my family doesn't carry "white guilt" since we lost family members during the civil war fighting on the federal side.

we never owned slave 1 nor profited from business which did as we were self-sufficient, then as now. also, several family members assisted in the underground railroad which went thru ohio.

lastly, the cambodians, bosians, kosovoians, ruwandians, north koreans (et al) can easily put paid to this canard.

Since the the hypothesis & antecedents are flawed, the argument itself is illogical & becomes an emotional discussion best left to the race baiters.

Mr. Steele's assertions are simply a rehash of the same tired litany from the left that's been around since the left became aware of itself. It's babbled like a mantra, seemingly not realizing that in indicting the white race, they are also indicting themselves. They are a product of the white racist society. And when you look at their agenda, you can clearly see that they don't see the forest because of all the tree that they keep running into.

The left, for example, seems intent on giving the government (the white government) a bigger and bigger say over the lives, fortunes and sacred honor of all of its citizens. Confiscatory taxation, redistribution of capital via giveaway programs, and affirmative action all have the same effect of quashing individual responsibility and freedom of choice. The left, for all its trumpeting of being "for the little guy" or "for the downtrodden and oppressed people of the world," has offered nothing substantive that would ameliorate the conditions of disparity that they seem always eager to denounce. Their vision is now, and has always been, the tearing down of our institutions, built over centuries of cumulative struggle and contributions. And toward what end? What do they offer as the panacea for all the grievances they point out? Bigger government, having a bigger say in the lives of all of its citizens. It's hardly a philosophy that inspires hope.

The best example of how this failed and upside down paradigm of political thought was most closely accomplished can be found in a documentary I recently had occasion to watch, called "The Weather Underground."

This documentary is about a group of left-thinking people who were opposed to the War in Vietnam in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They were called "The Weathermen." As I watched this compelling film, I began to get a strange sense of dejà vu. So many of the arguments that I've seen posted here, particularly on the left side of the political stream of discourse, seem to echo the sentiments expressed by the participants in that failed political struggle. I now have a deeper understanding of what motivates people like Barneyg2000, maf53, Opus, Ash, Muirgeo, and others of similar political persuasion. As such, I feel a lot less disgust or disdain than I have previously expressed. Instead, I mostly feel a strange sense of pity for them and what they espouse. I strongly encourage everyone to view this documentary. It was made in 2003, just about the same time as the anti-war sentiment seemed to take root here in the good old US of A.

Although it isn't a "mainstream" film, it has received much critical acclaim from people of all political persuasions. I personally remember parts of the history as it unfolded, but was too young at the time to be able to "connect the dots," as it were. This film has caused me to reflect upon today's current debate over the war, our system of government, and where this country is headed in the context of that movement, arguably one of America's first organized "homegrown" terrorist organizations in our modern times. All the elements of today's struggle can be seen in this film, through the eyes of those who actively engaged in it. It is neither apologetic for, nor supportive of, the ideals and motivations of the participants. Instead, it seeks to enlighten today's dissenters as to the proper course of dissent by way of showing how, when dissent crosses a certain line, it becomes treason or, worse yet, active terrorism.

If you want to see the end result of the leftist agenda put into action, I strongly urge you to make an effort to watch this film. There is much to be gleaned from those who have attempted to put into action the idealogy of the left.

This is a link to the basic overview of the who, what, where, why and when of the Weathermen Underground:

http://www.upstatefilms.org/weather/main.html

And here are a few of the reviews that I found about this documentary:

"One of the top documentaries of the year, this award-winning film interweaves extensive archival material with modern-day interviews to explore the incredible story of "The Weather Underground." As former members reflect candidly about the idealistic passion that drove them to "bring the war home," they paint a compelling portrait of troubled and revolutionary times, with unexpected and often striking connections to the current world situation."
___________________

Boston Globe Ty Burr
"...Essential viewing for anyone who wants to know the roots -- and perils -- of modern political dissent.

_____________

The L.A. Times by Kenneth Turan, Times Staff Writer

"...They were some of the best and brightest of their generation, highly educated and privileged young people, and the things they cared deeply about, like the war in Vietnam and racial inequality in this country, were worth their concern. As David Gilbert puts it, 'Was I fighting for a just cause? Was there a need to do something? Yes, there was.'"

"International terrorism was not the issue it is today when directors Sam Green and Bill Siegel began this film five years ago. But when Underground member Brian Flanagan says, 'We wanted to deliver the most horrific hit the United States government ever received on its own soil,' it's hard not to hear echoes of Al Qaeda thinking. Ditto when Flanagan adds, 'If you think that you have the moral high ground, that's a very dangerous position and you can do some really dreadful things.'

______________

From the San Francisco Chronicle,

"...Regret hangs over "The Weather Underground," a documentary about the 1970s radical group. Powerful and surprisingly timely, the film explores the interweaving of idealism and terrorism and the frustration of true believers who found that neither approach resulted in much change..."

I implore you to commit 92 minutes to reflect upon the idealism that was expressed by those people in often warped ways and try to re-examine your own political dissent in the process. If you do so honestly and with intellectual integrity, you might find that there is room for growth in your political thought. The saddest thing that I came away with after watching this documentary was how, despite their best intentions, these people caused a huge rift in the social order of this country, doing great harm to themselves and their fellow citizens in the process... but that's what I see as the inexorable consequence of leftism when it is fully implemented.

As a nation, we face divisive issues - not only in the prosecution of the War on Terror, but on a host of other topics. Today, more than ever, we MUST find a way to unite for our common destiny. Like it or not, we're in the same boat. It would be folly to shoot a hole in the hull because we don't like where the current is taking us...

If anyone would like to purchase this riveting and relevant documentary, go to the following link:

http://www.docurama.com/productdetail.html?productid=NV-NVG-5630-NVG-9602

It's well worth the $20 to hear an important historical lesson from those who have personally travelled the leftist road of dissent down a dark and dangerous path...

Available in DVD and VHS...

I hope that once you've seen this film, you will gain a deeper understanding of the famous quote from George Santayana, a notable philosopher, who coined the phrase,

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

The left seems too engrossed in its self-absorbed obsession with imposing equality to understand how dangerous they are to society.

