Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Eric:
… apparently no one has killed enough people yet to achieve pure communism. …

You crack me up! Very pithy!

I’ve been arguing the same points about Iran. As you say, liberals consistently maintain either that the US is provoking Iran or that Iran is only acting in a provocatory manner because they are being bullied by Bush. The facts that Iran has been engaged in secretive weapons development for many years and that Iran has actively been funding and aiding terrorist organizations to destabilize the region doesn’t seem to affect liberal attitudes.

The lack of concern and empathy for Israel is also disturbing. One comment I read seemed to express the opinion that if Iran nuked Israel, THEN it would acceptable, morally and legally, to attack Iran. I was struck by the writer’s assumptions about the obliging nature of Israel. I have trouble picturing them standing there holding the big target just so that the US wouldn’t get a nasty letter from the UN about the nature of preemptive strikes.

The outcry from our fine allies in Europe would be deafening, after they put on fresh panties. The European leaders certainly recognize that this problem isn’t going to go away. Their current position on this issue is rather like the diners who stand shuffling their feet and making small talk while waiting for someone else to pick up the bill.

My theory is that they were banking on the US to manage this problem, either alone or through our proxy in the region, Israel. Either of those options would have kept the collateral damage to a minimum. Sharon’s retirement is an X factor. Surely, the Iranians have also noted that the dynamics of the situation have changed. In my opinion, it is no coincidence that Iran chose this time to take a public stand on nuclear enrichment.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 16, 2006 06:27 AM

I wonder how many libs have ever looked at a map of the middle east. You got Iran… with Iraq to her west and Afghanistan to its east… and US troops in both neighboring countries… coincidence?

The problem, I feel, is that the vast majority of (lefty) Americans cannot swallow the truth of the global reality… that bad people exist… bad people have power… and bad people want to do bad things.

There are two things a person (or nation) needs in order to be a threat to you: 1) the means to cause you harm 2) the desire to cause you harm. If they have the means but not the desire (Great Britian for example) they are not a threat. If they have the desire but not the means (Syria alone for example) they are just someone pounding sand in anger but they are not a threat.

If someone has the desire to hurt you and is working on accquiring the means, then it is just a matter of time… a countdown clock. As soon as they have the desire and the means, then what do you do? Sit back and wait?

I can’t understand how the libs think here. Do they honestly believe that we should wait for 911 Part 2 before we act? “Preemption” is illegal? If someone is pointing a gun a me and/or my family, I’m not going to wait to fight back until they pull the trigger. I’m going to make sure they can’t pull the trigger! Option one is usually some sort of negotiation, “Take my wallet but leave my family alone.” or a threat “You better kill me ‘cause I’ll hunt you to the ends of the earth.” Both intended to reduce the perpitrator’s desire to cause harm. Option 2 is an attempt to grab the gun, move out the way, protection… intended to reduce the perpitrator’s abilty, or means, to cause harm.

Take it to a macro scale and we get the Iran crisis.

One of the things that scares me the most is the fact that we HAVEN’T been hit again. I don’t think it’s because the no longer have the desire. I wish that were it. Indeed I believe that Pres. Bush’s reaction to 911 (Afghanistan AND Iraq) caught the Islamofacists by surprise. They had been working under the impression that America was a paper tiger and wouldn’t fight back… that 911 would break our spirit and cause us to cower. When the opposite happened, and when this President showed that he’d invaded one country after another, declared a global war on terror, and defined the Axis of Evil, Bin Laden in particular got nervous. They knocked down a few buildings and we invade to countries.

It is my belief that the global terror network is in a planning stage… they have to ensure this time though that American WON’T be able to retaliate. Which means some sort of bigger hit that completely incapacitates us.

That scares me to no end.

They have the desire. They’re working on the means. How much longer do we have to sit back and wait?

Posted by: Andrew at April 16, 2006 08:39 AM

I’m glad to see someone else make the connection between the two concepts of “Communism is alive and well” and “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

The funny part is that a whole lot of communists don’t even know they’re communists. The average man on the street couldn’t define “communism” with a dictionary. I’m amazed by how many people think Communism is a form of government.

Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, Dictatorship… those are forms of government.

Capitialism, Socialism, Communism… those are forms of ECONOMY.

And you are right… the only way to MAKE “true” Communism work is to quash basic human desires of self-improvement, gratification as well as the opposite human desires of laziness, procrastination, greed and jealously. If you can successfully eliminate all of those human traits, you can make Communism work. The only way to truly make those basic human traits go away is through fear… thus every single time a Communist Economy has been tried, it has resulted in a Dictatorship or Authoritarian form of government that attempts to control people’s desires through fear.

And even though every single Socialist and/or Communist economy on the face of the planet has caused massive financial downward spirals for the nation implementing it… people still want it. I guess they think that if we’re all equally poor, at least we’re equal. Misery loves company.

They view Capitalism as unfair because some people are rich while others are poor (nevermind that “rich” and “poor” are relative terms. “Rich” compared to whom? “Poor” compared to whom?) But capitalism capitalizes on the basic human desires mentioned about. If you want to work hard and get ahead, you can. If you don’t want to work hard, you don’t get ahead.

Sure Capitalism has its downsides… greed… Gordon Gecko… Enron… but it is Capitalism that has created the greatest national economy the world has ever known. Capitalism has created a nation where the “poor” have two TVs, a roof over their head, clothes on their back, and an automobile in the driveway. Other nations’ “poor” would love to be poor in our country. Capitalism has created a nation that give more money to other nations than all other nations combined. Capitalism has allowed more people to be millionaires in this country than all other countries combined (sans Dubai… but again, UAE is a very capitalist country.)

The ones who hate, and I mean HATE, Capitalism are the ones who feel like they’ve been left behind while others have gotten ahead. I believe that these people have not taken the action needed to thrive in a free market system and instead of looking at themselves and their decisions in life as the cause of their situation, they look for others to blame. Hence: “Tax the Rich”, Unions, Liberalism.

I may not be a millionaire, but that doesn’t mean I blame millionaires for my not being one. I understand that this country and this Capitalist Economy offers me the best chance of ever being a millionaire. But it is ME that has to go out and claim my stake. If I am content with my current level of income, then that is my decision. That is not the fault of someone else. That’s not the Man holding me down. Unfortunately too many people want to get rewards without the efforts.

Posted by: Tom at April 16, 2006 09:28 AM

There Eric goes again, redefining words to fit his argument. Socialism and Communism are different concepts with different meanings. The U.S. is not by any means communist, but, it has a very large socialist component to its system of governance.

Eric exercises the worn trick of equating the two to scare folks into untruths like, that socialist policy leads to communist government. Beware of those extremists on both the left and right who will redefine words, history, and reality to fit their own ends.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2006 10:03 AM

We can end the threat from Iran without nukes by doing surgical strikes on their nuke facilities with precision munitions. I believe this is long overdue. Israel won’t allow Iran to achieve the means to annihilate them.
That madman in Iran has promised to shoot us as soon as he can get his hands on a gun. We have the right to stop him before he pulls the trigger.
“Communism isn’t a philosophy one believes in, it is a conspiracy one joins”- Robert Welch

Posted by: traveller at April 16, 2006 10:18 AM

The only people who really believe in communism these days are on American and European university campuses. Planning systems - and all “pure” systems - such as communism and socialism appeal to intellectuals who don’t have make something work in the real world. It is very difficult to argue against these theories IN theory.

David

Before we get into it, I think our practical definitions of socialism are different from our theoretical ones. It is the direct government ownership and planning that gets people into trouble.

There are different spheres of communism and socialism. Marxism was always a stupid idea. Communism (the non-Marxist varieties) can work in small religious based communities, but nowhere else. Socialism is the most workable, but it is an idea whose time had come and gone. Socialism can work in a simple homogeneous society. It used to reasonably well is Scandinavia for that reason. They did not have to employ much coercion because of extremely strong social. But our societies have become too dynamic and too complex for government bureaucrats and politicians to understand, much less plan.

The free market has some aspects of socialism, but it is not “mixed”. The key to a market economy is reliance on market mechanisms. IF government owned all the shares of firms AND could manage NOT to interfere in their operations, you would have technical socialism without the screw ups. I don’t think that is possible, however.

Socialism, as practiced, requires monopoly and control. It can allow, create or own the monopoly, but once you have competition you cannot have a working socialism because you have a market economy and the government is no longer determines products, places, promotion or prices. The market does.

Eric

You have a good article, one of your best, but you are addressing two separate points. The first is about the unworkability of socialism and communism. I agree.

The second is how the Looney left hates America. This is nothing new. It hates the free market. Why? It goes back to my first point. In theory the free market doesn’t work. But more importantly, the free market doesn’t give a place of honor to intellectuals unless they can something practical. This makes the chattering classes very unhappy. That also explains the irony that socialism is more popular (in theory) among the rich and established than among the poor and achieving. The establishment intellectuals are the ones who like to make their trips to Cuba or Venezuela, where the governments pretend to respect them. Where they become, in the Marxist phrase you mention, useful idiots.

Posted by: Jack at April 16, 2006 10:52 AM

Striking Iran before Iran comes close to being an imminent threat will only repeat the mistakes of Iraq, hardening Iranians who oppose the President, against us instead of him.

