It’s important to remember that there’s a big difference between anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism.

Or so I’m told.

a4g on August 25, 2006 at 4:01 PM

As a comic, it doesn’t work. As commentary, it still doesn’t work. Oh well. I guess it’s good because it’s “progressive”. geez.

tickleddragon on August 25, 2006 at 4:03 PM

Huh? Can someone explain? BTW, going to the site was far more confusing.

BrunoMitchell on August 25, 2006 at 4:22 PM

Call me meshuga, but I read it as an attack on the U.S.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 25, 2006 at 4:58 PM

Bruno:

I’d tell you to go grab a Bible and read Deut, but there’d be no point. This is hard on the mind, even if you could put it into context. But try this:

Jews are hypocrites, who are commit unjust acts of blood-thirsty violence even as they shout “Justice!”

I don’t think that damned thing even aspires to “anti-Zionism;” it’s just flat anti-Semitic. I swear I’m moved to kick and scream about this.

I want to complain. Anyone got Satan’s phone number?

Axe on August 25, 2006 at 5:16 PM

Could be right Attila, Silver. The US thing just looks like a paste to me, after the other goo.

I’m still with Andy though. I think it’s pretty … malignant?

Alright. Not my problem. I don’t draw things like that :) I’ll just leave it alone.

Axe on August 25, 2006 at 5:29 PM

Anyone who describes liberals and doesn’t put progressive in quotes, misstates the facts; also, gives a power-grab to a group which stole an otherwise great word and direly misrepresents it.

Entelechy on August 25, 2006 at 6:19 PM

I’m looking forward to a sequel featuring the recipe on how much blood of a gentile child to use when baking matzah.

MarcH on August 25, 2006 at 6:49 PM

I’ve come to the conclusion that “liberalism” and “progressivism” isn’t a mental disorder. It’s a state of sin.

ScottG on August 25, 2006 at 7:29 PM

All true. But it just doesn’t surprise me anymore. They’re all Michael Moores now. Is it news when Michael Moore acts like Michael Moore?

Allahpundit on August 25, 2006 at 10:03 PM

I wasn’t going to comment on this as it really is not a policy issue, however, it is an important topic that this individual paints a rosy picture of the world that is not real, and implies that he condones a terror attack in order to remove Republicans from power - that is why he capitalizes “BUT.” Does he want us to be terrorized? No, of course not, no sensible human being would condone that… He does want Bush and the Republicans gone, and that is why he would not be too upset with a pre-November terror attack. Here’s a step by step review of Russell Shaw’s piece on the multi-million dollar Huffington Post.

I Hope And Pray We Don’t Get Hit Again-BUT…..

I hope and pray we don’t get hit again, like we did on September 11. Even one life lost to the violence of terrorism is too much.

If I somehow knew an attack was coming, I wouldn’t pause for a second to report it in order to prevent it from occuring.

But on the other hand, I remind myself that without the ultimate sacrifice paid by 400,000 U.S. soldiers in World War II, tyranny could well have an iron grip on the world, and even on this nation.

If the Nazis had prevailed, tens, if not hundreds of millions more would have been killed.

That’s a good intro - the stalwart conservative that I am understood the historical reference quite well and I liked the introduction. I keep it in context - the Nazi regime was evil and as totalitarian as a country could be. The Nazis were racist and that’s how they built their power base - Arian superiority. The Germans united as a country under a single premise - that they should rule the world because of their supremacy.

That realization has led my brain to launch a political calculus 180 degrees removed from my pacifist-inclined leanings. An entirely hypothetical yet realpolitik calculus that is ugly, and cold-hearted but must be posited:

This is a type of calculus that Pentagon war games planners and political consultants do all the time- a combination of what-if actions and consequences that are unpleasant to consider but are in the realm of plausibility.

What if another terror attack just before this fall’s elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?

Now Shaw attempts his segue in order to make his point. He’s right in that risk-based and cost-based calculations are made all the time. There are always trade-offs, but the most important factor remains dominant in DoD planning - the life of an American citizen is paramount. Military members will die to keep citizens safe. Military members are not disposable assets - their lives are important. If the Pentagon can send a bomb into a terrorist safe-haven instead of a man, then that man’s life is not risked at all. But the bomb costs in both development, production, delivery, and delivery on target - collateral damage. What are other citizen’s lives worth? Do we risk the U.S. Soldier to save faceless foreigners from death just because they are unlucky enough to live next door to the bad guys? Often, that answer is “Yes.” This was just to maintain the military reference and basis for any risk-based analysis. Shaw departs from his historical reference in a manner that is highly suspect. His last sentence in this segue should put you on edge - a terrorist attack in the United States will save lives?