Mark - the biggest difference between the Bush right and your flawed left is that they don't subscribe to your comic book world view of absolutes - you have to be hero or villain, good guy or evil doer, patriot or america-hater. You are either with us or you are with the terrorists. It's a consistent view of neocons and the christian right - that your side is the side of moral superiority, or even the side of god.

Because you and only you possess this "moral clarity", there's no need to put yourself in the shoes of your adversary and try to understand their point of view. To do so would reveal that you have doubts about your moral superiority. Everything is simplified - you're good and they are evil. You love and they hate.

That big majority to the left of your extreme dogmatic right is able to look at matters objectively, empathetically, practically, realisticly. You are stuck in your comic book, casting down all of those who would dare question the absolute correctness of America.

As we've said before - november will tell, but I think America is tired of this simplistic good vs. evil world view. America wants ideas, not dogma. Whether its a democrat, paleoconservative or libertarian, we're going to see power change hands away from those with the Bush world view and we'll be a much better country for it.

Enlightenment arrives when all government becomes unnecessary. That point can't be reached if any one group or person is dominant. Christ/Mohamad's vision has God in charge and all men/women equal to one another, but subservient to Him/Her. Don't fight evolution and be left behind. Peace

extra,

There is no one more dogmatic than a leftist - someone, for instance, who will not even consider modifying affirmative action who, indeed, calls any such idea automatically racist...a leftist is a person who looks at the problem of health care and decides that only a complete government take over will do the trick, anything else is the result of evil machinations on the part of Big Insurance...I'm afraid, extra, that the comic book view of the world is yours, not mine. I'm a Christian, and therefor I know how entirely flawed we all are, most especially myself and my fellow Christians.

You have got yourself hung up on the fact that we Christians - and believers of other faiths - have a concept of good and evil...that some things are good, others evil, and that we must advance the former and fight the latter. This appears to you to be un-nuanced...it doesn't allow, say, for the necessary lie in order to smooth things over (to, say, pretend that all civilizations are morally equal, even when the evidence indicates strongly otherwise)...which, of course, is to a Christian just a device of Satan designed to get us lying "for good causes" in preparation for getting us to lie about everything.

We are, however, quite nuanced - we know the material we are working with, and thus know that even the best laid plans are going to go awry...and that no human construct is going to come even close to perfection (indeed, will be so far from perfection that it will be closer to chaos, even if it works pretty well in practical, day to day affairs).

What you want me to do is go along to get along - but you are asking me to go along with a bit of evil, extra. How am I to work a deal with our enemies? I love them and pray for them, but as they are currently engaged in the act of trying to kill me and all I hold dear, what have we to talk about? Am I to agree to a little repression and murder if that will give me personal peace?

You tell me, extra.

my civilizations produced civilized soldiers while their produces nothing by murderous villians

Wow. Thanks for putting your bigotry front and center like that, Noonan. You honestly believe that civilizations we fight and have fought have produced "nothing by [sic] murderous villians" and then expect to be taken seriously as a thoughtful person? An example of Christian charity? You've got a lot to learn; too bad you're so afraid of learning, otherwise there might be hope for enlightening you.

Our success, as it were, is ill-gotten and thus not something we should ask anyone to emulate...better, especially in the mind of the leftwing elite, if we just leave well enough alone and, indeed, pretend that we've something fundamental to learn from other civilizations whom we once oppressed.

This is so stupid, I feel like I lost several IQ points just from reading it. Slavery is nothing to be ashamed of? We should be proud of being oppressive? If we can kill 'em, then there's nothing of value in 'em? Yes, you're so very, very enlightened, Noonan.

And then there's this, a view that I've never seen anybody but you forward here:

they simply must be of the opinion that we are not the best, that American civilization, far too tainted with guilty white people, simply cannot be correct

Try not to let your head explode here, Noonan, but here's a much more accurate phrasing of the view--and a far more accurate view than the one you forward as being "correct:" American civilization is good, but far from perfect. There are skeletons in the closet, and it continues to be flawed, but it is certainly better than many of the alternatives out there.

Go ahead and dodge now. Go ahead and tell me I hate America for being realistic in acknowledging its imperfections and trying to avoid repeating them instead of trying to spin them away in favor of a fake feel-good history. Go ahead and prattle on with your utterly unsubstantiated idea that America is "chosen" by a very specific god's providence like the horrible example of Christianity you are. You're quite predictable in those regards.

Mark - We've been through this before. The Islamic extremists don't want to kill you and take away your bible. They just want the west to get the heck out muslim countries. They kill, through terrorist strikes, as a tactic to force us out.

When you are outmanned and outgunned, you resort to unconventional tactics. We did it in the revolutionary war when we refused to meet the British on the field in formation. We also did it when we intentionally dropped atom bombs on civilians to speed the end of WWII. Pointing this out does not mean I hate America. It means I can look at things objectively. Every action is not explained in absolute terms of good and evil.

A few terrorist strikes does not make a global holy war of good vs. evil or Christians vs. Muslims. We need to put the moral outrage aside and see our way through this with clear, objective heads and intelligent thought.

Boy, this discussion could go on for years. Actually, I guess it has, lol! Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to give it my all. But I'll throw in a few observations to churn things up...

First, the OJ article basically starts off with this comment: "For one thing, it is now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power (the nuclear option aside) in the wars we fight." "Certainly since Vietnam, America has increasingly practiced a policy of minimalism and restraint in war. And now this unacknowledged policy, which always makes a space for the enemy, has us in another long and rather passionless war against a weak enemy."

That sounds like a stinging indictment of the administration's Iraq strategy to me.

Mark talks about the changing conceptions of "race" over time, indicating rightly that it's a fairly new concept, and that it is an example of how human constructs are malleable.

That sounds like moral relativism to me.

Then there are more specific things. For example, in discussing the pros and cons of the old racist, imperialist stance by European powers, Mark states: "The largest good point, however, has been lost entirely - what has been lost is a conviction that the civilization is fundamentally good."

I don't see it that way. Rather, what I see is the emerging recognition that totalitarianism, whatever its form, is fundamentally bad. Our fight with Britain wasn't about civilization, it was about representation -- about having no voice, about being taken advantage of with no recourse. The fundamental problem with slavery and imperialism was that as well. And when one's station in life is more determined by heritage than ability, then that's what class struggle is about as well.