It is unfathomable to me how so many can be so obsessed with potential enemies that they fail to observe what is in our own best interest. Such folks allow the potential enemies to dictate our knee jerk reactions and undermine our own position thereby.

The President is right to insist that Iran does not have the stable peaceful oriented government needed to allow it to obtain nuclear weapons. The President is right to state there will be enormous consequences for Iranians if they seek nuclear weapons. But it would be horribly damaging to our own nation to undertake stiking Iran on the basis of intentions. Any stike must be based on capacity, not intention, for intention is debatable and defensible, and Iran states it intends to acquire peaceful nuclear energy for domestic purposes.

When however, they are close to achieving the capacity for nuclear weapons, and their government officials are supporting hostile positions and rhetoric and intent, then a strike upon Iran shall be received by the rest of the world as justified and we will keep our allies and avoid making new enemies.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2006 11:01 AM

I support bombing Iran. Iran must not be allowed to possess the Bomb. I therefore believe attacking Iran now is better than later.

Posted by: Aldous at April 16, 2006 11:17 AM

Oh, what a wonderful try to inflame the masses by totally equating Communism with socialism…Communism is “a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power…” [sounds remarkably like the current U.S. government regime, doesn’t it!!] and Socialism is a “a system in which the means of producing an ddistributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community”….sounds like democracy as a form of government…of, by, and for the people!!

Sure looks like it’s the so-called cons, neocons, RINOs, and Republicans who fancy the former form of government and the Democrats who fancy the real democracy-form of government.

Posted by: Lynne at April 16, 2006 11:22 AM

Of course there is violence in Communism (which is not the only suggested route to socialism, but to a Marxist, its the only possible way), its a revolution. If you don’t have the people rise up and take back what is ostensibly their humanity, then they can’t become the route to a classless society.

Along with this, the Communist Revolution is a workers movement in an industrialized nation, the nations we have seen create communist governments are all third world and industrializing nations. This means that they have to go through the painful process of industrialization, which took a long time in the United States and England and other western nations, but which has to be accelerated in order for these nations to be able to function as a socialist state (in this case socialist meaning soley government ownership). They need the resources that an industrial economy creates, otherwise they won’t be able to redistribute wealth (since there is mostly food comming out of these agrarian states, they wind up only having enough resources to feed their people, and barely at that). This means a fast industrialization, something we have seen in both Russia and China. The process was quite impressive in both cases, but was also quite harmful to their population and their environment.

At this point a lot of people go, gee why are they industrializing and using capitalistic methods to do so, isn’t that implying that capitalism is necessary? Well, Marx would agree with that, he sees communism as the end point of social-political development, but all the other steps are necessary for you to reach a classless society, including capitalism. The problem with this capitalist stage (rapid industrialization) is that it is built on the work of the peasants who are agricultural workers. This exploitation would be going on under a capitalist system anyway, but its much more intense and rapid when the communists plan out their economy and complete the process quickly. If you had this revolution in the order Marx predicted, this wouldn’t have been an issue.

Now, if you want to pick fights over whether or not the moment of transition to the workers taking power results in a classless society, or if you need an absurd dictatorship of the people (which is not from marx), I’ll agree there isn’t much evidence to support the working class taking power and benevolently transitioning into a classless society where everyone takes as they need. Marx was an idealist and he was speaking normatively, and his points about capitalism were accurate. His view of the revolution was probably justified at the time, but things have changed now, and Keynes and other economists have developed means for government to intervene in a free market in order to save it from its eventual colapse (since sometimes a recession or a depression cannot be altered by the free hand of the market). As well, due to the American propensity to borrow money and have trade deficits, as a nation we live well above the standard we should, which prevents any sort of revolution here.

Marx was unrealistic, but so are a lot of philosophers, do you think anything Adam Smith foresaw in capitalism ever came to pass? He invisioned a sort of utopia where everyone was brilliant and educated and allowed to reach their full potential, and where people would tend to care for each other (something John Locke also proposed). Marx just took that to an extreme.

Imagine, someone saying we should love each other as family, and be willing to share our success with others. Someone suggesting that the poor and downtrodden are to be looked up to, because they are the ones civilization is built on. Someone saying that wealth is a false idol in and of itself, and that it hurts you morally. Someone who preached their revolution till their death, and whos ideas never resulted in the utopian kingdom they suggested, but whos followers continue to say, it just hasn’t happened yet. After all, you never know if the end of history is comming, since it could happen at any time.

Damn you Marx, you’re so uniquely idealistic, everyone else is so reasonable.

Posted by: iandanger at April 16, 2006 11:29 AM

Andrew stated that

The problem, I feel, is that the vast majority of (lefty) Americans cannot swallow the truth of the global reality… that bad people exist… bad people have power… and bad people want to do bad things.

I fear the problem is actually more spread out than that…the conservatives see every incident as a slight against themselves and their country…because they experience everything as “against” them, the overreact and provoke the very reaction that they fear!

Bad people exist, but good people exist also…and this is the main very root difference between the conservatives and the liberals…the conservatives at root see everyone as “bad” and needing constant pushing and guidance to do anything worthwhile…liberals see people as basically good. You can certainly see how these differences in root mindset lead to completely different world views…the truth is somewhere in between…there is not a bogeyman behind every tree, yet there isn’t a good person behind every tree, either…

I do have to wonder why the conservatives, who hold such power in the US currently, are so consistently frightened at every utterance or rant of a foreign government…everything seems to be take so personally…and that old “my country right or wrong” seems to rear its ugly head at the smallest slight…

Get over it…the US is playing on a world stage in which it’s not the only player and is an aging star…we have a global economy and we need to play nice in the world’s sandbox…

Posted by: Lynne at April 16, 2006 11:29 AM

Eric,

OK, you’ve got me, I hate America. I want the commies to take over. So I’m glad Bush is president. He is probably part of a Communist plot to make the American people lose faith in their government so we can take over. You may as well turn in your guns now, and get in line for toilet paper. Bwahahaha! ;)

Let’s leave aside Code Pink, an organization of no consequence, and look at the substance of the problem. What started this argument is that Sy Hersh reported that we have plans to attack Iran that include using nuclear weapons.

I don’t like Iran having nukes any more than anyone else, but this is, not to put to fine a point on it, totally f^&king nuts. There is no morally credible argument for using nukes against a country to prevent them from having nukes at a future date. If we were to do this, our standing in the world would drop to zero.

I do understand, in some sense, why nukes are “on the table”. Apparently the facilities are so far underground that only nukes could destroy them. But that does not make it an acceptable idea. We simply have to find another way out.

So stop beating on dead horse, and get to the point. What is an acceptable solution to the nuclear crisis? A hundred years from now, no one will remember who Medea Benjamin was. But they will remember how we handled this crisis, especially if our solution involves nuclear fallout.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 16, 2006 11:51 AM

Iandanger

You fell for one of the Marxist myths when you compared Adam Smith to Marx.

Smith described a system and gave a few suggestions. He did not lay out a system or a blueprint. “The Wealth of Nations” is an entertainng book. You could not say the same for “Kapital”. The free market does not have a blueprint. The free market adapts to conditions. Marxism tries to impose conditions.

Marxism fails for so many reason it would take a whole book and lots of time fill it in. Suffice to say what is good in Marx is not original and what is original is not good.

Marxism has been outstandingly good at getting people killed. It has been very good at oppressing large groups and it has been reasonably good a replicating itself. Other than that, its effects have been negative.

Posted by: Jack at April 16, 2006 11:55 AM

Eric
I went to the site code pink, and while perusing the site noticed this comment from a person from Spain ” There is a vast difference between enriching uranium to the grade required to fuel power stations and weapons grade, and that this difference is most apparent in both hardware required and the time necessary for enrichment…”
If this is the case perhaps a first strike is not yet called for. Whay say you?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 16, 2006 12:09 PM

Eric,

At what point should we be restocking the Civil Defence shelters?

Should I be drawing up the plans to dig a fallout shelter in my back yard, or do I have a little time?

Posted by: Rocky at April 16, 2006 12:27 PM

Eric,
You obviously don’t even understand that:

1. Socialism and communism are not the same thing.
2. Neither socialism nor communism is a form of government.

Your post has no credibility.

Jack,

Marxism has been outstandingly good at getting people killed.

Marxism is a form of economics. It was Lenin (Marx’s Karl Rove) who was responsible for the implementation of Marxism into a form of government.

All,
If you think the Bush League policy of pre-emption is a good thing, remember that the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor, the German invasion of Poland, the North Korean invasion of South Korea, and 9-11 were all examples pre-emptive attacks.

Posted by: ElliottBay at April 16, 2006 01:00 PM

Eric,

You got the Dems!!!

The Libbies want the nation to be communist. They don’t understand that when they suggest increasing welfare that’s directly going to lead to mass murder!!!

The “Pulitzer prize” won by Seymor Hersh is a mainstream media award and those awards are controlled by Dems! International law was written by Dems, and written to draw the U.S. into communism!!! We have no obligation to follow international law and in fact since it was written by Dems we should probably do the opposite of what it says whenever possible!!!

If our leader President Bush wants to nuke a country he should and he shouldn’t have to think twice. The Dems don’t want people to know it, but this man has never made a mistake. In fact, Jesus tells him what to do, so this is probably God’s will.