But to be fair, let’s continue and see how he supports this argument. No risk-based analysis is sound if all risks are not taken into account.

I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has “kept us safe,” and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.

If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this “Bush has kept us safe” thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.

If 5% of the “he’s kept us safe” revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate and be in a position to:

Okay, voting numbers and such. I have no problem with this. He’s a Democrat and wants Democrats back in office - that is the political system of the United States. I don’t like the two-party system (and no matter how many Independents, Libertarians, Green Party, Communists, etc. who run, this is just a two-party country which does not allow for any in-between). However, it is most important to note the overall Democratic platform regarding National Security - the Democrats have no plan. Their entire campaign is based on “anything that Bush does is bad.” The Democrats try to show how the booming economy is bad. I will concede that Shaw is not allowed enough words to elucidate a plan, but suspect that there really is no plan. And yes, I use economic points to argue against Shaw’s “Bush is bad if terrorists attack” (and the capitalized “BUT” is a desire for some external factor - a terrorist attack on the United States, to demonstrate that Bush is bad), because Shaw’s lives saved are all based on abject speculation on Democratic (socialist) policy desires. He continues.

Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;

Be in a position to elevate the party’s chances for a regime change in 2008. A regime change that would:

Save hundreds of thousands of American lives by enacting universal health care;

Save untold numbers of lives by pushing for cleaner air standards that would greatly reduce heart and lung diseases;

More enthusiastically address the need for mass transit, the greater availability of which would surely cut highway deaths;

Enact meaningful gun control legislation that would reduce crime and cut fatalities by thousands a year;

Fund stem cell research that could result in cures saving millions of lives;

Boost the minimum wage, helping to cut down on poverty which helps spawn violent crime and the deaths that spring from those acts;

Be less inclined to launch foolish wars, absence of which would save thousands of soldiers’ lives- and quite likely moderate the likelihood of further terror acts.

Woe! There we have it - the complete Democrats will make the United States safer platform, with the very first point of Roe v. Wade. That is the only Supreme Court opinion that is worth protecting? What Shaw does not understand is that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution very clearly articulated where Roe v. Wade and abortion decisions should reside - State’s Rights. Abortion is not a federal issue, but should be decided by the voters of each state. And for each state that has put it up for a vote, that is the one thing that the voters can agree on - they make abortions illegal to the tune of about 70% of the voters. Let the majority rule in this great democracy of ours. The Supreme Court is so much more important than the abortion debate, but that supports my claim that the two-party system is bad - despite everything else that the government does for us and has to do, Democrats are pro-choice and Republicans are right to life. Is that the sole determining factor for our Parties? I really hope not, although Shaw chose to put it right up front on his list of “lives saved.”

How many babies die because of abortions? How many mothers die because of “back-alley” abortions? I suspect the former is a much larger number than the latter. If Shaw wants an argument based on cold logic, we have the numbers of fetuses aborted - that is a solid fact. His appeal to prevent back-alley procedures is speculative and there is no way this country would allow tens of thousands of ladies to die in these procedures while tens of thousands of fetuses are aborted each year. The numbers will demonstrate that Shaw’s very first point is logically flawed. Let’s move on.

Be in a position to elevate the party’s chances for a regime change in 2008. A regime change that would:

Regime change - okay, call it whatever. I have no problem - I called it a regime change when GW took over in 2000.

Save hundreds of thousands of American lives by enacting universal health care;

What? Didn’t Clinton try to do this and completely failed? 1/7 of the U.S. economy is the health industry. The Democrats want to socialize 1/7th of the American economy? I think that experiment has already been proven to be a failure. In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA). Maybe Shaw should read it - guaranteed health care in case of an emergency. Everyone will get the best medical treatment possible in order to save their lives. Preventive Medicine? Well, that’s nice and those of us with insurance and such take advantage of it in order to live better lives, but hundreds of thousands of deaths because we don’t have socialized medicine? EMTALA guarantees that someone will medical care regardless of their ability to pay. I will call this a failed argument. The impact to the economy would be monstrous. I will concede that Americans are overmedicated, under-exercised, and over-indulged (smoking, drinking, obesity) which lead to many of our health problems. But socialized medicine will not fix these problems - a nation individually committed to live healthy lives will be the real answer. I can’t concede this point to Shaw either - it is unsupported, logically.