My conception of an ideal America is one that provides equal opportunity for all its citizens, and works actively to promote that same ideal across the world. That's the goal. Generally speaking, I think most people are inclined to believe similarly. However, there is great disagreement about how to achieve those goals. Unfortunately, because a two-party system is dominant in this country, the disagreement has been greatly conflated into a simple dichotomy -- liberal vs conservative. And often both sides are so busy dickering with each other that they lose sight of the goal. Keep your eyes on the prize.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that liberals too often confuse equal opportunity with equal success. And thus, they stress a "tax the rich and feed the poor" mentality, sometimes to the point of absurdity. Similarly, the right stresses an "every man for himself" mentality, sometimes to the point of absurdity as well. In other words, they tend to ignore the "equal opportunity" part in favor of the idea that it's okay for the strong to dominate the weak. How many times and in how many ways have we heard variations on the "we run things so you're irrelevant" theme?

Personally, I am not in favor of any program that is inclined to entrench poverty such that it becomes a generational affliction. Likewise, I am not in favor of any program that is inclined to entrench wealth such that it becomes a generational benefit. That's the fundamental premise that guides my thought. And for that reason I don't always agree with anyone on the left or right of the political spectrum. Most people with a strong ideological bent for what is traditionally considered liberalism or conservatism, consider me a heretic.

On a historical perspective, I think Teddy Roosevelt did a wonderful thing when he worked hard at trust-busting (breaking up economic monopolies in banking, transportation, energy industries, etc.). Likewise, I think Reagan did a wonderful thing when he went after bloated trade unions. Large companies can be effiecient, but they become an aberration when they monopolize an industry. Trade unions are also beneficial, but not when they become hopelessly corrupt. More recently, I think Clinton did a wonderful thing when he worked with the Republican congress to reform Welfare. The Welfare system had become stagnant to the point where it perpetuated poverty more than it alleviated it. It's still not perfect (no program is), but it's much better now. On the other hand, I thought the repeal of the Estate tax was a horrible thing because it promotes generational wealth. On the other hand, I was largely fine with the reduction in capital gains tax. To me, it's all about trying to construct a situation where every individual has an equal chance at success (without assuring it), and promoting a situation that stresses personal responsibility and personal intiative so that each person may become the best they can be -- regardless of who their father or their grandfather was. That's easier said than done, of course, but that's the goal.

"... it doesn't allow, say, for the necessary lie in order to smooth things over (to, say, pretend that all civilizations are morally equal, even when the evidence indicates strongly otherwise)...which, of course, is to a Christian just a device of Satan designed to get us lying "for good causes" in preparation for getting us to lie about everything."

Mark, do you really belive in Satan?

Christians are dangerous people.

Mark - regarding one point in the piece - what do you suppose a non-"minimalist" approach to Iraq would look like? That is, assuming that we weren't hobbled by white guilt and cowering in the face of stigmatism.

maf,

Of course I do - it would be extraordinarily foolhardy, and unsupported by human experience, to believe otherwise...what worries me is people who don't.

Your post is a stupid one, as Glenn Greenwald points out.

extra,

You err right at the start. While Washington employed irregular forces, his goal was always and ever a professional army which would meet the British army on the field of battle. We also didn't set bombs off in London, nor behead captives while shouting "God is great". Irregular forces have their place in the military scheme of things - but the deliberate targeting of the defenseless is evil. Its why we don't get angry over a roadside bomb killing soldiers - we're unhappy about it, but our soldiers are professionals who are trained and equipped to deal with these things, and they can hit back quite hard...we are outraged, however, when they set off a car bomb at a marketplace...because they are killing people who are not trained and equipped in dealing with such things, and they are also people who can't hit back.

It is the western way of war - we match strength for strength and the stronger wins. The enemy matches strength to weakness - and you are excusing it. You are shaking hands with evil and trying to figure out how much evil you'll allow in order to spare yourself the difficult task of uprooting it...you go much further down your road and you'll start to be complicit in evil.

Take my advice: shun it, run from it...have nothing to do with those who are evil, they will poison your mind and soul. Stand athwart them - you may not be able to eliminate all evil, but you should surely never do anything which advances it.

As for your last bit - a non-minimalist war would be one in which we spared our troops and simply flattened Fallujah rather than going in there and digging out the enemy house by house. I'm glad we did it the way we did, but we must not hold ourselves to an impossibly high standard - we must not, as it were, make war in such a gentle manner that our blows against the enemy turn feeble. That, actually, is a morally wrong choice to make - because it continues the violence longer than necessary. The force used must always be in accordance with the force necessary to achieve a just end with the least possible loss of life...and if that did require a genuine carpet bombing of an area (you on the left toss around "carpet bombing" at the drop of a hat - you really should look it up to see what it is), then we would be morally correct in doing it.

I'm glad we did it the way we did, but we must not hold ourselves to an impossibly high standard

We're the country of high standards. Why are you so willing to cede that?

Sad that you hate America so much.

We could kill Osama and eliminate the Taliban with a flick of the wrist. Simply drop a couple dozen nuclear bombs on Northwest Pakistan. I'm sure the remaining Pakistani people will thanks us. Many people have suggested we use our nuclear arsenal to turn Iran into a sheet of fused glass. Who'll be left to complain.

Weeding out the Iraqi insurgents from the general population will be more difficult. Perhaps using Sarin or Mustard gas will eliminate the enemy with only a few hundred thousand friendly casualties.

The United States has the power to destroy anyone we choose. In that, we are like God. The question is, how do we use our godly power? Do we use our power with compassion and restraint? Do we use our power as a Mighty Sword, smiting the innocent with the guilty, and leave it to the ethereal God to sort them out?

Mark Noonan wrote-

"knowing that my civilizations produced civilized soldiers while their produces nothing by murderous villians, I am encouraged."

Mark,

Then why the reluctance on our part to confront the atrocities at Abu Gihrab and Guantanamo? If we indeed hope that our soldiers are a cut above the 'murderous villians,' then shouldn't we be vigorously investigating those horrible crimes and prosecuting those responsible?