Please keep your eye on the Dems. They have some how gotten to all these retired Generals who used to be God loving Republicans and gotten them to come out and say Bush is crazy. It didn’t occur to me how until recently when my son asked me for a raise on his allowance and I almost said yes. I realized this was equal to the communist practice of giving people a living minimum wage and after whupping his butt good I am scanning my house for Dem thought control devices.

I assume you wearing the tinfoil hat I sent you to keep Dems from controlling your thoughts. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Max at April 16, 2006 01:18 PM

Someone said it best 230 years ago. Iran, Iraq, Al Qaeda, N. Korea, China et al. He understood freedom then as we need to understand freedom today! “…There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace— but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Posted by: JR at April 16, 2006 01:32 PM

In the real world, ‘pure’ communism doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist because attempting to achieve pure communism entails harsh repression, mass death, and genocide— and apparently no one has killed enough people yet to achieve pure communism.

You are wrong, ‘pure’ communism does exist, right here in the good ol’ USA. In fact they have a huge compound right here in my hometown. It’s called the Immaculate Heart of Mary and it’s run by the Catholic Church. The Nuns may be repressed, but I guess that is relative, but to my knowledge they didn’t kill anyone and there was no genocide.

What makes it work is that all the people who participate in it do it voluntarily. You would be correct in saying that ‘pure’ communism doesn’t exist by force. No form of government will work fully by force. Representitive Democracy works in the U.S. because our forefathers wanted it and fought for it. It will be interesting to see if forced Democracy in Iraq will work. My guess is it will go the way of forced communism.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 16, 2006 01:47 PM

Red baiting. It’s a term that came into being in the fifties.

While I suspect Eric wasn’t around then (I was just a tyke). He’s surely listened to Gramps tell him wonderful stories of that and other wonderful things about those dark and swarthy types who lurk in the shadows.

Why isn’t he advocating bombing Pakistan? Musariff isn’t elected. He’s just another lying Asian, who helped spread the nuclear threat. His intelligence service may be helping Iran now. God knows those Iranians couldn’t do it on their own. Let’s deal with them all simultaneously. Hell, if we just threw enough nukes at the world, all of our problems would be solved. Ah! I love the smell of victory in the morning.

Let’s all follow Eric and the Red Parade. Hey! Why ARE the Republicans the RED states? Almost fooled me there you commie pinkos. Get a rope. You Putin types really are tricky. Everyone knows that Democracy is too weak to deal with the Red Bastards. Thank God, Bush has the power to suspend the constitution and weed out those commie generals. Those homeless women and babies better just move on along. There ain’t no commie handouts here.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 16, 2006 02:05 PM

I admit that I really hate Marxism and I am not always rational in that hatred.

What I have real trouble understanding is how it gets a pass on so many things. Marxism is responsible for more deaths than Nazism or all of fascism. Yet you see posters of Marx, T shirts with Che (who wasn’t even very smart even for a Marxist) and people still read Marx sympathetically.

I think we should read Marx in the same way we read Mein Kampf, or maybe Herbert Spenser. It is historically important because lots of people believed it. It has moments of lucidity and some good sound bites and it did great damage, but we don’t believe it has actual merit.

Jayjay

You provide an example. You compare forced democracy with forced marxism. It is like comparing trying to force your kid to study math versus trying to make him smash his head on the concrete. Maybe democracy won’t take in Iraq. But it is a good thing. Marxism is never a good thing.

I know you said communism and not Marxism. The distinction is important, but politically Marxism = communism.

As for the communism among religous groups, they are held together by a non-materialist ideology (the opposite of Marx who believed ONLY in materialism) AND a severe hierarchy. Communism and democracy are incompatible, Marxist and the original variety.

Posted by: Jack at April 16, 2006 02:08 PM

What would the Libs and Cons do without each other to hate and deride so much?

They would probably have to make valid points and search for real solutions.

If you ask me, the greatest danger to America’s future is the way that Libs and Cons just can’t keep their hands off each other.

Perhaps if you guys were looking for more than to debase each other, you might realize that the differences are slighter than you percieve.

90% of posts or comments on this site digress into pro- or anti- party rhetoric. Due to this, many of the most important issues are sorely neglected.

Only about five of the people on these sites post comments that are actually worth reading. It’s a shame, really…

Posted by: Beijing Rob at April 16, 2006 02:12 PM

goodkingned,

My theory is that they were banking on the US to manage this problem, either alone or through our proxy in the region, Israel. Either of those options would have kept the collateral damage to a minimum. Sharon’s retirement is an X factor. Surely, the Iranians have also noted that the dynamics of the situation have changed. In my opinion, it is no coincidence that Iran chose this time to take a public stand on nuclear enrichment.

You’re exactly right. Amir Tahiri has a great article about this:

For the past several weeks Mr. Abbasi has been addressing crowds of Guard and Baseej Mustadafin (Mobilization of the Dispossessed) officers in Tehran with a simple theme: The U.S. does not have the stomach for a long conflict and will soon revert to its traditional policy of “running away,” leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed the whole of the Middle East, to be reshaped by Iran and its regional allies.

…According to this theory, President George W. Bush is an “aberration,” a leader out of sync with his nation’s character and no more than a brief nightmare for those who oppose the creation of an “American Middle East.” Messrs. Abbasi and Ahmadinejad have concluded that there will be no helicopter as long as George W. Bush is in the White House. But they believe that whoever succeeds him, Democrat or Republican, will revive the helicopter image to extricate the U.S. from a complex situation that few Americans appear to understand.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s defiant rhetoric is based on a strategy known in Middle Eastern capitals as “waiting Bush out.” “We are sure the U.S. will return to saner policies,” says Manuchehr Motakki, Iran’s new Foreign Minister. opinionjournal.com

This is going to be a long war. The problem is that half of us don’t want to believe it.

Posted by: esimonson at April 16, 2006 02:38 PM

Lynne,
You gave the same definition, worded differently, for communism and socialism.
They are essentially the same, little more than variations on the evil theme of collectivism.

Posted by: traveller at April 16, 2006 02:41 PM

Communism and Socialism are both totalitarian. The difference is the same as heads or tails when you flip the nickel.

Somebody explain the use of Socialist in Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

It probably would not hurt to explain Republics also. Strange choice of words.

Posted by: tomh at April 16, 2006 02:43 PM

Seriously, what irks me, Eric, is your labeling. I realize some of your B.S. is just for stirring the pot, but at times your statements just don’t match someone who I know to be as intelligent as you.

You labeled the New Yorker article as opinion. Sure it is. It’s analysis and context. I’m GLAD if there is debate going on about this. If Bush’s ultimate goal WAS regime change in Iran, then I would actually understand Iraq a little better. I have stated all along that Bush should have simply been more honest about the reason’s for invading Iraq. The problem he now faces is the erosion of political support even in the Republican party. Perhaps he is principled enough to withstand losing the House.

He is the aggressor here though. What differentiates him in the eyes of the middleeast and the rest of the world from Hitler and Tojo? They were just seeking natural resources to maintain and expand there hegemony, too.

Andy Jackson was a manifest destiny guy, and I presume you are too. Why would you treat the New Yorker article as something negative from the left? I’d expect you to be crowing about your heroic leader.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 16, 2006 02:51 PM

I thought this article from a conservative icon was interesting, and sheds a little light on the red-baiting that I find distastful. It isn’t about red-baiting as much as hysteria and revenge.

I was pleasantly surprised to read William F. Buckley going contrary to the right-wing drumbeat of nihilistic, revenge seething spew.

I miss Firing Line. William F. Buckley

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 16, 2006 03:17 PM

traveller, you obviously can’t quite get the difference…perhaps it’s too subtle for you???
Here’s what I said…now pay attention to the parts in bold print!

Communism is “a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power…” [sounds remarkably like the current U.S. government regime, doesn’t it!!] and Socialism is a “a system in which the means of producing an ddistributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community

What don’t you understand is that there is just a little (!) difference between a single authoritarian party holding power and political power that is exercises by the whole community…

I think our current regime in the U.S. is a good example of those differences…currently one authoritarian party holds power…Dennis Hastert won’t even let a Democratically-sponsored bill (even if it has enough Republican & Democratic votes combined to pass it!) come to the House floor for debate…if that’s not authoritarian, I don’t know what is…and it disenfranchises those who are represented by Democrats (49% of the voted in the last presidential election, by the way).

Our Constitution gives the right to vote to every citizen 18 and over (with some states rescinding that right even to felons who have served their time and have returned to the community as productive citizens)…government by, for, and of the people is a democracy…and that would be power exercised by the whole community (except that ours is a democratic republic, which pulls back from pure democracy…).

Posted by: Lynne at April 16, 2006 03:57 PM

David,

There Eric goes again, redefining words to fit his argument. Socialism and Communism are different concepts with different meanings. The U.S. is not by any means communist, but, it has a very large socialist component to its system of governance.

You keep asserting that socialism and communism are different concepts with different meanings, but you never actually define what these different meanings are.

David, not only have the terms Socialism and Communism been historically used by both socialists and communists to refer to the same thing, but in fact the concepts are identical. It is only in the way various factions of believers in socialism and communism assert (or admit) that they should be implemented that they differ.