Save untold numbers of lives by pushing for cleaner air standards that would greatly reduce heart and lung diseases;

Huh? Many of the lung problems today can be attributed to breathing the air of a climate-controlled home during the main formative years. Children spend too much time indoors. But that really doesn’t get it either. If our hearts and lungs are so unhealthy, why are our lifespans double what they were less than one hundred years ago? And the stress on our hearts is not from a lack of clean air - I refer back to the smoking, drinking, obesity, and lack of exercise. The EPA is important - companies must not be allowed to pollute rampantly. Regulations have restricted plant emissions to the point that a new oil refinery is at least double the cost because of those regulations. I don’t have a problem with this and our air will get cleaner as we become less and less industrialized.

More enthusiastically address the need for mass transit, the greater availability of which would surely cut highway deaths;

Okay - this is the first statement that Shaw makes that is both supported by real numbers and has a basis in logic. In the U.S. traffic deaths outnumber deaths from terrorism or military actions by thousands to one (I didn’t crunch the numbers, but suspect that they are available out there somewhere and this is not too far off). I’ve lived in Japan, Korea, and Russia where the mass transit systems were superb and were the absolute best way to get around the big city. The problem with Shaw’s logic here is that many traffic deaths occur on the open road between urban areas. Mass transit is not viable in the open country as we are too spread out. Inside the city, well, New Yorkers already take advantage of the mass transit system. Other big cities could benefit by a functional and effective mass transit system - Pittsburgh’s is not convenient or adequate enough for large-scale use. There are many, many accidents on the main roads from the ‘burbs to Pittsburgh proper. Many of these could be avoided with a good rail system feeding as the DC Metro feeds from outside the beltway (and that’s the only way I go inside the beltway in D.C.). Not a bad argument, and definitely studies and political support is needed to get the best c0st/risk-based analysis on this subject.

Enact meaningful gun control legislation that would reduce crime and cut fatalities by thousands a year;

Gun control - a failed argument. There are facts supporting that where guns are criminalized, only criminals have guns. Where everyone has a gun, violent crime is much less than in areas where there are no guns. This is a personal responsibility argument - guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Here in Pennsylvania, a tragic occurrence took place a month or so ago. One of our State Senators owns a handgun that he keeps in his home in the Township. While he was in the state capital, a neighbor boy somehow acquired the Senator’s gun and was shot by it. The police have not determined whether the death was suicide, homicide, or accident. The gun should not have been availble to the 14-year old neighbor and that is the Senator’s question to answer. What about a trigger lock? We don’t need gun control laws to exercise common sense and to take responsibility for our actions. And the 2nd Amendment guarantees our rights to keep and bear arms - no gun control could be enacted that would take guns away completely without amending the Constitution. Consequently, any laws would just be regulations that could be ignored or worked around - the guns would still be out there. For example, maybe Mr. Shaw can put a huge sign in his front yard stating “This is a gun-free home.” What would be the result?

Fund stem cell research that could result in cures saving millions of lives;

What is the basis of this argument? I am for research that is promising and sacrifice may be required to improve the quality of life for all human beings. I would recommend that folks make sure they have the organ donor box on their driver’s license checked, so when they die in a traffic accident, their deaths will help save lives. I expect that Mr. Shaw is an organ donor as am I.

Boost the minimum wage, helping to cut down on poverty which helps spawn violent crime and the deaths that spring from those acts;

Stop right there - step back and take a breath. Our current minimum wage results in violent crime deaths? I found a pdf that popped up called “Crime and Minimum Wage” the .pdf wouldn’t load for me, but the html version did. The fairly lengthy report addressed right up front that there was much more of relation between crime and low wages than crime and unemployment. But deterrence policies had the greatest effect in reducing crime (as opposed to economic incentives). Violent crime can be committed by anyone and I cannot agree that minimum wage is a root cause for violent crime. No matter how little someone is paid, if they aren’t violent, they would not commit a violent crime. The logic does not pass muster on this. Maybe the violent ones cannot hold higher paying jobs. Let’s look at society as a whole to determine that we have to pay people certain sums. A supply-demand driven society will pay people what the position is worth. With a raise in minimum wages, cost of living rises and the new minimum wage has the same buying power of the old minimum wage. I can’t buy the logic leap of Shaw on this one. Violent people are violent no matter how much or how little they are paid.

