31
Shorter Dennis Prager
Above: “Dennis has a squeeze-box he wears on his chest,
When he goes on-air Muslims get no rest…”
‘Why “Islamophobia” Is a Brilliant Term’
- Devious Leftists with their clever neologisms will never stop me from being a bigot.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.
Plus: Prager writes:
One might counter that maligning people for criticism is not only true of those who criticize Islam, it is also true of critics of Israel and of America — the former, it is said, are immediately labeled “anti-Semitic” and the latter are immediately labeled “unpatriotic.” Neither is true at all. Both are, and I use this word rarely, lies.
Well, I rarely use the word, but lying Dennis Prager is a big fat lying liar who is lying. To wit: bwa - ha - ha - ha - ha - ha. An honest mistake? Who knows? Maybe someone should call in to ask when Dennis chats on the radio with “the great Charles Johnson”.
t4toby said,
July 31, 2007 at 22:19
Shorter DP:
Since Islam is not a race, it is OK to be Islamaphobic.
t4toby said,
July 31, 2007 at 22:21
Alternative Shorter DP:
Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic does not make one chairophobic.
Shorter shorter DP: Semantics! Bwahahaha!!! I win!!11!
Jake H. said,
July 31, 2007 at 22:34
FLAWLESS LOGIC! I’m sure if I went on TV tomorrow (not likely–I keep calling Glenn Beck but he won’t call me back) and said I hate Christianity and Judaism, Dennis would hold firm to his brave stand on behalf of meaningless semantical hair-splitting and defend me as not at all prejudiced against Christians and Jews. After all, I hate the religion, not the religioner.
Hey, did you guys know that it is the GOAL OF ISLAM TO ESTABLISH TEH CALIPHATE BLAH BLAH GURGLE SHARIA LAW ‘R SUM SHIT?!? I am not at all sick of seeing this splattered all over the place by paranoid idiots.
RodeoBob said,
July 31, 2007 at 22:38
Oddly, when I see that picture fo Dennis (because using the phrase “DP” brings to mind a horrible, horrible porn act I don’t want associated with Senior Prager) all that comes to mind is Weird Al’s original accordion version of “My Sharona” (My Balogna)
I’m sure Prager et all are equally comfortable with the term ‘Christianist’ as being a legitimate, fair term for polite conversation.
tigrismus said,
July 31, 2007 at 22:41
Both are, and I use this word rarely, lies.
He must have astrapophobia.
FGFM said,
July 31, 2007 at 23:13
I put some audio links to the radio show at bottom of the comments of the appropriate article at LGF Watch
blowback said,
July 31, 2007 at 23:14
Fuck, I just had a heart attack. That piece from Counterpunch about the AEI and Professor Ruth Wisse of Harvard University. Unbelievable! I thought that Harvard was supposed to be one of the best universities in the US but after looking up her bio on the Harvard website I have strong doubts.
Ruth R. Wisse, Harvard College Professor, Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature , and Professor of Comparative Literature
Then I remembered who else professes at Harvard, that fuckwit Alan M. Dershowitz,
Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law. Is it any better than Regent University? Sadly No!.
Peter said,
August 1, 2007 at 0:00
What is this? Medved, then Prager? I object to having 2 bad Jews in a row on Sadly, No. Please space them out to lessen our embarrassment.
Abdiel said,
August 1, 2007 at 0:55
It’s not you I hate. It’s just everything about you.
Psycheout said,
August 1, 2007 at 0:59
Apparently Club Gitmo is so horrible that the terrorists don’t want to leave!
Now that’s what I call Islamophobia.
LA Confidential Pantload said,
August 1, 2007 at 1:00
Excuse me, but this is America. We gas Christians, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, et . al. with equal vehemence.
…..wha, you mean we don’t?
Mona said,
August 1, 2007 at 2:00
My darling HTML, stil love you as well, but you first “ha” after “bwa” contains this:
Cato is not in favor of, for example, tobacco subsidies. Yes, they do argue agasint smoking bans and some of the more egregious suits against tobacco companies.
But they also preponderantly hate George Bush, and are hosting a Glenn Greenwald book event in D.C. on 8/7. They’ve issued scads of papers documenting the horrific abuses of the Bush Executive and contemporary GOP. Further, most of their foreign policy wonks were/are ardently against invading Iraq. Some of you on the left really, I beg you, understand that libertarians sometimes take positions that occasionally align with big business, but when they/we do so, it is not usually for the same reasons.