Even a cursory look at the modern definitions of the two terms do not bear out your assertion.

Wikipedia:

Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Variations on a theme:

Communism refers to a conjectured future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production, and can be classified as a multivariant branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

So how is it that Socialism is altogether a different concept? Except for the fact that all those who still cling to the idea that both are great ideals to aspire to desparately want to distance themselves from the one major experiment that truly tried to implement it wholeheartedly?

Or perhaps you are referring to the definition of socialism as the half-hearted effort to achieve the partial goal of having some of the means of production owned collectively by the people…

But I am curious to know if you agree with the Green Party that the economic means of production should in fact be owned and controlled collectively by the people?

A Green society would seek to democratize economic relationships on a macro level and a micro level. Macro-empowerment means that society would make economic decisions democratically on local, state and national levels concerning what to produce. Micro-empowerment means that people would decide how to produce during their worklives, through democracy in the workgroup, enterprise and industrial levels.

Economic Democracy in Society

Macro-empowerment assumes that questions like “How many cars should we produce?” are too important to be left to the whims of the market. Whether auto production increases by 20% or decreases by 10% should not be based on which direction a corporate board of directors thinks would maximize profit. Though it might seem that power taken from corporate board rooms should be turned over to an elite of ecologically-minded do-gooders, experiences of the Soviet Union suggest that self-perpetuating cliques don’t do a great job of ruling. The democratic route is for society itself to vote on the direction for automobile production.

A Democratic Economy and a Democratic Worklife, Don Fitz, Green Party of St. Louis/Gateway Green Alliance

So is the Green Party Socialist? Or does it fall more under the definition of Communist?

Posted by: esimonson at April 16, 2006 04:01 PM

Eric-
I doubt most of the Democrat readers knew about Code Pink before you brought it to their attention. What does that say, that you’re more familiar with these people, than many of us, who you would call commies?

If we go by the consensus definition of communism, defined in terms of what each system was during the Cold War, the Liberal-Advocated system of today, even by those we call progressives would hardly be called communism. In fact, it would strongly resemble the New Deal/Great Society system under which we fought and won the cold war.

Real Communism, by contrast, is the radical redistribution of wealth, central control of economics, and nationalizing of all industries. I don’t see anything approaching that, even among the more leftward leaning Blue Column Regulars. Of course, it’s a nice provocative piece of rhetoric to use when your intent is to smear your opposition, but really, it’s more about what the far right considers communism, rather than what really deserves the label.

As for Iran?

I think Republicans like you, Eric, think about the willingness to wage war, without thinking about the means to wage it, and secure the peace thereafter. I think war is a glorious and moral measure to take in your eyes, but your other principles keep you from making the necessary sacrifices of comfort and economic prosperity that are necessary to win long involved wars, or to prevent them from becoming so. I think your notions of America’s military power are so abstract and so jingoistic that they hardly leave room for sober analysis of the means at our disposal.

Until you people can get it through your heads that we’re only human here, and that our military has limits, you will not know anything about when to apply military force, or how hard it should be applied. Your estimates will always be badly off, and your results equally so.

We Democrats want to win wars, not just fight them. We want to support our soldier’s ability to fight and win, not just prop up morale for political purposes. We want a military ready to fight our enemies, not one stretched to cover the fat political asses of those who don’t want to admit they sent us in too light.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2006 04:03 PM

Maybe before we (Americans) engage in jingoistic rhetoric and rally around sexed up intelligence, does anyone know of the 20th century history of Iran, nee Persia? Does anyone know why and who restored the Peacock Throne. Just maybe if allowed to run it’s natural course, Khomeini’s foot might never have gotten in the door, and we’d not be in this geopolitical quagmire. They are Persians not Arabs. That being said, maybe engaging the Russians and looking for a middle ground might assuage the situation: Manoeuvre. Say nothing of better controls over the black market. And if that fails, let the Israelis get their hands dirty: Lend Lease. But don’t think Iran just woke up over night and decided to hate American international policy and American foreign intrigue. There are no innocents, and at the end of day, don’t think bonnie light is not part of the calculus. Does it not beg the question, why can only the west – US decide who is suited to go nuclear. After all, are we not the only nation to use “the gadget” as an offensive-defensive weapon? Just maybe the Iranians have embraced that old axiom: Power is something you take. Is that not a page out of our play book; God knows it has kept us, you and me, safe and nation to be feared.

Posted by: Eisai at April 16, 2006 04:42 PM

“I support bombing Iran. Iran must not be allowed to possess the Bomb. I therefore believe attacking Iran now is better than later.

Posted by: Aldous at April 16, 2006 11:17 AM”

Wow! I can’t believe an admission like that came from you. That’s impressive! For once, you didn’t blame the repubs or the conservs for this situation; you just answered what you feel should be done. Nice going, Aldous!!

Now, if other bloggers could follow that lead, we might be able to have an actual debate for a change.

BTW, I totally concur with your statement.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 16, 2006 05:08 PM

Lynne,
When the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively, you have state planning and control of the economy. (it’s one of the definitions of the phrase) The political power exercised by the “whole community” quickly becomes a single authoritarian regime, as history shows. Your “subtle differences” exist only in the ivory towers of academia.(I debated them many times in college, from both sides) They quickly disappear when the real world gets a little dirt on them.
The current administration and congress are far from an authoritarian regime. They are the duly, democratically elected representatives the American people chose to conduct the business of the country AT THIS TIME. The people will choose whether that changes or remains the same in subsequent elections. The fact that the people who occupy those offices aren’t the ones you prefer doesn’t make them illegitimate.
If you will remove the partisan scales from your eyes and look at it objectively, you will see that the Republicans are acting very much like the Democrats did when they were the majority party. Indeed, they are a little less monolithic and authoritarian than the Dems.
FYI-So you don’t waste a rant, I’m neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I utterly detest both parties.

Posted by: traveller at April 16, 2006 06:06 PM

“Your “subtle differences” exist only in the ivory towers of academia”

African Bushmen… Australian Aborigenes - how do they fit into all this?

“The current administration and congress are far from an authoritarian regime. They are the duly, democratically elected representatives the American people chose to conduct the business of the country AT THIS TIME.”

Given the current control of those in power to redistrict in order to stay in power - how much of a democracy are we really?

Posted by: tony at April 16, 2006 06:37 PM

How much of a democracy are we?

Well, we are suppose to be a Republic. However, we have become a Republic by the wealthy and for the wealthy.

It takes money to get a message out. It takes money to run for congress or the presidency. It takes money to present, change, or fight legislation….IT TAKES MONEY….MONEY….MONEY

Posted by: Tom L at April 16, 2006 07:56 PM

Tony - the U.S. is a democracy. It is really silly when people make these kind of statements that they know to be false.

I don’t know if you are a Monty Python fan. If so, you are the guy saying, “She turnd me into a newt … I got better.”

Posted by: Jack at April 16, 2006 07:59 PM

Wow - so you just say it’s false, and it’s so? Re-read the question… HOW MUCH of a democracy are we? That means, how much control does the one person one vote really have today?

The electoral college has the final say on President… The House races have been set up by those in power to virtualkly guarantee the incumbent stays in power. So, it’s down to the Senate. How much of each election is controlled by money? How much by a few people in power who control large number of votes (chrurches, unions, national organizations, etc.)

So, instead of dismissing and argument as “silly” - try to actually think before you write.

Posted by: tony at April 16, 2006 08:15 PM

Jack,

Actually, Communism and Christianity have a lot in common.

Under Christianity, you work all your life for little or no reward. Then you die, and you wake up in heaven.

Under Communism, you work all your life for little or no reward. Then you die, and your grandchildren wake up in heaven.

Posted by: ElliottBay at April 16, 2006 08:15 PM

Jack - would you be the one saying that if the woman weighs the same as a goose, she’s a witch?

Posted by: tony at April 16, 2006 08:19 PM

Tony
If a woman weighs the same as a goose, there is certainly something odd about her.

Re democracy - It works well in America. I would fine tune the system from time to time, as we do. I don’t expect a perfect system, but we have a good one, and as far as I can tell one of the best in the history of the world, certainly one of the most stable and successful.

Elliot

The Communism analogy only works for the grandchildren after the fall of communism when they take up Christianity again.

We had the experience of three gerations of communism in the Soviet Union. The first generation starved. Their kids were oppressed and sometimes murdered. Their grandchildren got a bankrupt system run by ancient boozers. If that is heaven, I may pass on it.

Posted by: Jack at April 16, 2006 09:24 PM

Jack,
According to Article 4, Section 4 we are a republic. The writings of the founders also state that we are a republic. The pledge of allegiance doesn’t have the word democracy anywhere in it. It does, however, contain the word republic.

tony and Tom L,
We are closer to being an oligarchy or a corporatocracy than a democracy or a republic. This corresponds to the growth of socialism in America.

Posted by: traveller at April 16, 2006 09:35 PM

Jack,

The problem with what you are saying about Marxism getting people killed is that the people doing the killing were Stalin and Mao, not Marx. Marx died a poor old man never having killed anyone. Stalinist and Maoist tactics were based on a need to industrialize, they were exploiting workers, and were therefor part of the capitalism phase Marx desctibes.