Maf's devil comments remind me of people who claim to have never been afraid. Those are the people to be most fearful of.

Deleted - Obscenity

"Enlightenment arrives when all government becomes unnecessary. That point can't be reached if any one group or person is dominant." steve

Thanks for today's dose of psycho babble.

...visualize whirled peas

"Maf's devil comments remind me of people who claim to have never been afraid. Those are the people to be most fearful of." -Porter

You're afraid of me because I don't believe in Satan? Hmm, interesting.

Next you're going to tell me that Jesus came about as the result of a "virgin" birth; and that he walked on water; and that he "rose" from the "dead"; and that Adam & Eve were actual people; and that the earth is 6,000 years old; and that Intelligent Design should be considered a science; and that ....

Wait. You actually *DO* believe those things? Now, who's the one to be "fearful" of again?

Keep your little imaginary friends & ideas to yourself. You're freaking me out.

*Chuckles*

maf, there are folks who believe we live in a super computer and are nothing more than blips on a circuit. Others who believe we're nothing more than ants in a larger universe. Still others who believe life came from nothing more than random atoms slowly coming together into more and more complex structures until BAM life. Those who think that the universe just "appeared" in a "big bang" and has been randomly building from there. Others who think there's a big super being running around deciding everything in the universe all the time.

I don't know about you, but I can think they all can sound stupid or absurd depending on how you look at them. So let's stop making fun of someone else's beliefs hmm?

The article is odd, especially to me since I'm a "halfy." (Half white/half Chinese) I tend to look at all racial issues as being rather stupid because I'm nothing but a human being. Though I do agree that the idea of being "right" or "good" at least on the country scale, seems to be disapearing.

More and more folks are starting to question anything and everything. From their reasons to breath to the reason they bought swiss verses cheddar cheese. Introspection is all well and good but too much will criple the decision making process. If you constantly see what you do wrong in everything that goes on how will you do anything?

If I show up on a crash scene and worry about the five people I can't help because they're dead or beyond my ability to stabalize how can I save the two who are within my ability to save? If I dwelled on the dead how would I ever go forward?

Yes, slavery bad. We've learned that lesson and we're moving on. If we were still holding slaves that'd be something to complain about but because someone's Great great great grandfather held slaves? Give me a break. I bet if we went far enough back in ANYONE's past you'll find they held slaves or something. Say conquering a neighboring tribe and holding some as slaves or prisioners or what not. If you just look back what's the point?

Maf:
No I am not afraid of you, just for your soul. You can mock Christianity all you want. We get it all the time. Jesus said to expect it. But it does not prevent me from praying for your soul and all other non-believers for your salvation. You will go somewhere after your die, and you never will know how much time you have left. It up to you to decide where you will spend eternity, with God or separated from Him.

Sees,

It is hard to take you seriously when you have such knee-jerk reactions...I doubt that you even bother to try and understand what I'm saying.

At any rate, our soldiers our civlized...the enemy soldiers (if we can even call them that) are murderous villains...my civilization produces civilized soldiers, theirs produces murderous villains...unless you want to say that terrorists aren't murderous villains, then you have to agree that I'm correct, and if I'm correct I cannot be bigoted.

And that brings me to the most important thing - your assumption of bigotry and ignorance on my part. Outside of the insult involved, it is an example of how embedded "white guilt" is these days...you just automatically assume that anyone how has a bad thing to say about a non-western civilization must be a bigot...

old yankee,

I don't think what happened at Abu Ghraib to be horrific - vulgar, yes; but not at all an atrocity. As for Gitmo, there have been no believable stories of any problems out of that prison, so there's nothing to go there at all.

Even with that, however, we are vigorously prosecuting people over Abu Ghraib...something necessary for the good discipline of the troops, but which has been twisted all out of proportion by anti-American leftists who somehow seem to WANT to believe that the US would actually torture someone.

"I don't think what happened at Abu Ghraib to be horrific - vulgar,"

Depends on what your definition of is is, no?

http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/

OK, Mark- visit the link above, have a nice evening reviewing the photos of what our troops did to the detainees, and then try to tell me that you would call this behavior merely "vulgar."
And be aware that this is the tip of the iceberg--the Pentagon admits to having even more of this stuff that has yet to be released.

I happen to be a Vietnam Vet- an infantry squad leader, Americal Division, 1969-70. If any of my troops had done anything like what you see in those photos I would have made goddam sure they were court-martialed and run out of the Army.

your assumption of bigotry and ignorance on my part. Outside of the insult involved, it is an example of how embedded "white guilt" is these days...you just automatically assume that anyone how has a bad thing to say about a non-western civilization must be a bigot...

You just automatically assume that anyone who has anything bad to say about America must hate America and long to see it destroyed. Or that anybody who finds value in other civilizations must not only think America sucks, but also be a deluded fool because any group we can kill or subjugate is a group that has nothing to offer us. Or was it some other Mark Noonan who wrote "better, especially in the mind of the leftwing elite, if we just leave well enough alone and, indeed, pretend that we've something fundamental to learn from other civilizations whom we once oppressed."

Once again, your hypocrisy flies front and center; you can't really conceal it, much as you'd like to deny it. If you take offense at your statements being called bigoted, then perhaps you shouldn't make such bigoted (and pathetically unsubstantiated, as usual) statements like "my civilization produces civilized soldiers, theirs produces murderous villains." That's not knee-jerk, that's just reading your words. By the way, is it Islam that produces nothing but murderous villains, or is it just Iraq? I know you're forever mired in the "We're always good, no matter what; they're always pure evil, no matter what" school of--ahem--"thought," but I want to know just who "they" are here.

So what is it that you're trying to say, Mark? Let's start with a few basics:

Do you think there's nothing to be ashamed of in American history?

Do you think America has done no wrong?

Do you think acknowledging America's wrongdoing is merely "white guilt" and nothing real?

Do we need to bring back to concept of white superiority?

C'mon, Mark, let it fly.

Noonan's 08:35 PM comment.

Wow!

"I don't know about you, but I can think they all can sound stupid or absurd depending on how you look at them. So let's stop making fun of someone else's beliefs hmm?" - Gozer

You can believe whatever you want. I personally don't care. If you need organized religion to act as your crutch in life, then so be it.