Righteous Bubba said,
August 1, 2007 at 2:25
Vote Tancredo or die in a smoking hole.
Max Renn said,
August 1, 2007 at 3:03
tigrismus said,
July 31, 2007 at 22:41
Both are, and I use this word rarely, lies.
He must have astrapophobia.
It’s all the DP action that leads to fear of strap-ons.
Oh wait, you meant something else . . .
And now I’ve lowered the tone . . .
Qetesh the Abyssinian said,
August 1, 2007 at 3:12
Then I remembered who else professes at Harvard, that fuckwit Alan M. Dershowitz,
Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law. Is it any better than Regent University? Sadly No!.
What does it say about me that I read this as “Felix Frank’n'furter Professor of Law”? Does Dershowitz parade about in corset and fishnets, singing lustily about pleasure? And if not, why not?
mikey said,
August 1, 2007 at 3:15
Your mission is a failure
Your lifestyle’s too extreme
I’m your new commander
You are now my prisoner
We return to Transylvania
Prepare the transport beeeeee-am
Oh yeah, I’ve seen it a few dozen times in Berkeley…
mikey
Psycheout said,
August 1, 2007 at 3:22
Any comment on Kos Kid Kultist Mike Stark’s latest stunt?
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
August 1, 2007 at 4:06
FYI, I cry tears of pity for O’Liely, Brownback’s biggest (parody) supporter.
Matt T. said,
August 1, 2007 at 4:06
Didn’t someone from the Cato Institute write an article back in the late ’90s that said smokers “paid their way” because most of ‘em died before they could rack up any egregious old folks-type medical bills? Wasn’t there also a guy for the CI that basically celebrated the death of a prominent environmental scientist and hasn’t the organization basically been on the wrong side of the whole global climate change argument, claiming the science is “false” and mounting personal attacks on scientists who say it’s for true? Aren’t they for the privatization of Social Security, perfering instead to play stock market keno with the money? Didn’t them folks work - in some cases, borderline fraud - to put ballot initiatives that would’ve eliminated disclosure requirements for those who donate money in support or opposition of ballot initiatives, mainly because doing so cost money?
Mona said,
August 1, 2007 at 5:08
Matt T.: I know that Cato acknowledges global warming and has written tons of stuff about “pollution vouchers” and such that could be sold and/or traded. But you are right that Cato AND many other have made this point:
They die younger, and so accumulate less Medicare/Medicaid expenses. Everyone is gonna die of somethin’, and smoking shortens the lifespan, which saves govt money. Point being, it is not necessary to ban it in order to avoid sky-rocketing medical expenses anymore than you need to ban Cheetos and Ben ‘n Jerry’s. You see fat people; you see old people. How many morbidly obese really old people do you see?
Snorghagen said,
August 1, 2007 at 5:28
I know that Cato acknowledges global warming…
“acknowledges global warming” - what a charming way to put it.
You can find some nice examples of how Cato ‘acknowledges global warming’ here:
http://www.cato.org/research/nat-studies/global-warming.html
atheist said,
August 1, 2007 at 5:32
Point being, it is not necessary to ban it in order to avoid sky-rocketing medical expenses anymore than you need to ban Cheetos and Ben ‘n Jerry’s.
Yes, Mona, but that’s exactly what I, and I think Matt, find odd about that view. Those at the Cato Institute seem to believe that medical policies are done in order to reduce the medical expenses on society. In my view, that’s not the essential purpose of medical policy- rather it’s to help people stay healthy.
Djur said,
August 1, 2007 at 5:49
I think it’s interesting that Mona actually expects “X hates George Bush” to be enough of a reason to make common cause with a group. There are a whole lot of white power lunatics who hate Bush too — are we to fall in with them?
Contrary to what reactionaries like Michelle Malkin believe, progressivism is not an anti-Bush cargo cult (not usually, although Kos makes me wonder). Corporatists carry water for corporatists, and I don’t care whether you want the guns in the hands of state police or private security forces.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1409
atheist said,
August 1, 2007 at 5:55
Mona is probably thinking that this site is a loose grouping of people who like to mock the ultraconservative politics of this era. Which is what I think too. Nothing wrong with that.