The fact of the matter is, as much as Mao is blamed for millions of deaths, China was heading for a Malthusian catastrophe, if they had not industrialized at the rate they did, their farmlands would have become so overstretched that a major famine would be inevitable, and easily as many people would have died.

My point is this, you cannot base your claims about Marx on revolutions in developing nations, because they are not capable of becoming Communist until after they have an industrial workforce. Marx does not make exceptions for anyone, if your nation does not have a bourgeois or a proletariat population, you cannot have a communist revolution.

Lenin didn’t even think a communist country could industrialize, he believed that the russian revolution would be the prelude to revolutions across the world, with Communism becoming the world power. It was because there was no source of abundant production to syphon off of that these fledgling pseudo-communist states were so bad off.

The lack of an industrialized power attempting the levels of redistribution of wealth that Marx talks about makes judging Marxism in practice impossible, but what can be assure is that, as Hume believed, if you’re taking everythign from everyone and distributing it amongst them, there is no person you can trust to do that task.

Short of some sort of robotic cyberlord taking power and equitably handling redistribution of wealth, communism is not possible.

There is another problem with what you suggest though, and that is that all socialists follow Marx, which is patently untrue. There are many later philosophers, Tawney for example, that recomended a more mixed system, where the free market still existed, but there was a far different system of investment and inheritance and worker organization.

Marx was important because of his criticisms of capitalism, which were not all original. The fact of the matter remains that many of the working poor in those times were basically slaves to their bosses, something which doesn’t fit in with the Lockean dream either.

And how well has capitalism worked out in Russia?

Posted by: iandanger at April 16, 2006 10:03 PM

Jack,

What I have real trouble understanding is how it gets a pass on so many things. Marxism is responsible for more deaths than Nazism or all of fascism. Yet you see posters of Marx, T shirts with Che (who wasn’t even very smart even for a Marxist) and people still read Marx sympathetically.

Karl Marx has a mostly-undeserved bad reputation. For all the millions of deaths due to “Marxism”, not one of them was at the hands of, or based on the orders of, Karl Marx. He wasn’t a dictator or a despot — he was a philosopher. And, if you take the time to read some of his philosophy, you might find that you don’t disagree with it as much as you might suspect.

The problem is that his works, like those of many philosophers, were taken by politicians and twisted to their benefit. So, upon the idealistic works of Marx, the totalitarian regimes of Lenin and Stalin were built. But all of the blood that was shed by such people, and all the failed governments that were loosely based upon his work, should not damn the philosopher. His economic observations were fairly sound for his day, and there is still a great deal we could learn from them. Remember, though, that Soviet mass-murder and global oppression were NOT part of Marx’s philosophies. They were the works of mad-men who merely claimed to be fighting the great class struggle.

Does it really bother you so much that people “read Marx sympathetically”? If so, does it also bother you that people “read Jesus sympathetically”, after all of the blood that’s been shed in his name throughout history?

In other words, don’t blame the philosopher (or discount him) because of the actions of the lunatics that came after him.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at April 16, 2006 10:18 PM

Rob

I started to become an anti communist when one of my professors made me read Marx. What is good in Marx is not original and what is original is not good.

Okay, we cannot blame Marx directly. Maybe his ideas were misused. But you can’t judge anything by what it says it will do. You judge by its corruptions in the real world. Communism works very badly from that angle.

And much of Marx is just silly, and I am not talking about the details. The materialistic, dialectic misses the whole point of human existence. And the class theory only works until you try it outside the library.

His cool sayings, such as seeds of their own destruction, which I recall reading in Polybius or opium of the masses, which is some bishop etc are nothing particularly new.

So, I won’t blame Karl Marx the person for anything other than being dull and wrong. In that he certainly is not alone. (Unlike the other Marx brothers, old Karl had no sense of humor) but Marxism killed more people than any other ideology in the 20th Century and that was the bloodiest century in history. And for all that death and destuction, Marxism has few redeeming characteristics.

I am glad it is consigned to history. Not a moment too soon.

Posted by: Jack at April 16, 2006 10:50 PM

Rob

BTW unlike Karl, who maybe didn’t actually do anything himself, Che was actual a killer who did carry out some of what Karl implied. So we should at least take his face off the T shirts.

Posted by: Jack at April 16, 2006 10:56 PM

Class theory only works if you have truly aristocratic classes to begin with. That’s part of what I think made Marxism so attractive in Europe, Russia, and other places with decaying empires, monarchies and colonial possessions.

The big problem with it is how easily it lends itself to invasive governments with little built in restraint. Everythings about keeping a grievance satisfied, then keeping the revolution going, which inevitably corrupts it.

Capitalism, too, has its problems, which is why I’m much more interested in the Rule of Law, checks and balances, and all the other restraints and requirements the founding fathers put on our government. Capitalism by itself is no foundation for a economic system, much less for a political system. The thing about free-market capitalism, though, is that the market, once bound by a few rules, becomes as adaptable as the Democratic Republic it serves.

You see, we Americans can flirt with any number of systems of thought and cobble together our own overall strategy from a composite of it. Our system helps to keep small minorities from hijacking the government, most of the time, and gives them a big load of trouble if they try that. Ultimately America is defined by all the systems of thought that are taught and held forth, and yet none of them.

I think the trouble is, the Republicans don’t realize how stuffy and threatening real communism is to people. Even those liberal moviemakers in Hollywood liked making movies where the Soviets played villains and cannon-fodder. Hell, when the cold war ended, they simply invented reasons to keepon using the Russkies! Americans, especially liberals like me love the market economy. We like the cars and the big flashy movies and the big homes and everything. We’re a nation that is mostly middle class. The Republican worry for nothing, and in the meantime work towards systems that would erode this bulwark against economic radicalism. That’s the big irony I think. The Republicans have done a much better job of inspiring class warfare than the system would naturally tend to do itself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2006 11:33 PM

Not for those with weak stomachs or those who believe in “political correct”.
That’s the trouble with this country right now! The closet communists (aka liberals, progressives, democrits, et.al.)are trying their best to divide the people on a bunch of non-issues, outright lies, deception, mass propaganda, blame shifting and other communist strategies to befudle the people about their true motive, totalitarian government. “Politically correct” is a blatent insult to the First Amendment. Why aren’t the paper writers complaining about that? Because, just like democrits of the past, they sympathize with their commie brethren!
Liberals have been on the wrong side of the fence. It was they who wanted to cave in to Soviet demands about reducing OUR nuclear missiles, to give the communists Granada, Nicaragua, Afganistan, Vietnam, China, Poland, Eastern Europe, etc. Liberals don’t believe in TRUTH! They deny there are absolute truths, they twist things to conform to their views
The first thing they MUST do to succeed in making America a communist state is take our guns. Boy, are they in for a surprize! They want to change the way American history is taught in schools. If you don’t believe that, then just check your kids history books.
And are the above letters trying to make Marx look like a martyr? or Lenin? Stalin? Mao? Marx set the tone for them to sing to. What a tragic thing it is for Americans to glorify communism. Oh, I forgot. They’re closet communists!!!
The liberals are a bunch of degenerate perverts. That’s why they promote queers, child molesters, and other deviant behavior. They want your kids taught from kindergarten that “it’s alright to be gay”. It’s not. They want you to believe child molesters should be released from prisons to receive “treatment” for their “disorder”. My treatment for them is .45 cal. to the head or, better yet, a public hanging. The crowd would be thrilled!
Don’t Boo-Hoo to me about what I have said. Unlike anything a liberal might say, I speak the truth. America better wake up to the fact that you might be voting for a closet-communist if you vote democrit.

Posted by: B.Franklin at April 16, 2006 11:33 PM

My dear friends, no form of a pure gov’t exists in reality, except in very small, closely knitted societies. Although it is true that there is no “true communism” in the world, there are also no “true democracies”.
In a true democracy, every human who is a citizen of the country should be able to vote for any issue that the gov’t faces, which includes electing the government officials.
No form of “pure” or “true” governments exist in the modern world exists, whether it be communism China, where capitalsm has formed a huge middle class, or the democratic U.S. where the electoral college has the final say in who is president and senators vote on pressing issues.

Posted by: greenstuff at April 16, 2006 11:37 PM

B. Franklin, thank you for reminding me how the good and noble ideals of the Republican Party often get so corrupted by vile contempt, intolerance, and hate. Their ideology attracts extremists from the fascist authoritarian right, much as Democratic ideology attracts extremists from the communist and socialist left. These extremists however influential as a tug on their respective parties, do not represent the mainstream thinking or passion of the majority of these parties, thank Buddha.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 17, 2006 12:21 AM

Franklin,

What you wrote was obviously the result of a large dosage of pcp, so ill try and disect it gradually.

“The closet communists (aka liberals, progressives, democrits, et.al.)”

Democrat is of course spelled as such, and you repeat that misspelling a few times. nothing erodes a persons ability to take you seriously than spelling things wrong on purpose, even if it is because you can kind of make it sound like another word.