But be honest with yourself, Gozer - how many of those "super computer" believers do you hear saying that their way is the *only* way? How many of those "ant" believers who say that in order to be "saved," you must convert to their system, or else. How many of those "atom" believers who wage war with the "bing bang" believers?

It's only the Christians & the Muslims who think like this. They are exclusive in their beliefs, and they are willing to kill themselves, and others, for it. That is what I am ridiculing - and I think that, if you considered the subject, you would seek to ridicule it, too.

It is well deserved.

Extramedium noted,
"Mark - We've been through this before. The Islamic extremists don't want to kill you and take away your bible. They just want the west to get the heck out muslim countries. They kill, through terrorist strikes, as a tactic to force us out."

I suggest to you that you are ignorant of the facts. I suggest that you go to a website entitled, jihadwatch.com. Mr. Robert Spencer, a lifelong student of Islam, keeps an ongoing post of the statements made by various mullahs and representatives of the Islamic faith. He quotes them in their own words. It doesn't take much reading to completely and unequivocally refute the assumption that they only want to push out of their countries. They intend to follow us to our shores, infiltrate our societies, and twist our institutions to attain their objective. That objective if "dhimmitude." Put simply, dhimmitude means the subjugation of all infidels (that is anyone who is not a devout Muslim) to the Islamic order.

Please educate yourself before you make another absurd statment like the one I cited above.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

They also have a blogsite. You might be surprised at how blatant some people are about their objectives...

Sees,

Well, if you would come up with some non-absurd questions, they would be worthwhile answering...

old yankee,

And just what makes you think American soldiers in 2003 would do what your soldiers wouldn't in 1967?

I've seen the pictures...and I suggest you find out what an atrocity is. Start with Gulag Archipelago.

Ash,

Perhaps I'm just too familiar with the 20th century - jaded, you see? An atrocity is, oh, raping a nurse to death while her husband watches (Hong Kong, 1941), or tossing babies on to bayonets (Naking, 1937), or perhaps machine-gunning disarmed American POWS (Malmedy, 1944)...underwear on the head just doesn't come close...

maf,

I can't speak for Porter, but this is what I believe:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:

By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.

We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Amen

Most Sundays I repeat that in unison with my fellow parishoners...and when we have a baptism, I also repeat my baptismal vows, which include a specific rejection of Satan.

I believe it all, maf...right down to the last jot.

Hey, it's impossible to take anything for granted with you, Noonan, so I'm just trying to suss out the basics here. So let's start with the most basic:

Do you think there's nothing to be ashamed of in American history?

Do you think America has done no wrong?

Do you think acknowledging American wrongdoing is indicative of hatred of America?

C"mon, now, these are very easy yes-or-no questions. What're you so afraid of?

Thank you Mark, for refusing to succumb to the guilt-merchants of this world...

Although I am not a religious person (in the sense that I disavow religiousity as espoused by institutions), I believe you've covered all bases and affirmed your beliefs in an honest way. Too bad that there are those who would assail you for holding these tenets. It only proves that they are beholden to the "no white vs. black" school of ambiguous relativism. I applaud you for taking the higher path of not resorting to the tactics of the leftists in name-calling and heckling...

Say a prayer for me as well, won't you? I somehow managed to escape the grim reaper last night when I was about 15 seconds away from an horrific accident on I-285 here in metro Atlanta. Seems as if someone was too drunk to understand that they were about to be headed the wrong way on the interstate too late to avoid the serious consequences of their flaw in judgment. As of the last time I checked, 2 people are in intensive care, and 1 person is probably going to be OK...

Come on, Mark, ANSWER the questions that Sees has asked you. They are NOT absurd - in fact, they are very similar questions to what I have asked you, and you have AVOIDED, about three times now in different posts.

The main one I have is this : Give me some examples of how America, the CONSERVATIVE side of America, has made mistakes in recent, or even not so recent history. DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT just come up with some example of something bad in America that was all the "fault" of Liberals.

Give an example where a Conservative made a very big mistake.

DO NOT just blame Liberals.

If you can do this, then you have made a step towards proving that you are not just a brainwashed sheep. if you cannot, and insist that America, especially conservative America is nothing less than perfect, you are doing nothing but babbling propaganda.

There were people in the 1930's who refeused to question their country. They refused to question their leader and his authority. They believed that their country and their leader were perfect, no matter what they did.

Noonan, that country was Germany.

Prove to me that you do not think like that, for the love of America, prove it....

Admit that Conservative can sometimes be wrong, and realize that Liberals may sometimes be right.

I accept both sides, that both Liberals and Conservatives have good and bad. If you cannot accept that Conservatives can sometimes be wrong, and Liberals sometimes right, then you might as well start practicing how to draw a Swastika.

Please tell me that you are not so shallow, and so one-sided. Please show me there is hope for you. I beg you. And so does Sees and others here. Show us you are human, and not some brainwashed clone.

Sees,

Look, you'll have to try much better than that...first off, you'll have to open your mind and quit looking at things so two-dimensionally.

Seriously, free yourself from your dogmatic, lefting blinders and try to see the world as it is, rather than as you wish it to be.

Now, see, that's why the Russians were so successful in Afghanistan. They killed 2 million Afghans without any regard to civilian casualties. That's why they don't suffer any Islamic terrorism --- because tales of their brutal but oh-so-effective tactics still strike fear in the heart of suicide bombers to this day.

Christ, you people prove your historical illiteracy, moral bankruptcy, and utter, complete cowardice on a daily basis.

Noonan avoids the question AGAIN!

Mark, I guess Sees and I have our answer.

You have no intent to answer anything, because you cannot think of anything to say. it is much easier for you to insult those who question you, or say their questions are ridiculous, than answer them. I guess you'd rather not think, not put the brain in your head that seems to be very intelligent, to work.

It is much easier to dismiss everything as a Liberal's fault than to actually think, huh Noonan...

Hmmm....why do you insult your own intelligence like this. You are OBVIOUSLY much smarter than that.

Please don't sell yourself short by acting like a child and throwing your ball down and going home. Please, Please, Please THINK!

OK, I don't usually get into the comments here, but damn. It almost looks like you are trolling your own thread here, Mark! Did all Greenwald's groupthink sycophants get free tickets on the short bus to come here?

