Submitted by Gate (not verified) on Thu, 08/31/2006 - 9:49pm.
Woah, Michael. I have written about Tasini, and it wasn't all that kind. I haven't written about Flagg, because she barely registers on my radar screen; I am, after all, a Brooklyn guy, and frankly, she'd barely register if I lived in Rivedale. Plus, both Tasini and Flagg don't even have a theorectical chance of winning. I've admired your work on Tasini, and have echoed your points that his race is a waste of blood and treasure. Flagg isn't even worth that effort, although today, while perusing a list of races to see if there was anything worth writing about which I'd missed, I made a note to myself to give Engel a favorable plug in service to the cause of vanquishing Michael Morre Democrats wherever they raise their heads (unless they are our nominees in November, or are pretty certain of being our nominees in November).
As to your accusations. You know very well I'm no Likudnik. You also know I'll lose no sleep if Joanthan Pollard dies in prison. You are further aware that I've dedcated an awful lot of prose to the "Peter Beinart Democrat" stuff. Chris usually gets a passing mention, but, my real interest lies elsewhere. I certainly didn't spend all this time talking about the soul of the Democratic Party merely as a means of going after Chris Owens. I really believe this stuff, and you know it, and, being serious about it, I've put my principles into practice, and, being a Brooklyn guy who believes in thinking globally and acting locally, that means going after Owens. Although I find many of Chris' opinions on domestic issues muddleheaded (his proposal for "reform" of the Democratic Party, his support of 45 different amendments to the US constitution) and sometimes even mildly offensive (his good cop/bad cop race bait game with his daddy), my main problem with Owens is his worldview. If he's not a pacifist, then let him come out and say so; I think he is because there's seeemingly no other way to interpret either his song or his statements about foriegn policy and defense. Unlike many other pols, I think Owens deserves the presumption that he actually believes the stuff he says.
And you're right, there should be no religious test for public office. Just an issues test. As I've stated I believe that all pacifists are morally unfit to hold a seat in Congress (the State Legislature or City Council would not bother me in the least); not every pacifist is a Quaker, and not every Quaker is a pacifist; Richard Nixon was a Quaker, but no pacifist (although he was, for different reason morally unfit for public office). And, sorry Michael, but if someone professes to embrace a religion which is pacifistic, it is legitmate to ask if one's political beliefs are affected by that. No one objects when Orthodox Jews are asked to clarify their opinion of sexual orientation anti-discrimination efforts; I certainly make sure to ask them such questions. I've been asking for months on this blog for Chris Owens to answer whether he'd ever support the use of force for any reason. So far he's not answered in print. Seemingly, however, he has answered in song.
With most politicians, I worry that they'll betray their principles, or, sometiimes, that they have no principles to betray. I do not have this problem with Chris Owens on foriegn policy (elsewhere, he is sometimes capable of duplicity, but no worse than what is the accepatable norm). It's just that his worldview makes for wonderful summer camp sing-alongs, but in the real world, is usual idiocy for genocidal maniacs and terrorists.
Woah, Michael. I have written about Tasini, and it wasn't all that kind. I haven't written about Flagg, because she barely registers on my radar screen; I am, after all, a Brooklyn guy, and frankly, she'd barely register if I lived in Rivedale. Plus, both Tasini and Flagg don't even have a theorectical chance of winning. I've admired your work on Tasini, and have echoed your points that his race is a waste of blood and treasure. Flagg isn't even worth that effort, although today, while perusing a list of races to see if there was anything worth writing about which I'd missed, I made a note to myself to give Engel a favorable plug in service to the cause of vanquishing Michael Morre Democrats wherever they raise their heads (unless they are our nominees in November, or are pretty certain of being our nominees in November).
As to your accusations. You know very well I'm no Likudnik. You also know I'll lose no sleep if Joanthan Pollard dies in prison. You are further aware that I've dedcated an awful lot of prose to the "Peter Beinart Democrat" stuff. Chris usually gets a passing mention, but, my real interest lies elsewhere. I certainly didn't spend all this time talking about the soul of the Democratic Party merely as a means of going after Chris Owens. I really believe this stuff, and you know it, and, being serious about it, I've put my principles into practice, and, being a Brooklyn guy who believes in thinking globally and acting locally, that means going after Owens. Although I find many of Chris' opinions on domestic issues muddleheaded (his proposal for "reform" of the Democratic Party, his support of 45 different amendments to the US constitution) and sometimes even mildly offensive (his good cop/bad cop race bait game with his daddy), my main problem with Owens is his worldview. If he's not a pacifist, then let him come out and say so; I think he is because there's seeemingly no other way to interpret either his song or his statements about foriegn policy and defense. Unlike many other pols, I think Owens deserves the presumption that he actually believes the stuff he says.
And you're right, there should be no religious test for public office. Just an issues test. As I've stated I believe that all pacifists are morally unfit to hold a seat in Congress (the State Legislature or City Council would not bother me in the least); not every pacifist is a Quaker, and not every Quaker is a pacifist; Richard Nixon was a Quaker, but no pacifist (although he was, for different reason morally unfit for public office). And, sorry Michael, but if someone professes to embrace a religion which is pacifistic, it is legitmate to ask if one's political beliefs are affected by that. No one objects when Orthodox Jews are asked to clarify their opinion of sexual orientation anti-discrimination efforts; I certainly make sure to ask them such questions. I've been asking for months on this blog for Chris Owens to answer whether he'd ever support the use of force for any reason. So far he's not answered in print. Seemingly, however, he has answered in song.
With most politicians, I worry that they'll betray their principles, or, sometiimes, that they have no principles to betray. I do not have this problem with Chris Owens on foriegn policy (elsewhere, he is sometimes capable of duplicity, but no worse than what is the accepatable norm). It's just that his worldview makes for wonderful summer camp sing-alongs, but in the real world, is usual idiocy for genocidal maniacs and terrorists.