Matt T. said,
August 1, 2007 at 5:59
Mona,
How long did it take Cato to acknowledge climate change, though? Have they owned up to being wrong on the subject and wrong because there was money involved? Didn’t they deny the recent reports from the IPCC had anything going for them and don’t they (or at least their environmental guy, Patrick somethingor other) still refer to the science as “junk science”? I seem to remember a fairly smirky column in the Washington Times from some Cato guy that used that tack. Something about Live Earth and that darned ol’ Al Gore.
And the “can’t save everyone, so why bother trying” argument is an old favorite. A self-described small-l-libertarian buddy of mine uses that to rail against “government indoctrination schools” and for school vouchers. Either way, it’s a shit-ass argument that cuts right to the heart of why liberals and libertarians have such a difficult time finding common ground.
My point is, whether or not smokers die sooner and that saves money, it’s still kinda stupid to expect liberals to go, “Yeah, you got a good point there. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.” So, my response to the argument that dead people cost the government less money in the long run is, “Yeah, so? What about people who aren’t old folks yet might pick up a totally worthless and indisputably harmful habit? Fuck ‘em and feed ‘em chemotherapy?”
Now, full disclosure: my grandfather committed suicide this past Christmas after suffering for nearly 20 years from various lung ailments caused from smoking. I never knew my paternal grandmother because she died six weeks before I was born from lung cancer. One of my uncles died in incredible pain from lung cancer, and his wife died a year later from emphysema. He smoked, she never did. So, I admit to being biased on this particular subject. Also, I wouldn’t neccessarily argue that smoking should be banned in toto (inclosed public spaces, sure), but that’s a whole different discussion.
I’m always seeimg libertarians complaining that liberals don’t take them and their policy ideas seriously, apart from baseline no-brainers like the drug war and civil rights. Yet they never seem to be all that interested in convincing liberals to accept those policies via arguments that actually appeal to liberal values. You see my point? “Why bother?” is a shitty argument and really doesn’t do anything but avoid the discussion. I understand it and where it comes from; it just don’t move me, in other words.
Matt T. said,
August 1, 2007 at 6:04
Or, what atheist said at 5:32.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
August 1, 2007 at 6:05
Mona is probably thinking that this site is a loose grouping of people who like to mock the ultraconservative politics of this era. Which is what I think too. Nothing wrong with that.
No way, d00d. I’m here for the anarcho-syndicalism.
D. Sidhe said,
August 1, 2007 at 6:19
I’ve seen the light, and I now advocate killing everybody before they hit forty five, thereby saving the US uncounted billions in medical care required by people as they age.
I gotta agree with atheist. I mean, if the primary goal of government policies was to save tax money, we’d stop building roads and let people walk everywhere. Just for starters. Don’t even ask about NASA, or libraries, or hospitals. And food inspections? Hah.
At some point, we’re falling into Social Darwinsim, and I’m enough of a liberal to be willing to pay higher taxes to keep most people alive and reasonably well.
atheist said,
August 1, 2007 at 11:41
Anarcho-syndicalism is cool!
Pere Ubu said,
August 1, 2007 at 13:52
Anarcho-syndicalism is cool!
Better than some system of government based on strange women lying in ponds chucking swords at you.
The Visigoth said,
August 1, 2007 at 14:08
Am I the only one who thinks Praeger and the rest of the wingnuts are a buzzkill? I’m actually excited about a Global Caliphate! Man, that would rock!
It would be like the 1001 Arabian Nights and every Ray Harryhausen monster movie rolled into one. I could ride my magic carpet to work, and after some coffee and sherbet, I’d rescue B-movie maven Caroline Munro from claymation skeletons with the help of my magical genie.
Hey, who wouldn’t want to have a conversation where, after adjusting your turban, you say Arab-y stuff like “It is written that he who lives a coward does not truly live?”
Mona said,
August 1, 2007 at 14:20
You are missing the point re: Cato’s position on smoking. (Or fatty foods, or mood-altering drugs etc.) They drafted their position in response to a common argument of the zealots who want to tax cigarettes to the point of prohibition, as well as smoking bans forced on private property owners. Anti-smoking fanatics have argued that their position is in part justified because it will save govt Medicare/Medicaid expenses. But given the years that smoking lops of the average life span, that is not true.
Cato — like virtually all libertarians — does not think the govt should play nanny to adults about the choices they make for themselves. It is about the right of individual liberty and autonomy, not “Social Darwinism.”
