not alone, even today, in such outrageous conduct. Just ask Yitzhak Rabin. But I think you put too much emphasis on doctrine, rather than on how people behave--having studied some Torah in my time, I tend to think that one can go through almost any "Holy" book and find the most ghastly stuff, and also the most inspiring. As has been done by anti-Semites throughout the ages, one can paint a pretty frightening portrait of us through our holy books if that is one's goal. But, has I said here, being a Reform Jew, I incline to the idea that a religion is, de facto, composed of those beliefs actually held by its professed adherents, rather than what's contained in some ancient text. In the case of Islam, that actually cuts both ways sometimes. Repugnant views on such matters as the continued existence of Israel, holocaust denial, or the proper response to 9/11 quite clearly permeate the publicly held positions of much of the Islamic world's leadership and street, so that even in a society as western influenced as Egypt, a TV series based on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" has proven more popular than the Sopranos. However, as a resident of an area where Jews and Moslems, including one of my favorite bartenders, have coexisted for generations, that is not what I see from our Islamic Americans, or even our recent immigrants. All evidence indicates that a majority of them are appalled by what occurred as Fort Hood, and even among those who are not, a majority of them think it is bad for Islamic Americans and wish it had not occurred. As a fervant free-marketeer, I think you should appreciate this triumph of self-interest over dogma. As I've said elsewhere, we live in a place of wonder, where a little African America boy can grow up to convert to Islam, go to Congress, and take his oath of office on Thomas Jefferson's Koran. Would that Jefferson had done to it what he did to the Bible. In fact, some of the evidence of Moslems in our public life has been rather inspiring. In NY, Assemblyman Roger Green, though a smalltime grifter, used his position to attack racism and anti-Semitism among his co-religioinists (the latter with minimal benefit in his district). I won't refute your diatribe detail by detail, since I am not so versed in the history, but your proposed solution seems a hopeless one, since, if you are correct, we have no alternative but to fight till we reach Apocalypse Now. While I certainly think we must hit back when hit, I think that ultimately the course you propose is a good argument for a cold harsh "co-existence." As the Israelis have shown, fences make good neighbors. Still, I will take issue with some of your history. As a Jew, we have not found the record of the Christian world so superior to that of the Moslems. Some of my anscestors left Eastern Europe because of religiously inspired pograms little different than the Islamic administered ethnic cleansing of Hebron in 1929. And if we define the Christain world by behavior rather than doctirne than I am fairly certain that the Islamic world will never equal the perfidy of the Holocaust. Blame it on the Pagans if you must, but they were the Pagans of Christendom, and even the professed Christians, Pope Pius most prominently among them (though there was enough guilt for nearly every other denomination, with the exception of the Jehovah Witnesses). And unlike the Pope, some clergy did not merely stand by, but actively participated in the fun. Further, your references to Spain does not impress me--the name my co-religionists attach to the era of Islamic rule in the Iberian Penissula is "The Golden Age" (it produced Maimonides, part of the King's Court). Fro my co-religioists, the restoration of Christian rule in Spain resulted in torture, forced conversion, and exile, the last of which which only ended with the death of Franco. I agree that these days, my co-religionists face far greater threats from adherents of Islam, but as they say, "no permanent friends, no permanent enemies; only permanent interests." Dear Spitzer: Islam has a miltary, political, economic, and legal framework. In EVERY majority muslim state ALL of those components are fully realized. Last time I checked America was around 85% Christian, yet they don't force you as a Jew, or me as atheist submit to any religious practices, laws, financial restrictions, or military conscription (or prohibition from serving). To equate fundamentalist Christians to Islamists is the height of relativism and sophistry. One (very late term) abortion doctor was murdered by a religious nut and you think that's as bad as the 14,438 separate Islamist terror attacks worldwide SINCE 9/11? You really can't be serious. Oh my! Fundamental Christians believe that you, as a Jew (and I, as an atheist) are going to hell! Who cares what they think? It's what people DO that should scare you. There's no evidence (or even flimsy allegation) that they plan to round us up to hasten our journey "southward". On the other hand, the Islamic state of Iran, has promised "to push Israel into the sea". Tell an Israeli woman, as she's rushing her child to a bomb shelter that she should really fear the Christians. She would look at you as if you were crazy. Nidal Hasan (and other Islamists before him) have said that they will win because they love death more than we love life. ALL Islamists believe that. Could any of us even imagine a Christian or Jew strapping explosives to the backs of their children? You think that we're all the same underneath the skin. That would be true if were were all brought up with your Judaic moral code. You must recognize that many muslims simply view life and death through a different prism and share very few of our Judeo-Christian values. Are our values inherently better? You bet your ass they are. Just like our values were better than those of the Nazis. As far as your good muslim friends, let's get back to my earlier point which you ignored. If they were "Nazis-lite", i.e. members of a party that was bent on the destruction of the Jews, but not really die-hard believers, would they still be your friends? Have these friends of yours denounced radical Islam (including Sharia law or the imposition of Islamic practises on the american majority)? If not, how can you in good conscience remain their friends? If they have renounced and denounce) the evils of Islamicism, then they are to be commended. We have seen very few incidents of "good Muslims" publicly condemning or even criticising Islamists. I do agree with fundamentalist Christians on their support of Israel. Contrast that with the seismic shift in liberal Jewish opinion since I was a child in the late 60's. It's bad enough (although to be expected) that the left would side with the murderous Palestinians, but for a Jew of ANY political stripe to do so is as sad as it gets. Moral relativism and political correctness vis-a-vis Islam has already cost the lives of good men and women at Ft. Hood. We on the right love Irael as our staunchest ally and the only democracy in a region of despots and theocrats. We recognize that Israel, while imperfect, is a just and noble country. The far-left cesspool now reeks with open anti-semitism (couched as Anti-Israel sentiment). For the sake of our country and the West, I implore liberal Jews to come on over to our side. You will be welcomed with open arms.