As well, your blanket idea that all liberals, democrats and progressives are communist is completely eroneous. for the first place, democrats prosper from the current system of government, they get money power and respect, which is what everyone seems to want, so they have no agenda besides personal interest. Despite what you are saying here, there is no worldwide communist conspiracy meeting in dark smoke filled rooms planning assasinations and political campaigns. The republicans and democrats are both fat and comfortable, neither side has any subversive agenda. This cannot wholly be said about all of those who are behind them, for example there are actually communists out there, but they tend not to vote, or participate in politics, or do anything except complain, in my experience. The people who you are talking about are trying to help resolve the problems in our country, the same way the republicans are, and in the mainstream, there are virtually no useful ideas, both sides are pretty much in an echo chamber.

“Politically correct” is a blatent insult to the First Amendment. Why aren’t the paper writers complaining about that? Because, just like democrits of the past, they sympathize with their commie brethren!”
Im against all forms of censorship, and generally against any government involvement in free expression. Im a liberal. Hell, you know what America is? America is a Liberal Democracy. Communists are their own sect, with their own set of beliefs, this isn’t a sliding scale between left and right. The sliding scale idea breaks down completely if you look at it close, because the absolute most liberal government is anarchy, but next on the later is totalitarian communism. the right goes from a confedracy to outright totalitarian fascism. Economic systems and political systems are separate, and different groups support different ideas of how things function, and thats how we get parties. Unfortunately at the moment, we have two parties who can’t get their heads out of each others butts, and we wind up with the same old same old on both sides.

“Liberals have been on the wrong side of the fence. It was they who wanted to cave in to Soviet demands about reducing OUR nuclear missiles, to give the communists Granada, Nicaragua, Afganistan, Vietnam, China, Poland, Eastern Europe, etc.”
And who is to say it is our right to stop a popular uprising in vietnam or china. Poland and Eastern Europe are a different story, but building weapons which are a crime against humanity to use isn’t exactly the route to resolving these issues. If you understand the situation in Vietnam so well, why exactly did the people of Vietnam stay behind Ho Chi Mihn so long, despite the obvious damage the war was doing to their country? The reason is because Ho Chi Mihn promised to take the land back from the gentry class who had abused the vietnamese people into abject poverty and starvation. We backed a government that refused to give the people human rights, we backed the totalitarian murderers over the vietcong, simply because we believed there was some sort of global network of communist nations seeking to topple the entire world. The comniterm had ended by this time, Stalin created communism in one country as a concept, and we were merely being paranoid. If we wanted to win the Vietnam war, we should have given the people rights and liberty and then let them vote, instead of supporting oppression over communist oppression. The domino theory was just plain wrong. Look at the contras. Mr Regan, whom id assume you admire, paid them to kill innocent people until the stopped voting for the left leaning candidates in elections. That doesn’t sound like the moral way to defeat something you find to be so immoral.

Oh, and where are you getting the idea that liberals dont believe in absolute truth? step up and explain that please.

“The first thing they MUST do to succeed in making America a communist state is take our guns. Boy, are they in for a surprize! They want to change the way American history is taught in schools. If you don’t believe that, then just check your kids history books.”

What scares me more than the government taking away my guns is the government watching what I do all the time, the government watching me on security cameras, following my behavior on the internet, keeping track of my movements with a universal id system, gathering as much information about everyone as possible in order to profile us. I don’t trust the government, but I also happen to think our government is too fat and slow to be dangerous at the moment. All we need is one person to change things though, one leader, and suddenly these security measures become more and more strict while we get less and less free. Absolute freedom of expression is necessary because free expression of ideas leads to innovation. Anyone who tells you you have to give up liberties for any reason is in a state of war with you, because liberties are not something you posses, they are innate within you when you are born, anyone trying to take them might as well be trying to take your life, and it is your right to respond in kind.

Now, the history issue. I’m a history major, so I’ve read a lot of history and I must say, you’re completely wrong about this. All history textbooks ive read from highschools are whigish and poorly written. They reinforce cultural myths more than they give you accurate information. The fact of the matter is that the United States has a very violent and unpleasant history, and I’m sorry if you refuse to acknowledge this, but the point is that we have fought long and hard to become what we are now, and many people have sacrificed. Individuals, like President Regan (or if you believe his story, Oliver North acting alone) do things which are disgraceful, like selling weapons to Iran and then using the money to fund mass murders, and we have to acknowledge this or we are ignoring mistakes. History is full of lessons, by rewritting it as a propoganda tool, youre not doing anything more than imposing a false view on your children. How is that any different from political correctness. And if you think that my people (Cherokee Indians) and others didn’t have any place being in America, and that settlers had the right to murder them and break treaties, then you don’t truly believe in any of the values you claim to espouse and we are at an impass.

“And are the above letters trying to make Marx look like a martyr? or Lenin? Stalin? Mao? Marx set the tone for them to sing to. What a tragic thing it is for Americans to glorify communism. Oh, I forgot. They’re closet communists!!!”

I certainly am not a closet anything, I wear my political beliefs on my sleave, I am a utilitarian, I don’t believe in any objective morality, its all nonsense people use to try and make their argument sound better. Either defend your point based on its absolute utility, or the discussion is not really going to be resolved. If someone can demonstrate to me a way that a system could work in actual application, then I’ll certainly consider it, which is much more than I can say about idealogues on any side of the political spectrum. Read Hume, Bentham, and Mills and you’ll understand my political views. I do however wish to defend philosophy, because simply decrying any philosopher as a murderer etc is a way of disrupting the marketplace of ideas which we all so readily participate in. I don’t know the political leanings of individuals here, per se, but I doubt you’ll find many communists, as I said, most communists youll find lingering in coffee houses and yelling loudly about something or other which they will never do anything about. communists do not have a global network where theyre after your guns, theyre too busy trying to score some pot and get high before their parents want them home.

“The liberals are a bunch of degenerate perverts. That’s why they promote queers, child molesters, and other deviant behavior. They want your kids taught from kindergarten that “it’s alright to be gay”. It’s not.”

Your point lacks even any sort of moral underpinning, could I not also say: people want to eat meat, they say its okay, its not, its murder and those animals have as much right to live as any human.

There is actually more moral sentiment in my statement than yours, because I at least justified my belief somewhat. I don’t actually think there should be any laws against eating meat, but I believe that meat is no different from murder. What makes your morality more important than mine? the fact that you have a gun? If someone wants to have sex with someone else, the government can step in and say no? but when the government wants to take your gun you get worried? Theres a double standard there, and if you don’t see it, wait till a few more of the drugs youre on wear off.

“They want you to believe child molesters should be released from prisons to receive “treatment” for their “disorder”. My treatment for them is .45 cal. to the head or, better yet, a public hanging. The crowd would be thrilled!”

And public executions seperate us from China how? There is of course a lot more to this situation, since you would have to deal with whether or not there was clear evidence of the crime being commited. If you go with vigilante justice, I could get rid of anyone I wanted by saying they were a pedophile. You have to have rule of law for a nation to function, and that means following the law. I have never heard of anyone on any side of the political spectrum advocating for compassion toward child molesters. This is an eroneous example, unless you can provide me with some evidence.

“Don’t Boo-Hoo to me about what I have said. Unlike anything a liberal might say, I speak the truth.”

I think my response has been fairly comprehensive. Your paranoia is probably healthy, as some people do wind up with a lot of enemies, but you really can’t expect other people to take you seriously if you are going to blindly rail like this.

You have to be reasonable when having this sort of discussion, or you come off looking crazy.

Posted by: iandanger at April 17, 2006 12:32 AM

David, (I posted this earlier today but it evidently didn’t actually post.)

There Eric goes again, redefining words to fit his argument. Socialism and Communism are different concepts with different meanings. The U.S. is not by any means communist, but, it has a very large socialist component to its system of governance.

You keep asserting that socialism and communism are different concepts with different meanings, but you never actually define what these different meanings are.

David, not only have the terms Socialism and Communism been historically used by both socialists and communists to refer to the same thing, but in fact the concepts are identical. It is only in the way various factions of believers in socialism and communism assert that they should be implemented that they differ.

Even a cursory look at the modern definitions of the two terms do not bear out your assertion.

Wikipedia:

Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Variations on a theme:

Communism refers to a conjectured future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production, and can be classified as a multivariant branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

So how is it that Socialism is altogether a different concept? Except for the fact that all those who still cling to the idea that both are great ideals to aspire to desparately want to distance themselves from the one major experiment that truly tried to implement it wholeheartedly?

Or perhaps you are referring to the definition of socialism as the half-hearted effort to achieve the partial goal of having some of the means of production owned collectively by the people…

But I am curious to know if you agree with the Green Party that the economic means of production should in fact be owned and controlled collectively by the people?

A Green society would seek to democratize economic relationships on a macro level and a micro level. Macro-empowerment means that society would make economic decisions democratically on local, state and national levels concerning what to produce. Micro-empowerment means that people would decide how to produce during their worklives, through democracy in the workgroup, enterprise and industrial levels.

Economic Democracy in Society

Macro-empowerment assumes that questions like “How many cars should we produce?” are too important to be left to the whims of the market. Whether auto production increases by 20% or decreases by 10% should not be based on which direction a corporate board of directors thinks would maximize profit. Though it might seem that power taken from corporate board rooms should be turned over to an elite of ecologically-minded do-gooders, experiences of the Soviet Union suggest that self-perpetuating cliques don’t do a great job of ruling. The democratic route is for society itself to vote on the direction for automobile production.