Are these goons actually serious with their "questions?" If so, kiddies, grow up. You're obviously not looking for understanding or debate, you're just acting like children.

Let's see, we've got it all covered:
1) "hate America"
2) Abu Ghraib
3) Gitmo
4) God is a "myth," the religious are stupid
5) Godwin's Law! w00t!
6) "I Am Right, Admit It!" demands
7) utter confusion about what conservatives believe

Yep. Future leftard commenters may save time and just list "argument" points as numbered.

Oh, I forgot. You guys haven't used this yet:

8) Chickenhawk!

Thanks for the entertainment, kiddies.

Look, you'll have to try much better than that...first off, you'll have to open your mind and quit looking at things so two-dimensionally.

That is exactly the problem you have, Noonan. As extramedium pointed out, you see the world in this comic book view--us good; them bad. No consideration that we might be wrong about something; no consideration that "they" might be right about something. If we're doing it, it must be right. If they're doing it and we oppose them, they must be wrong. This is why you must dodge even the most basic questions about America.

You've got an extremely rigid and small worldview that consists of god vs. satan and that's it. Everything must be hammered into that; in every issue, there are two and only two sides, god's and satan's, and it's just a matter of applying a label to each side, and you're done. As such, you're unable to see shades of grey in the world. You're unable to see beyond the tip of your own dogma--it's been proven on this website time and time again. You're unable to perceive any sort of middle ground. It's always pure, stark absolutes even when the absolutes don't work.

Of course, this is not how the world actually works. I'm well aware of that. You seem to think acknowledging that is "moral relativism" and therefore pure evil. I shouldn't have to ask questions like, "Do you think America has done no wrong?" because the obvious answer is yes, America has done wrong. But to you, admitting that fractures your static world where America represents all that is good and godly and therefore could not possibly have done wrong.

Concurrent with that, admitting that America is wrong somehow makes you a hater of America--again, nothing but absolutes. Either you think America is unassailably exalted, or you think it's the worst place on the planet. You leave no room for, "I think America is a great place that has some skeletons in the closet and continues to make mistakes, though they can be corrected." Which, incidentally, is a far more realistic view than the black & white one you put forth.

That you would prefer to project the flaws of your own worldview onto me and stick with your inpenetrable dogma rather than answer a simple question is rather revealing.

Robert,

The question is absurd...it is asking me if I believe America (or, in your formulation, conservatism) is perfect...sorry, but I don't answer absurd questions. Come up with something non-absurd, and we can go forward from there.

Sees,

The curious thing is that you are projecting your own worldview upon me...I defy you to find out where I have said it is all black and white and that we are 100% good and the enemy 100% bad. You want me to be a person who thinks like that because it allows you to dismiss my views without considering them at all - too bad, though, I'm not like that at all.

I defy you to find out where I have said it is all black and white and that we are 100% good and the enemy 100% bad.

From your original post:

As it is, I believe in the civilization I belong to - I believe, indeed, that it is a dispensation granted to mankind by a benevolent Providence. (Our civilization is god's chosen one..."we" are godly; "they," by definition, are not.) Our civilization is designed, especially in its American form, to liberate and advance all of our brothers and isisters who continue to labor under oppression, ignorance and poverty. It is this belief of mine which sustains me through the difficult day to day of the War on Terrorism - just because my civilization is excellent, it doesn;t mean that the barbarians don't have a trick or two up their slieeve, but knowing that my civilizations produced civilized soldiers while their produces nothing by murderous villians, I am encouraged. (We're good and honorable, they are "nothing but murderous villians.")

My worldview allows for America to be wrong about things and for other countries/civilizations--including ones we might attack, suppress, or slaughter--to be right about things. Yours, apparently, does not, and it further says that acknowledging America's shortcomings is tantamount to hating America, wanting to see it destroyed, and rooting for "the enemy." Which is why you still continue to duck an incredibly easy question and project your calcified worldview onto others.

Well Mark, My Lai should be tossed in the mix. And from all reports there was a lot more involved than underwear on the head. If we try to see the world through eyes other than our own we might realize in other cultures being forced to simulate homosexual activities might rank right up there with seeing your wife raped.

Are you going to censure dbog for his remark regarding my wife?

Noonan, YOU are being absurd, and childish.

Asking you to provide one example of how America is not perfect, how Conservativism is not perfect is VERY easy.

Mark, I can give you many examples of how America is great - so am I a "moonbat, communist, America-hater"?

However, I can ALSO give you examples of how America can be wrong.

What school did you go to, where you cannot see that there are ALWAYS two sides to an issue?

Why are so pitiful and childish enough to refuse to answer an EXTREMELY simple question?

The answer is this, to admit you doubt,it shows America is flawed, collapses your entire argument, you don't feel so superior anymore.

Mark, you make enough moral judgements about other cultures, you have no trouble insulting them, yet you refuse to answer an easy question about your own culture.

Mark, for a forty-something man, you are being a REALLY big BABY.

The question is NOT absurd - it is quite logical.

ANSWER IT!!!!!

If you do not, you are proving what an ass you are.

And to think, I even complimented you. I thought you were much more intelligent than this.

Mark, for your sake, I wish that I had been right. Not right about my own view, but right that I thought you were an intelligent man.

I guess you are not intelligent at all, but a brainwashed sheep. I give you one more chance.

PLEASE PROVE THAT YOU ARE THAT INTELLIGENT MAN IO THOUGHT YOU WERE. ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!

Give ONE example of something ( not the Left's fault) that is wrong with America!!!!

Mark,

You support the US in its fight in Iraq, and do so on the basis of your Catholic faith.
Apparently you feel that it is a moral obligation. So why isn't the Vatican part of the coalition? Why aren't they recruiting soldiers for us? If our fight with Iraq is so obviously an example of God's will, where's the pope? Why isn't he behind us?

Sees,

The highlighted areas don't mean what you wish them to mean...I think we've got a "Downing Street Memo" moment here.