N.C. said,
August 1, 2007 at 14:42
Cato — like virtually all libertarians — does not think the govt should play nanny to adults about the choices they make for themselves.
Yes. That right is for corporations alone.
Mona said,
August 1, 2007 at 14:53
Yes. That right is for corporations alone.
Excuse me? Corporations cannot send armed agents of the state after you for smoking pot, they cannot ban alcohol, or demand that you pay $5 in tax per pack of cigarette, leading to quasi-prohibition. They cannot dictate your individual choices, unless you enter into a voluntary employment agreement with them whereby, say, you agree to be a non-smoker.
Our prison-industrial complex, teeming with non-violent drug “criminals,” is not the result of corporations — it is driven by intrusive and obscene federal and state laws. Of course, the prison-industrial complex LOVES the drug war, and has no interest in seeing it end.
atheist said,
August 1, 2007 at 15:02
Our prison-industrial complex, teeming with non-violent drug “criminals,” is not the result of corporations
Uh, yes, it is. The prison-industrial complex is a partnership between corporations and the state. That’s why it’s called the prison-industrial complex. The corporations get the cheapest labor force in the world, and it can’t organize.
Qetesh the Abyssinian said,
August 1, 2007 at 15:13
The Visigoth said,
August 1, 2007 at 14:08
It would be like the 1001 Arabian Nights and every Ray Harryhausen monster movie rolled into one.
Some of the finest literature in the world, plus Ray Harryhausen: what could be finer? Plus hookahs galore.
You might change your mind, though: they’re also responsible for algebra.
Mona said,
August 1, 2007 at 15:15
The prison-industrial complex is a partnership between corporations and the state. That’s why it’s called the prison-industrial complex. The corporations get the cheapest labor force in the world, and it can’t organize.
But it could not exist but for the federal and state governments passing draconian drug laws. And whether prison employees can or cannot organize is not the issue; the issue is govt doing things like this to people.
Of course corporations, the wealthier ones, hire hordes of CPAs, lobbyists, lawyers and other professionals, and are far more inclined to go along with a massive amount of legislation and a cumbersome regulatory state, because that acts as a superb gatekeepr to new competitors entering the market. The more expensive and difficult it is to satisfy a gazillion different bureaucracies, the more it costs to found a company.
You will find very few libertarians among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies; they are infinitely more likely to be small business owners.
atheist said,
August 1, 2007 at 15:41
Yes, it could not exist without the govt. passing draconian laws, but a large reason that they pass these laws is lobbying from the corporations who want a labor force of prisoners.
You can never really separate corporations from the state.
Anne Laurie said,
August 1, 2007 at 15:55
Does Dershowitz parade about in corset and fishnets, singing lustily about pleasure? And if not, why not?
Qetesh, have you ever seen a photo of Alan Dershowitz? Wanting to see *that* in fishnets is a very, very specialized taste. For the rest of us, the sight would be far more effective than saltpeter!
Pere Ubu said,
August 1, 2007 at 15:58
They cannot dictate your individual choices, unless you enter into a voluntary employment agreement with them whereby, say, you agree to be a non-smoker.
“voluntary employment agreement” being, you know, HAVING A JOB.
which, as, you all know, is entirely a VOLUNTARY thing in America today.
/snark
Mona said,
August 1, 2007 at 16:11
Yes, it could not exist without the govt. passing draconian laws, but a large reason that they pass these laws is lobbying from the corporations who want a labor force of prisoners.
You can never really separate corporations from the state.
I agree with part of that, but not all. The drug laws were passed in the first instance because of an unholy alliance of “progressive” do-gooders and religious moralists, and especially with appeals to racism; marijuana was deemed some demonic substance those vile Mexicans used. African-Americans were supposedly raping and pillaging due to cocaine. And, there is no doubt that beverage alcohol, cocaine and other substances do become ruinous to a relatively small cohort who use them, so non-racist nanny-staters were all into “saving people from themselves.”
But now it is very difficult to repeal these laws, in part because of government employees with a huge stake in not having them repealed: the DEA, FBI, state and federal prosecutors, and the prison industry.
But of course wealthy corporations are always going to attempt to lobby legislatures to pass laws that favor them. Tobacco loves its subsidies; Cato opposes them strenuously. Chrysler loved its congressional bail-out; Cato opposes corporate welfare, too. Libertarians are not friendly to much of the shenanigans Corporate America pulls in influencing law to its advantage.