A Democratic Economy and a Democratic Worklife, Don Fitz, Green Party of St. Louis/Gateway Green Alliance

So is the Green Party Socialist? Or does it fall more under the definition of Communist?

Posted by: esimonson at April 17, 2006 02:29 AM

Iandanger,
I admit I ain’t very bright, but even I got the point that the turn of phrase “democrit” was not a misspelling. Which are you a democrat or a hypocrite? I think maybe both.

Posted by: bobc at April 17, 2006 08:28 AM

bobc,

and what exactly did I say on the matter:

“Democrat is of course spelled as such, and you repeat that misspelling a few times. nothing erodes a persons ability to take you seriously than spelling things wrong on purpose, even if it is because you can kind of make it sound like another word.”

my point is that, I’m aware of his misspelling being on purpose, and why he did it, but the usage is no different from the irritating liberals who constantly talk about bush being hitler. That sort of approach to language is a means to cheapen debate to a point where your argument no longer stands on its own merits. I was quite clear that i knew his misspelling to be purposeful, but it was repeated so many times i thought it necessary to make coment on. i dont not begrudge people normal spelling errors, since this is a comment box not a word processor.

Oh, and everyone is a hypocrite, thats why everyone dislikes hypocrites so much. And ive never been a democrat, probably never will be, unless it suits my political purposes (politics makes strange bedfellows, and in some parts of maryland the only way to get elected is to be a democrat.

Posted by: iandanger at April 17, 2006 09:34 AM

Jack,

Okay, we cannot blame Marx directly. Maybe his ideas were misused. But you can’t judge anything by what it says it will do. You judge by its corruptions in the real world. Communism works very badly from that angle.

You can replace Marx/Communism in that statement with Jesus/Christianity, and it would still be true. But neither Marx nor Jesus were advocates of mass murder. Others who claimed to be operating in their names committed horrible atrocities. Neither philosophy, when applied in the Real World, could withstand the brunt of human greed.

But, to echo the words of JayJay Snowman above, Communism does work VERY well in certain applications. Monasteries and nunneries manage to maintain peaceful (if somewhat limited) societies based upon Communist principles.

My marriage is another example of a successful Communist relationship. My wife and I each contribute according to our ability, and withdraw according to our need.

In both cases, Communism works for one reason — because everyone involved has bought into it. But all it takes is enough greedy people to tip the scales, and the whole thing falls apart. We’ve all seen it happen in families — the son who lives at home well into his 30s, unwilling to work, living off his parents. When enough people lose sight of what’s best for the whole, and instead greedily focus on what’s best for themselves, the relationship falls apart. The communal trust has forever been betrayed.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is the philosophy that we shouldn’t trust each other. If we all act like vultures, and greedily take whatever we can get, we’ll never have to worry about trust being exploited by the lazy — because trust won’t exist. Of course, it looks horrible on paper, but when faced with the realities of the human condition — untrustworthiness and greed — it fares better than more idealistic options. Instead of trying to combat the evils of humanity, Capitalism harnesses them to power the engine of commerce.

The harsh reality is that, as soon as you establish any system, people look for ways to exploit it. So the best system we have found is one that assumes that everyone will attempt to exploit it, and instead punishes those who don’t.

It’s no wonder people still dream of a Marxian society. Such a society wouldn’t work, but it’s much harder to sleep at night while dreaming of looting the corpses of the fallen. Dreaming of a society where everyone helps one another is a little more comforting, even if it’s unrealistic.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at April 17, 2006 09:39 AM

Rob

Marxism is not a dream; it is a nightmare.

The free market is NOT based on mistrust. ON the contrary, you have to have reasonable trust that people will carry out their obligations, that your investments will be secure, that the rule of law will not allow government to confiscate your property and that no radical changes in regulations will make your efforts worthless.

What the free market recognizes is that people are not angels. Many people will cut corners. For that we have the rule of law when it is egregious and the market for everything else. I recently stopped buying coffee at a local restarant because they have been putting milk into the half and half container. That sort of minor breach of trust does not rise to the rule of law, but the market can deal with it.

Marxism is flawed at the creation. It describes a world that never existed and a history that didn’t happen. Based on that, it makes predictions and prescriptions for the future. You know, if the diagnosis is wrong, the prescription cannot be right, except by the action of random chance. Sometimes Marx made a correct observation based on that - chance - but his record no better than you would expect from random chance.

You cannot compare Marx with Christianity. Christianity is a religion. It speaks of a higher morality, something beyond the material world. You can believe it or not, but Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. Marx says nothing else but this world. To a Marxist, there is NOTHING beyond material and economic relationships. What you see in Marxism is what you get. There is no transcendence. And what I have seen of Marxism is something I don’t want.

The best thing you can say about someone who still supports Marx in the face of all the evidence is that he is someone who values hope over experience. But hope for what? Violent revolution?

If you want to live as a communist in our free market society, you have that option. Get some of your friends together and buy some land in N. Georgia. I hear they are selling old timber land cheap. Have fun with that. We won’t stop you.

Posted by: Jack at April 17, 2006 10:18 AM

Rob

As I think about it a little more, I think you can put it this way.

The free market can encompass communism. People are free to set up whatever arrangments they want with each other. If everyone in town wanted to live as communists, they can. It is not illegal. We don’t don’t allow them to coerce others into their club.

BTW - you forgot people like Moonies and Krisna and others like that who evidently practice forms of communism. Or maybe Jim Jones and the People’s Temple.

Posted by: Jack at April 17, 2006 10:28 AM

B. Franklin-
It’s ironic that you take on the name of a patriot noted for his rather liberal attitudes. A scientific experimenter, an occasional nudist, a reputed lady’s man, and a deist to boot!

I think what you’re giving us here are views of liberals that have been allowed to stew in their own juices by themselves for far too long, unseasoned by any practical or personal experience of what Liberals really believe, ignorant of where our true loyalties lie.

The trouble is that you folks are far too tetchy about your rights. We try and regulate gun ownership, and you act like we’re busting down the door and confiscating it. We try and regulate industry, and you act like we’re doing central planning in the Soviet. We try and adjust taxation to fit what we’re spending, and you folks carry on about being overtaxed (evidently you don’t know how bad it is in Europe).

The Republican Party, right now, is being run by a bunch of people who really have no idea of how outside the mainstream they are. Your punishment for child molesters, for example, would look nice when we tried to talk to Saudi Arabia about hacking people’s heads of, or China about capping folks in the back of the head and charging their families for the bullet. Give them twenty years, ban them from ever getting near children again. But let’s not explore our own darkside for the sake of destroying theirs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 17, 2006 01:48 PM

“Maybe before we (Americans) engage in jingoistic rhetoric and rally around sexed up intelligence, does anyone know of the 20th century history of Iran, nee Persia?”

So, the Iranian President saying “Israel will be wiped off the map w/ a great wind”, just days after he defied the world when they enriched uranium, is “sexed up intelligence”? How about you stop blaming America and take it out on the Iranians. What’s you solution for Iran?!

Eric was right. Code pink spent more time blaming what Bush might do, then what the enemy is (actually) doing right now. Ridiculous.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 17, 2006 02:17 PM

Jack,

The free market can encompass communism. People are free to set up whatever arrangments they want with each other. If everyone in town wanted to live as communists, they can.

This is exactly why I advocate more social programs at state and local levels, and fewer programs at the federal level. Socialism (or varying degrees thereof) can exist as a microcosm within a Free Market, but not the other way around. When these programs are handled at local levels, we get the chance to see something that is unfortunately all-too-rare — competition between the public and private sectors. That’s where consumers/voters/citizens truly benefit.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at April 17, 2006 03:03 PM

hey left your posts seem to always take on a anti repubilican and anti conservative theme. you even go to the extreme of calling the founders liberal. ive seen a lot of ideas from jack and other conservatives on this blog also from the middle too then i watch them get picked apart by the liberals but i never hear any new ideas from the left just a lot of wineing and nit picking i think america also listens and it puts them off i think your party needs to get a new theme going the meat and potatoes in this country are busting there butts everyday then they have to hear how bad they are and how greedy they are and how dumb they are it gets old. thats where the votes are if you guys want your party to win dont be so hostile to the middle class. when bill clinton took the middle ground he won big . now you can attack me!

Posted by: steve at April 17, 2006 03:47 PM

Dear Code Pink,

In the event of a Communist or Islamist totalitarian take-over of whatever government you happen to live under, and relentlessly bitch about, you will be among the first to be lined up and shot. Enjoy your new friends, as they will surely enjoy you.

Love,
VRWC

Posted by: David C. at April 17, 2006 03:52 PM

Rob Cottrell,

Read the book “An Enemy Hath Done This” by Ezra Taft Benson. Tell me what you think.

Posted by: Tyler at April 17, 2006 03:54 PM

steve-
Getting a martyr’s complex on this site is like complaining about being wet when you’re in a watergun fight. Being analyzed, critiqued, and interrogated is par for the course on this site.

If you think we’re short on ideas, you haven’t been reading us. Not all of them are new, but since you’re a conservative, I’m sure you understand that not all new ideas are good ones, and vice versa.

