Essence of the Self Congradulatory Left

...the Left, at least since the 1840s or so, has been a much smaller social and, especially, intellectual movement, able to conceptualize philosophically and historically the nature of the capitalist transformation of its time, and to approach it critically. In other words, the Left examines capitalism from the standpoint of such critical ideals as justice and freedom, rather than from the point of view of immediate self-interest.
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0411/article/041111b.html

The left, since Marx of the 1840s, was the dominant intellectual force in the world up unitl the election of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the late 70s and early 80s. To the horror of the world it piled up more body bags in the 20th Century than any other odious theory in history.

To say that the left was critiquing "the point of view of self interest" in the name of "justice and freedom" is, quite frankly, begging the question. It would be more accurate to say the left critiqued justice and freedom in the name of a redefined 'cosmic justice' [the antithesis of justice] and slavery.

Indeed, what the left amounted to was an attempt to install Plato's police state. Far too often they succeeded.

Today, having decisively lost the intellectual argument against capitalism (no, not 'redirecting it') the left too often simply opposes America.

This is why, for example, feminists are silent about the improvement in the lives of women that have resulted from the liberation of the Taliban. Their hatred of America is far stronger than any love or concern for real live women.

Peace

Why are we Really in Iraq (detail)

WMDs camouflage real reasons behind Iraq invasion from the Australian by Frank Devine

A good article.

For those seriously interested in the question I recommend a seriously interesting new book, America's Secret War by George Friedman. Friedman is founder of Stratfor, a private, subscription-financed global intelligence service, which I find consistently well-informed. Friedman writes of the struggle in Iraq in relentlessly Realpolitik terms.
...
By then it [America -- ed] had identified the jihadist campaign as "a Saudi problem". Most of the September 11 suicide attackers had been Saudis. Bin Laden was a Saudi. Saudi money trails were everywhere. An invasion of Saudi Arabia presented the tactical problem of waging war against a country of vast area and the strategic one of disrupting the world's oil supplies.
The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia - Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement.
"From a purely military view," Friedman adds, "Iraq is the most strategic single country in the Middle East, [bordering] six other countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran."
...
The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: "Not a single regime has fallen to al-Qa'ida ... There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking ... At this point the US is winning ... The war goes on."

Good Stuff.

Vitriol from the Left

From PowerLine, a link to Maher's site. I pulled these rants off.

Can anyone find something similar from the Right?

---

From: moulty
At this point in time, would it be morally defensible to apply a "final solution" to republicans?
Is it now morally excusable to organize midnight raids on republican groups in the red states and "terminate" them with extreme prejudice?
Watching Bush's acceptance speech on wednesday, with the Cheney's on stage as well....who would not have liked to see a bomb go off under the stage and wipe out the whole despicable slimy lot of them?
Be honest. Who would not like to see Karen Hughes run over by an 18 wheel truck?

---

From Pieter:

Tesponding to someone who poitned out that 80% of soldiers backed Bush Pieter said:
That's only fair isn't it? Why should decent people die in your bogus war you murdering hun. I hope the whole lot of them are decapitated... but getting the butts blown off will suffice.

---

From nascarblue: (two different posts)
Oil mongering fascist bigot.
...
We, unfortunately have turned into a spitting image of the Franco or Mussolini fascist regimes. ... Setting off bombs and calling it Flight 93 and the Pentagon.

Litmus Test

John Kerry promised a litmus test for judges if he was elected. Namely, they must support Roe v. Wade.

Since there was no horrified outcry from the NYT, having a litmus test must be OK. You could argue the President shouldn't have one, of course. Bush says he doesn't but perhaps you don't believe him. So let us assume he does have a litmus test just like Kerry.

If it is ok for Kerry to have his litmus test, it is also appropriate for Bush to have the opposite litmus test. And Bush won the election.

OK, I disagree with Roe v. Wade. I think it was the worst SOTUS decision on the merits since Dred Scott. It has also been a political disaster for the country.

Repudiating Roe v. Wade will result in abortion continuing to be legal almost everywhere in the US during the first trimester. Beyond that restrictions that most people consider reasonable will be enacted. Backalley abortions will not reappear.

The key is that we will fight these issues out legislature by legislature and (a) moderation will win out almost all the time and (b) the poison will be drained for both the winners and the losers. Each will have their say.

What is the alternative?

If you want to filibuster judges that oppose Roe v. Wade you should expect judges that support Roe v. Wade to be fillibustered by the other side in turn. Are we going to have no new SOTUS judges until a single party gets 60 votes? I don't think that is good for the country. It would undermine SOTUS. And, to put it quite bluntly, it is far more likely that the Republicans will get 60 votes long before the Democrats get 60. Republicans took 30 states in the presidential election (and 29 I think last time). So over time you should expect the Republicans to fill Red state seats and the Democrats to fill Blue state seats. The Democrats are unlikely to regain CONTROL for decades, let alone a super majority.

Bottom Line: The Democrats need to come to an agreement where Bush eventually gets an up or down vote on judicial appointments. The Democrats deserve a chance to slow down appointments they can't stomach. But we don't owe them a super-majority veto and it would be devestating for the country if they insisted on trying to get one.

Blog Experiment

This is an experiment.