Mona said,
August 1, 2007 at 16:16
“voluntary employment agreement” being, you know, HAVING A JOB.
So, you really think that a smoker who doesn’t want to quit is held captive to this or that company that may require all employees to be non-smokers? Only those companies are a potential employer?
That is not a reasonable comparison to the state’s ability to lock you in a cage if you use a substance that carries a heavy penal sanction.
HTML Mencken said,
August 1, 2007 at 16:22
Pere Ubu gets to one of my pet peeves about Libertarians — their utter refusal to recognize structural coercion. The only coercion a Libertarian recognizes is that done by the state.
Dear Mona, you’re wrong about corporatism. Hayek had it exactly wrong: it’s not the welfare state that inevitably leads to totalitarianism; rather, corporatism is the inevitable result of all sorts of right-wing utopias, from minarchy to fusionism. (Which is why so many Libertarians *love* China.) The only way to stop it is a)repeal corporate personhood and b)government (democracy) taking the role of adversary and watchdog to and over business. With a properly functioning bill of rights (as it was meant, by people for people — not “entities”), this can be maintained without a devolution into tyranny.
Look, I hate smoking bans, too. I think seat belt laws are stupid. But I’m not about to begin to think that such entities as CATO really give much of a shit about principles. CATO functions as a clearinghouse for corporate PR. All they care about is the dollas. It’s not the civil liberties they have in mind, it’s the profits.
Anyway, the point of that link was the AEI discussion in it that proved Dennis Prager a liar.
Mona said,
August 1, 2007 at 16:41
HTML: Hayek did not say that the welfare state inevitably leads to totalitarianism. What he correctly said was that centralized planning does — Hayek did not oppose all social safety net programs (tho he thought cradle to grave provision of everything would lead to a massive govt that will eventually control every aspect of your life), provided how they are structured.
And we will just have to agree to disagree about Cato; I’ve supported them financially and in spirit over the years, and I know you are entirely wrong about their ostensible lack of principles. They are sometimes on the side of corporations, but not always, by a long shot. But when they are, it is as a matter of principle.
t4toby said,
August 1, 2007 at 19:27
This thread jumped the funny shark August 1st at 2:00.
I’m pretty sure that arguing (debating) about base ideologies is about as effective as screaming at the sun to stop shining in your eyes.
So you’re a libertarian, and you’re a social progressive. Reminds me of this. Now give each other a big hug, and bring back the funny!!!
Anne Laurie said,
August 1, 2007 at 19:31
They are sometimes on the side of corporations, but not always, by a long shot. But when they are, it is as a matter of
principleprincipal.Because Hayek’s first principle is C.R.E.A.M. (Cash Rules Everything Around Me), and the Cato Institute suits follow that law like a dog follows a cheeseburger.
Mona said,
August 1, 2007 at 19:47
Because Hayek’s first principle is C.R.E.A.M. (Cash Rules Everything Around Me), and the Cato Institute suits follow that law like a dog follows a cheeseburger.
That is a pure cartoon, right on par with Coulter and Limbaugh on “liberals.” Hayek wrote about a great deal more than economics, for one thing. He also addressed community living, and the errors of conservatism in rejecting new knowledge. He argued that free speech was essential so that today’s marginalized, despised ideas can (as has often happened) become tomorrow’s social improvement.
Pick on Hayek and libertarians if you like, but it ought to be at an informed and accurate level.
kenga said,
August 1, 2007 at 20:17
The drug laws were passed in the first instance because of racism, and especially with appeals to an unholy alliance of “progressive” do-gooders and religious moralists; marijuana was deemed some demonic substance those vile Mexicans used.(Which fact was conveniently discovered immediately after Dow Chemical had patented a new artificial fiber named “Nylon”.)
Fixed a couple typos for you, Mona.
blowback said,
August 1, 2007 at 21:25
Talking of Harvard as I was above, I was saddened to see that they have lost $350M through a hedge fund. I hope they do not have to cut the work force but if they do then I suggest they put Profs. Wisse and Deshowitz top of the redundancy list.