Ricorun,

Where on earth could you get the idea that it is my Catholicism which compels me to support the liberation of Iraq? I do believe that it is the morally correct thing to do, but I am not the Judge of the World...and the Catholic Church, as an institution, has not ruled one way or the other vis a vis the liberation of Iraq; which means I must follow the dictates of my conscience as informed by my Catholic faith.

As for what is God's will - I don't know if war is every God's will. I just don't know - and I don't think we can know. All we can do is the best we can as God has given us the power to see the right. I pray that I am doing the right thing.

"and the Catholic Church, as an institution, has not ruled one way or the other vis a vis the liberation of Iraq; which means I must follow the dictates of my conscience as informed by my Catholic faith."

Mark, the Catholic Church was strongly against the invasion of Iraq. I don't know what "ruling" you want, but the pope and a multitude of church officials spoke out against the war citing the teachnigs of the church as the basis for their stance.

Come on Mark, answer the original question that Sees and I have asked.

It seems you are either refusing to post my comments or refusing to answer them when you do post, and continue to try to discredit Sees and I instead of a SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER.

Why, Mark?

Let me ask you, very nicely, since you did get my hackles up by acting like a child, WHY is it that you refuse to answer a simple question?

Give one example, without blaming Liberals alone, of something that is wrong in America, somthing that needs to be addressed and fixed.

If you cannot do that, without trying to always displace blame to Liberals, you do not have the courage to try to help make this country a better place, a great place.

See, I can say somethuing good about America - it IS a great place, it just has some flaws.

Why do you refuse to admit those flaws?

Just answer the question, PLEASE, I'm begging you. be the better man here. Because if you continue to play baby games, you are doing the EXACT same thing you accuse Liberals of and showing your true hypocrisy.

PLEASE, MARK, SHOW THAT YOU ARE BETTER THAN THAT -answer the question.

Again, one example of somthing troubling in America that is not something you try to blame on Liberals.

If you refuse to post this comment, you are only showing me that you would rather play games than admit you faults and America's faults. My question is why I can say good things, yet you still cannot answer the opposite? Why is that, mark?

"...and the Catholic Church, as an institution, has not ruled one way or the other vis a vis the liberation of Iraq..."

Ummm, whaaaaat?

"VATICAN CITY — Pope John Paul II and top Vatican officials are unleashing a barrage of condemnations of a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq, calling it immoral, risky and a 'crime against peace.'"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html

The highlighted areas don't mean what you wish them to mean

So somehow "their [civilization] produces nothing but murderous villains" means something other than claiming that their civilization produces nothing but murderous villains? Nothing but, by the way. The only thing they've ever made in their history as Muslims, Iraqis, or both is murderous villains. It's that black-and-white, according to you.

I quoted your words verbatim, Noonan. Are you still gonna try to dodge what you said now that you've been nailed for it?

Mark: "Where on earth could you get the idea that it is my Catholicism which compels me to support the liberation of Iraq?"

You're kidding, right? Either your argument is about as clear as mud or you're not being honest -- either with yourself, or with us, or perhaps both. You talk about Providence, about moral clarity, about Satan motivating the enemy, among other things. What is a person supposed to think? But I do thank you for absolving the RC church for your views and accepting personal responsibility for them. You are accepting personal responsibility for them, right? I think you are.

Mark again: "I do believe that it is the morally correct thing to do, but I am not the Judge of the World...and the Catholic Church, as an institution, has not ruled one way or the other vis a vis the liberation of Iraq."

Again... you're kidding, right? Pope John Paul II was one of the most prominent critics against the Iraq invasion. Surely you didn't miss that.

But I do appreciate you saying this, Mark: "As for what is God's will - I don't know if war is every God's will. I just don't know - and I don't think we can know. All we can do is the best we can as God has given us the power to see the right. I pray that I am doing the right thing."

Praying for enlightenment is good and just. But assuming you are enlightened by virtue of the fact that you pray, or by virtue of the fact that you have accepted Christ as your own personal savior, is not. Your decisions are ultimately your own. Not God's, not any other. I just hope that you make that distinction more clear in the future.

The Catholic Church is against abortion and gay marriage too....so Rico and Maf, are you going to follow the Catholic Church stance on those issues or just the ones that fit your agenda?

Clever Strawman, Warrior.

But who said anything about abortion & gay marriage?

Let's review. Mark said:

"...and the Catholic Church, as an institution, has not ruled one way or the other vis a vis the liberation of Iraq..."

Either he's lying, or he's misinformed. You tell me.

And no, I'm not going to "follow" the Catholic Church on anything, simply because it's the Church. Why would you blindly follow what another person/Institution tells you is "right," *just because* they are the ones telling you?

You have your own mind, Warrior - use it. And if Mark wants to say that, *in spite of* the Church's stance on the Iraq War, he still supports it, then fine.

But don't claim the Church hasn't taken a stand on the war when it most obviously has.

Ricorun and maf: I already called out Noonan for his contradiction of the Pope's anti-war stance here. Note how he unsurprisingly tries to finagle a way to have his cake and eat it, too.

Some things you take on faith Maf. That's what it's about and the church is there for guidance.

I just find it interesting that you are willing to hold on high the Catholic Church when it suits your needs, but of course when it doesn't (abortion and gay marriage) then it's ok to rip on the church.

Trying to have it both ways is typically a recipe for hypocrisy which you have covered quite neatly I might ad.

By the way, I didn't say the church didn't take a stand on the war. Pope John Paul II certainly did just as he has against other issues...many of which you obviously don't agree with.

"I just find it interesting that you are willing to hold on high the Catholic Church when it suits your needs, but of course when it doesn't (abortion and gay marriage) then it's ok to rip on the church." - Warrior

I'm not "holding on high" (whatever that means) the Catholic Church for anything, quite honestly. And what "needs" of mine is this suiting? I am not saying the War in Iraq is wrong *because* Pope JPII came out against it.

When I said ...

"But don't claim the Church hasn't taken a stand on the war when it most obviously has"

... I was simply pointing out *Mark's* being uninformed. If Mark disagrees with Pope JPII about Iraq, then fine. Follow the thread; you will see what/where I'm talking about.

By the way, I do support gay marriage ... but I am not in favor of abortion. Just to clear things up.

Are you in favor of outlawing abortion? That is the key question Maf.

I am in favor of outlawing it, yes.