Turkey is a majority Muslim country (99.8% Muslim), and yet they don't have Sharia. They're a democracy, and have been our allies for more than 60 years now. So it's simply not true that Muslim nations are inherent enemies with the United States any more than Germans are inherently opposed to Jews. Yes, the Nazis were German and Al-Qaeda is Muslim, but not every German was (or is) a Nazi and not every Muslim is a terrorist. Great Post i think it is amazing.Thx for sharing.. if You would like to
visit my site just check matematyka
also check some shool news at fizyka and read some
great info about chemia
Nice one, Spitzer. Typical leftist argument. I make 7 or 8 points backed with facts, and you refute a point I never made. I never said that All Muslim Nations are inherent US enemies. I said Islam is fundamentally at odds with the values of the US and the West. And don't get a shiver running up your leg about our "great ally" Turkey either. Ataturk's transformation of Turkey to a secularist, modern State was no easy task and the forces of the Islamist opposition grow stronger each day. Gatemouth mentioned a tv show and film that was wildly popular in Turkey, Valley of the Wolves" (starring traitor-thespo-whore Billy Zane and the brain-dead Gary Busey) which is vehemently anti -American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian. One of the most chilling scenes features a Jewish-American doctor harvesting organs of Iraqis murderedby US soldiers and selling them to the Jewish market. The crowds ate it up! According to Pew, Turks that have a favorable opinion of the US stand at 9% making it the country that dislikes the US the most in the world (Pakistan is second at 13%). Turkey is experiencing a wave of anti-semitism that makes the most recent shameful European version look like Grandparents' Day at the Hillel Country Day School. Istanbul is covered with billboards featuring anti-Israeli lies and propaganda, and graffiti with such charming themes as "Kill Jews". In Izmir, the door of the largest synagogue was defaced with the words "We will kill you". Signs were posted outside Jewish-owned shops saying "Do not buy from Jews", and some Turk-owned shops had signs along the lines of "Jews and Armenians are not allowed in, but dogs are welcome". It's obvious that you didn't study much history, but let me assure you that being lumped together with Armenians in Turkey isn't exactly the safest spot in the playground. With friends like Turkey, what enemies do the US, Israel, and Jews need? Let me know if you want to discuss the other, real points I made earlier.
...New York had one fire-breathing right wing blogger (even an atheist uninterested in social conservatism) who was willing to break out of right - wing safe spaces like Urban Elpehants and spar in a war zone like Room 8. Thanks Paul for showing us how much fun it would be The absence of such folks in war zones like Room 8 has had the preverse impact of making moderates and iconoclasts like myself, Hackshaw and Littlefield seem like the local reactionaries, and sometimes even get attacked as such (occassionaly even by each others). I don't know about Rock and Larry, but I'm a little tired of it. Paul, you I, and Spitzer-Ruby all have birthdays within about 8 days of each other (give or take 38 years). I suggest we all get together in Brooklyn in March 2011 to buy Michael his first legal legal drink. Post new comment |
Hot Topics
Gov Wire
Political Update
Google AdsSearchRoom Eight Extras |
delicious
digg
True enough, but you are forgetting one of al-Qaeda's number one complaints about the US, the thing that turned them from our sort-of allies propped up by Republicans who saw them as useful pawns, to our bitter enemies: our troops stationed on "holy ground" in Saudi Arabia. This was their stated reason for attacking us, though I suspect they would have found a reason no matter what we did.
As to your basic premise, I largely agree.