Mona said,
August 1, 2007 at 22:15
Yes Kenga, I’ve read the lit about Dow Chemical wanted to put industrial hemp rope out of business. But that is woefully insufficient to explain the burst of pervasive (pan-partisan) prohibitionist fervor that swept the first decade of the 20th century, regarding not just cannabis, but beverage alcohol, cocaine, heroin & etc. The moral panic (heavily laden with racism) was fast and furious, fed by the media and an asshole named Harry Anslinger who was essentially the first federal”Drug Czar,” and that panic resurrects with varying degrees of derangement to this day.
Incontinentia Buttocks said,
August 1, 2007 at 23:45
Am I the only one who wants to caption that photo of Prager: “There’s only two songs in me/And I just wrote the third“?
D. Sidhe said,
August 2, 2007 at 0:46
I’ve never in my life advocated banning smoking because a smoker’s health care is expensive. I advocate banning it because people who smoke and then sit next to me on mass transit or stand next to me in a line or, really, anywhere else for ten minutes give me a three day migraine, complete with barfing and incredibly expensive anti-migraine drugs. So, theoretically, I’d ban it because they make *my* health care more expensive and mean I have to spend a lot of time arguing with my fucking insurance company, which should at least be a sin if not a crime.
Mona said,
August 2, 2007 at 0:56
I’ve never in my life advocated banning smoking because a smoker’s health care is expensive. I advocate banning it because people who smoke and then sit next to me on mass transit or stand next to me in a line or, really, anywhere else for ten minutes give me a three day migraine,
For some, that is also true of being in proximity of those wearing after-shave/cologne/perfume. Do you want those banned, too?
D. Sidhe said,
August 2, 2007 at 1:30
Yep. Also fluorescent lightbulbs, red wine, popcorn, and my idiot housemate’s children’s cherry cough syrup scented shampoo*. Which is why I don’t try to write legislation, you know? Or even initiatives, despite the fact that any fucking moron apparently can in my home state.
Instead, in fact, I simply tend to not leave the house very much at all either because I don’t want a migraine from dealing with people or I have a migraine from dealing with people, which makes me not a productive member of the economy except for paying for my very expensive migraine pills. So, hey, this stupid habit has basically trashed my life. I think at the very least I’m entitled to *fantasize about*, rather than attempting to enact, legislation which would allow me to live in a vaguely normal fashion.
* Mind you, none of those things give your non-smoking kids asthma, or the waitress at the bar cancer.
Mona said,
August 2, 2007 at 2:21
* Mind you, none of those things give your non-smoking kids asthma, or the waitress at the bar cancer.
That waitress is far more likely to die in a traffic accident driving home from work. I say we limit driving to absolute emergencies, and one should have to prove to the govt that the trip was necessary.
DAS said,
August 2, 2007 at 2:44
Regarding Cato: Unlike AEI, et al., it seems to be a place that actually does advocate for a bona fide position other than pro-corporate hackery, etc. While I disagree with much of their ideology, they aren’t shills the way the other right-wing “think tanks” are … they actually earn the title of “think tank”.
Nonetheless, IIRC, Cato was founded (and is still bought and paid for) with corporate money. Even (perhaps better, especially) according to the right-libertarian ideology supported by Cato, corporations are in it for profit. If corporations didn’t benefit from Cato, they wouldn’t be paying for it (how come if a righty-tighty makes this point, especially if about upper middle class support of government programs that turns out to be self-dealing, she’s being economically hard-nosed while if a lefty moonbat makes this point, he’s being “paranoid”?).
Even though Cato might often vehemently disagree with Bush & CO and support many ideas opposed by corporate America, the fact of the matter is that their “anti-government” ideology helps discredit liberal progressivism and helps set up the stage for the corporate shills.
Of course, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, corporations wouldn’t even exist but for “big gummint”, but getting people upset with gummint is a key step in making sure people don’t ever think government can benefit them or even do anything right. If people don’t think government can do good, they won’t bother to elect people who’ll be good at governing (in fact, they’ll distrust them) but rather will elect people who’ll be strategically incompetent at it, a la Bush & CO.
Just because Cato’s actual policy ideas are not those of corporate shills doesn’t mean the whole institution is not a cog in the machine. It’s being funded for a reason, and anyone who doesn’t to see that is incredibly naive if not willfully ignorant. If anything, Cato is more insidious than AEI, et al. After all, what AEI, et al., are is obvious … Cato is independent and full of people coming up with ideas in good faith. Nu? With good intentions is the road to hell paved …
Matt T. said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:02
That waitress is far more likely to die in a traffic accident driving home from work.