Be less inclined to launch foolish wars, absence of which would save thousands of soldiers’ lives- and quite likely moderate the likelihood of further terror acts.

When did terrorism start? Why did Arafat attack Israel with his PLO in 1965? This was before any 1967 boundaries? What did Clinton do to deserve the first World Trade Center attack in 1993? What about Operation Bojinka in 1994? What about OPM/SANG in 1995? Khobar Towers in 1996? The Embassies in Tanzania and Keny in 1998? The USS Cole in 2000? These all happened under President Clinton. Did Clinton launch “foolish” wars? What is the nature of the threat that we live under? Does Mr. Shaw believe that our overseas presence is the root cause of the terrorism against us? What would be his policy to prevent terrorism? Pull out of all overseas locations? We didn’t have troops in Tanzania, Kenya, or Yemen when we were attacked in those locations. At what point would the pull-out be complete? How many times have McDonald’s or Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises been bombed overseas? Do we force all business to pull out, too? Where do we stop? Mr. Shaw, this is a free country and you can be a dhimmi if you want, but I will not be. I will never succumb to Islamic Extremists - I believe in the 2nd Amendment whole heartedly. The terrorists were trained in Afghanistan, supported by a totalitarian Islamic Extremist regime - was that war unjust or foolish, as you say?

If Iraq is your issue, say so. C’mon say it - “Yes, Craig, I want us out of Iraq. I don’t think it accomplished anything to make us safer.” On that, we’ll never know the truth. We do know that it was a rallying point for terrorists around the world and we were able to contain them within Iraq, killing and capturing many. The question that is not answered is did these individuals become terrorists because we entered Iraq or were they terrorists before then? And that is a good question, the answer would be most enlightening. Al Zarqawi for example, was a terrorist long before we entered Iraq, convicted in absentia by Jordan for terrorism, and then he hid in Iraq. Why did Abu Nidal live a peaceful life in Iraq since the 1980’s? Wasn’t he a terrorist wanted by the world, and most specifically wanted by the United States for his murder of Leon Klinghofer?

I am not proud of myself for even considering the notion that another terror attack that costs even one American life could ever be considered anything else but evil and hurtful. And I know that when I weigh the possibility that such an attack- that might, say, kill 100- would prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from dying who otherwise would- I am exhibiting a calculating cold heart diametrically opposed to everything I stand for as a human being. A human being, who, just so you know, is opposed to most wars and to capital punishment.

But in light of the very real potential of the next two American elections to solidify our growing American persona as a warlike, polluter-friendly nation with repressive domestic tendencies and inadequate health care for so many tens of millions, let me ask you this. Even if only from the standpoint of a purely intellectual exercise in alternative future history:

If you knew us getting hit again would launch a chain of transformative, cascading events that would enable a better nation where millions who would have died will live longer, would such a calculus have any moral validity?

Any at all?

Nice wrap up - nice veiled call for a terrorist attack to solve all your personal problems. The logic of your arguments is lost in reality. Your utopia did not happen under Clinton and it wouldn’t happen under a Democrat-controlled majority of everything. Maybe next time you waste ones and zeros, you can frame your arguments with logic and not rhetoric. Just because you say something often enough does not make it true. Your desires for utopia will require a real plan, with real milestones for success and not a terrorist attack upon this great nation of ours.

SOI on August 26, 2006 at 6:37 AM

Kralizec, you made a great case for us misusing the term “liberal”, having also understood your Lebensraum reference.

Please take a moment to explain why we should refer to them as “progressive”, without quotes. I can list at least 20 example why they are anything but.

I enjoy your post a lot, sincerely,

Entelechy on August 26, 2006 at 1:54 PM

Entelechy, I always refer to them as (il)liberals or leftists. NEVER liberal or progressive. They’re quite the opposite of either word.

bamapachyderm on August 26, 2006 at 2:23 PM