I do think it's a very, very difficult decision for people to make - to have an abortion.

But nonetheless, I think adoption is always an excellent alternative.

As someone on this blog is fond of posting: why does somebody have to die?

And I agree.

Warrior said: "By the way, I didn't say the church didn't take a stand on the war. Pope John Paul II certainly did just as he has against other issues...many of which you obviously don't agree with."

Obviously you don't agree with some of the pope's decisions as well -- yet you equally obviously agree with others. And yet you accuse those that don't agree with you of hypocrisy. How interesting that is, don't you think?

Let me ask you... what's your definition of moral relativism?

Back to the top of the thread.

Is it the stance by Shelby Steele and Mark Noonan that we should bomb the hell out of Iraq?

If so, there goes another reason for this war (winning the hearts and minds to bring democracy to Iraq) along with the already debunked WMDs.

You may have heard the old saying, "it's not the money, it's the principle of the thing".
Whenever you hear it, you know the speaker means 'it's about the money".

Same with the Iraq War reasons: "it's not about the oil, it's about...".

Sees said: "I already called out Noonan for his contradiction of the Pope's anti-war stance here. Note how he unsurprisingly tries to finagle a way to have his cake and eat it, too."

You might want to alert Mark to Pope John XXIII's encyclical entitled, Pacem In Terris. There are other previous encyclicals pertaining to the notion of a "just war", but that's the one Pope John Paul II most specifically referred to in his opposition to the Iraq conflict.

Ricorun,

Have you actually looked at what is in it? It starts thusly:

Peace on Earth—which man throughout the ages has so longed for and sought after—can never be established, never guaranteed, except by the diligent observance of the divinely established order.

Do you realise what "diligent observance of the divinely established order" is?

This is Christianity, Ricorun - it does really mean something. When I say "my Lord", its not just a couple words, nor a mere term of respect - I mean that Jesus is MY LORD; he owns me entirely. I have no life - it is just Jesus living through me; heck, I only have existence because Jesus continually wills me into existence.

The divinely established order is that I am a creature - something created by my Creator and thus entirely dependent upon Him. The Fall was when mankind decided he wanted to live by himself and for himself - as if that which received life can have a claim to any of it.

Be careful what you wish for, Ricorun - a Christian Republic is a mighty uncomfortable thing when you are first confronted by it. It is a place where we all serve - a place where "my time" doesn't exist.

Sees,

And I answered your silly assertions like this:

You're not getting the difference - every utterance of the Holy Father is not binding upon all the faithful...some, however, are.

In the case of abortion - that is binding: it is in the Catechism, for instance. Now, if you can find me the Encyclical which stated that opposing the liberation of Iraq was obligatory upon Catholics, then you might have something...but there isn't such, because the Catholic Church issued no such thing.

The Church is always for peace because peace is the natural order of things ordained by God - but the Church also recognises that peace is broken at times, and then men of good will must fight on the side of right to complete victory.

Mark asked me: "Have you actually looked at what is in it? It starts thusly..." "Do you realise what "diligent observance of the divinely established order" is?"

Yes I read the treatise, Mark. And the "diligent observance of the divinely established order" is what the encyclical is about. Note particularly paragraphs 138 and 162.

And you really don't have to lecture me on Christianity, or Catholicism for that matter. I am a life-long, practicing Catholic. I went to Catholic school when it was available (grades 4 - 8), went to catechism classes when it wasn't, and I even went to a Jesuit university. I toyed for a while with the idea of becoming a priest. But I don't wear my religion on my sleeve. Like you said, we don't know God's will. He bestowed us with free will. Our decisions are our own. We must justify them on our own and bear full responsibility for them on our own. We accept Christ into our heart and pray to God for guidance and enlightenment, but we cannot assume that by doing so every thought we have, every action we take, is justified by virtue of our faith. We cannot know what God wants except in a very general sense. And that sense is reasonably well outlined in that encyclical.

I believe that our underlying motivations are the same, Mark, even though our approaches differ.

dbogdan - you suggest that I get "facts" and "educate" myself at a right-wing opinion blog???? Perhaps I should read some "fact" books from Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin for extra credit!

Ricorun,

All that Catholic education and it doesn't occur to you that we very well know precisely what God wants from us?

The dispute here, Ricorun, is very narrowly drawn - is liberating Iraq (ie, overthrowing a monstrous dictator) is accordance with, or opposition to, Catholic teaching? I think it in accordance with, JPII's views notwithstanding.

The reason I believe this is that while I am commanded by God to turn the other cheek when someone strikes me, I can't view God's injunction as a command to allow someone else to be struck repeatedly when I can prevent it. And keep that last bit in mind, as it is very important: WHEN I CAN PREVENT IT.

Having the ability and the cause to remove Saddam, we would have been failing in our duty to our bothers and sisters in Christ by not acting as we did.

I honor John Paul II exceedingly - he may very well been a Saint among us. But he was very old when he gave his opinion and he, perhaps, just had an old man's desire for peace and quiet for his last days. It is a common affliction of the old - it is, after all, the young who start wars...to attempt to us his personal opinion statement as a means to denigrate my Catholicism is a very wrong thing to do - it us unfair, unjust and uncharitible.

I make no apologies - I cannot stand aside while my brothers and sisters suffer, if there is any way I can bring relief. I cannot cure the world - in fact, no one can except Jesus - but I must do my bit to uproot what evil I can in the time I am granted.

Why you can't see this, I suspect I'll never understand.

Mark said: "Why you can't see this, I suspect I'll never understand."

I agree with you on that point: I suspect you never will. But I remind you that it's not just my point of view you can't understand, your views run contrary to JPII, contrary to John XXIII's encyclical, and contrary to the Catholic doctrine as to what constitutes a just war.

As for your other comments all I can do is repeat what I have said many other times (it's becoming a mantra, lol!): it's not enough just to do the right thing. The right thing has to be done right. And might does not ensure right.

I hate to bring this forum back to its original point, but I really want to comment that I found Steele's article to be one of those extremely rare watershed pieces: It actually altered the way I perceive history. In the long run, I think it (and the book it was condensed from) will have a profound effect. Steele has written an extraordinarily thought-provoking, powerful, and possibly brilliant piece.