Rahdigly-
If we went by your logic, we would have attacked Iran many times. Death to America has long been a favorite chant in the region. The real question, I think, is how deep does Ahmadinejad’s support go. Does his support go all the way to the grassroots, or is he merely on top because he’s the useful stooge of the mullahs. It’s an important question, as it effects what is and is not an effective approach to dealing with him.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 17, 2006 05:03 PM

Rob

You can do anything you can get people to agree to do on the local level. As long as we don’t have the army and navy to enforce it and people can reasonably vote with their feet.

The problem you have with local initiatives is that people do vote with their feet. Impose rent control, and nobody fixes us the buildings or builds new ones. Impose a “livable wage” and nobody moves a business in. Then we start getting calls to force others take part and that is the road to serfdom and oppression.

Many of those who leave, BTW, will be liberals. The Germans have a good saying, “talk left; live right.” Most liberal celebrities know that well.

My birth city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin had socialist majors until the middle of the 20th century. They build a nice park system and maintained the sewers really well. They didn’t try to impose a new social order and things worked out all right, until socialism generally got to be too far behind the times. We did name a freeway bridge after one of them, however.

Posted by: Jack at April 17, 2006 05:21 PM

In the real world, ‘pure’ communism doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist because attempting to achieve pure communism entails harsh repression, mass death, and genocide—

Actually, it needn’t - but there is one problem: Human Nature.

The difficulty lies with the so-called “Caretaker Government,” which is supposed to wither and die of its own accord after a structured period of time - classically, 5 Years.

Of course, it never does…

The “caretakers,” generally appointed from those who already wield some form of Power before the Revolution, simply hang on to their New Power, making of themselves oligarchs to replace the old oligarchs. The same thing was seen of some Nobles after the French Revolution: by correctly identifying the Winning Side before the war, they ended up with just as much power as they had before it.

Meet the New Boss: same as the Old Boss…

It is a fantasy to believe in the viability of an idyllic Marxist State so long as humankind possesses the flaws of Greed, Powerlust, Envy, and Cruelty.

It is also true, as Lynne wrote, that Communism (even if considered only as the Written Ideal) does not equate to Socialism - and, most especially, not to Modern Socialism as it operates (quite successfully) today.

The fact that some Evil Old Men in some Big Bad Countries called what they wrought “Communism” or “Socialism” does not make it so!!!

I can take a Sow’s Ear and call it a Purse Of Gold - and if fools want to denigrate Purses Of Gold for the next hundred years the onus of error is on them, not me!

Modern Socialism can be (and is, in many nations) quite Democratic, and allows for a market economy with plenty of Competition and Free Trade. What it does not allow is Abuse, Neglect, or Contempt against the consumer by commerce and industry. It regulates them, ensuring that there will be a minimum of Price Fixing, Price Gouging, Pollution, Dangerous or Ineffective goods - and that there will be a maximum of Responsibility by commerce and industry. Regulating proper Pension Plans (Enron, anyone?) comes to mind, as well as paying proper Business Taxes.

The other key tenet of Modern Socialism is that no government should exist which does not serve the needs of its people. If a government exists and does not serve the Needs of its People, then why does it exist? To serve the needs of itself? To serve the needs of Big Business? Why then should it be allowed, by The People (you know, as in “We, The People” - ?), to exist?

And the means to ensure that The People’s Needs are addressed in the most egalitarian way is to follow the (very Christian) sentiment of: from each, according to their Ability, to each, according to their Need.

This is modern Socialism; it works and works well in many nations today. It can be as Democratic as the People want it to be, and it is not by any means anti-business.

Those people who insist upon defining Socialism by the inappropriate definitions of some Evil Old Men in the Past (who only abused the word, stretching it to suit their ends), are either ignorantly hidebound OR they do so in order to further an Agenda of their own.

They do so in order to scare people witless about Socialism - just as they did with the Iraq War and the Bush Presidential Campaigns. They are relying upon the Ignorance and Pliability of the monkeymass to prevent the Truth about Socialism from spreading. They want to promulgate and maintain a situation where Industry and Commerce actually control the means of governance, through Lobbyism and the Courts. They want to tell people that Socialism is Evil and will cause you to suffer, when in fact the Suffering is being brought to you by Colgate Palmolive, Archer Daniels Midland, Enron, Exxon, Halliburton, and a slew of other Corporate Welfare Recipients.

Here’s an article by the ultra-conservative Cato Institute on ADM:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

just as an example.

When you hear about the Evils of Communism, remember that it has never existed, and probably will never exist, so long as Human Nature remains as flawed as it is. When you hear about the Evils of Socialism, remember that the word has been mis-defined by an historical legion of Tyrants and Usurers, and check out the facts about thriving modern Socialist Democracies in the world. Ask yourselves: “Do I really want to believe what Corporate America wants me to believe?!?”

When you have stopped laughing, and when you have done your Homework, you will feel better about Socialism as it is practised today.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 17, 2006 07:56 PM

stephen d. i voted for bill clinton twice and also voted for jimmy carter and i like wes clark and you just proved my point about the left . you called me a conservative and basically you said i dont listen to new ideas. i listen to all ideas i think clark had some good ones and clinton had some good ones i just am not seeing any bill clintons out there he put his hand towards the middle. and brother thats where its at

Posted by: steve at April 17, 2006 08:26 PM

Jack-
You assume that all the job markets are inelastic, unable to deal with increases in labor costs. Is that necessarily the case? I don’t see where you’ve demonstrated that. All I see here is you essentially using a blackmail argument- if you don’t race towards the bottom on compensation, we won’t get the jobs.

You take the side of businesses that essentially take their ball and go home if everything is not suited to their special interests, not realizing that when that is the attitude towards business, the free market essentially does not exist. When business interests can essentially entrench their advantages with pro-business policies and deregulation even against the better interests of Americans, the Republican party’s approach ultimately leads to situations that are to nobody’s benefits.

Examples? Airlines and 9/11. They resist regulations and recommendations that would have forced them to increase security. 9/11 happens, in large part because key recommendations were not carried out. Billions of dollars of damage is done to the economy. They themselves request and receive from their “free-market” advocates in congress a huge bailout that offsets the market failure that 9/11 created for the airlines.

Same thing with Accounting. They resist true accounting reform, which would have separated the conflicted interests of auditing and consulting. Result? Enron, and a bunch of other incidents where the Auditors okayed deceptive reports to stockholders, and consultants played an active role in constructing the financial instruments that hid the losses until it was too late. Not to mention the collapse of one of the oldest and most trusted accounting firms.

Unfetter finance from those troublesome rules separating those who finance debt and those who sell stock? Oh you might make money for a while, but then everybody starts making bad, self serving decisions, hiding the truth because they’re both serving the company as a creditor, and the stockholders as evaluators of the debtor’s worth.

And what’s with all the bitching about taxes? I mean, you folks listen to these politicians talking about their miracle means of stimulating industry by tax breaks and everything, and then when it comes time to complain about taxes, you moan about how complicated the code has gotten.

The Republicans are thinking rigidly from issue to issue, failing to think systemically, because that would mean making political sacrifices when the party sensibility is having one’s cake and eating it too.

steve-
Are we really that hostile to the middle class? Not at all. Are we hostile to new ideas? Well you don’t see Democrats trying to get in the way of Evolution or Stem Cell Research. Just how new or good are the ideas the conservatives have been pushing?

And yes, we do attack the conservatives, but sometimes attack is justified. Frankly, they’ve done a lousy job of running the country. We’re deeper in debt, our military is under strain, and our economy seems to benefiting the few rather than the many. Government seems more afraid of pissing off big business than it does wronging us. At some point, if you don’t complain, if you don’t get outraged, you are as responsible for what happens as the people who directly do something.

I am sick of this whole “no ideas” claim, especially when I spend hours apiece writing my thoughts down. I’m sick of it when all the new Republican ideas seem to make bad situations worse. What you advocate is the paralysis of critique for the sake of somebody else’s good opinion. If something’s wrong though, it deserves to be righted, and should be.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 17, 2006 11:19 PM

David C.
“Dear Code Pink,
In the event of a Communist or Islamist totalitarian take-over of whatever government you happen to live under, and relentlessly bitch about, you will be among the first to be lined up and shot. Enjoy your new friends, as they will surely enjoy you.”

So true. Preach on! Though, they’ll never understand it.

Stephen,
“If we went by your logic, we would have attacked Iran many times. Death to America has long been a favorite chant in the region.”

I believe you missed my point Stephen. I was referring to the people that that don’t understand the gravity of the situation with Iran; which is the real threat that’s infront of us right now. Yet, they are trying to steer it away from the Iranians with talk like “sexed up intelligence” and point it at the Americans, or worse yet, the Republicans. This is a serious issue that is (definitely) not going to be solved with partisan politics.

We better focus and get real serious, real fast with Iran, or what David C. said will come to fruition. Believe that…

Posted by: rahdigly at April 18, 2006 12:34 AM

Communism = socialism = totalitarianism = Clintonism. (Union of Soviet SOCIALIST’S Republic)
The communist manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, which teaches the citizens to give up their RIGHTS for the “sake of the common good”, but it always ends up in a police state. This is called “preventive justice”. Control is the key concept. Control’s real name is bondage.
1. Abolition of