Again, you do realize that is a shit-ass argument and not one that’ll really convince liberals and progressives, right? I mean, you do understand that neither the totally unrelated chance of dying some other way nor your silly hyperbolic rejoinder will change any minds on this subject, right? Do libertarians actually care what liberals think or do they just want blind agreement?
D. Sidhe said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:07
That waitress is far more likely to die in a traffic accident driving home from work. I say we limit driving to absolute emergencies, and one should have to prove to the govt that the trip was necessary.
I fantasize about that, too. Remember the mass transit thing? I don’t drive. And I started having migraines after an asshole hit me while I was crossing a street with a cross light and he was chatting with his friends in the back seat. In broad daylight. Though certainly one could make the case that driving is more important for the economy than cigarette sales.
The difference between me and most libertarians, I suppose. We each have an ideal world we fantasize about, in my case banning everything that gives me migraines and in their case lassaiz-fair economics, but I don’t necessarily believe that the world *should* be run the way I’d like to see it done, particularly if it harms people.
Mona said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:23
Again, you do realize that is a shit-ass argument and not one that’ll really convince liberals and progressives, right? I mean, you do understand that neither the totally unrelated chance of dying some other way nor your silly hyperbolic rejoinder will change any minds on this subject, right? Do libertarians actually care what liberals think or do they just want blind agreement?
Not at all unrelated. Why are you not advocating a ban on driving unless it is absolutely necessary? Hmmm? Does your desire to drive when you choose trump the risk, you immoral creature, you? Every time you get behind that wheel to just check out the sale at [fill in the blank], or take the kiddies to the beach 30 miles away, you signifcantly risk killing someone. How dare you?
mikey said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:23
Hell, I dunno. I think I oughta be in charge. Sure, I’m not a Libertarian nor a righteous socialist, but I’m a bitter, angry, crazy felon with strong opinions and a very large, very sharp axe to grind.
What? You wouldn’t want me in charge? What kind of Nazi are you??!!??
mikey
Simba B. said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:26
You know, I would point out, smugness only cultivates the image of libertarians as self-righteous pricks, and doesn’t exactly help your case.
Mona said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:37
DAS writes: Nonetheless, IIRC, Cato was founded (and is still bought and paid for) with corporate money.
Yup, including Big Tobacco. They, like every think take or foundation, or university prof grant applicant, have to have $$. And I don’t deny that this should be *a* factor in considering their output. But they have repeatedly gone against corporate and Republican interests, vehemently and strongly, too many times to count.
The thing is, they sincerely believe some of Big Tobacco’s positions — not on subsidies, tho. And, I share most of those Cato positions, which is a matter of confluence with Tobacco, and not necessarily the same agenda. I truly do not give a shit about any of the tobacco cos. profits — no stock, nothing.
Mona said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:43
Simba sez; You know, I would point out, smugness only cultivates the image of libertarians as self-righteous pricks, and doesn’t exactly help your case.
Smug? Have you noticed I’m the only libertarian here trying to defend my political position against an overwhelming number of detractors? If my hackles are up, it is because I both really love this site, and am pissed to find a lot of ignorant crap about what I/we supposedly believe directed at me/us.
HTML Mencken said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:52
Everyone, please. Mona is a libertarian but she is good people. Lord knows there’s plenty in libertarianism to criticize, but Mona does good work smashing war-loving wingnuts. Unqualified Offerings-Sadly,No! entente cordiale, whattaya say?
HTML Mencken said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:56
Besides, it’s not like she writes for Reason/Hit & Run of Defending-Cavity-Search-Alito and laughing-at-hippies-being-beaten-by-cops infamy. those guys are the libertarians who can fuck themselves.
And that wanker Matt Welch.
Simba B. said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:04
How about we all agree that Dennis Prager is a moron?
mikey said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:07
Well, maybe. But I still think I should be in charge….
mikey
HTML Mencken said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:14
That said, Mona, really, you gotta understand that we are socialists here. We’re just gonna bash economic libertarianism. It’s an honor and duty and considering what laissez-faire wrought — and what its potential is — we’re doin the Lord’s work (so says the agnostic). Yes, there are some liberals here who have middle class biases, as per smoking bans and other mild nanny-stating. I disagree with them, some very much so when their opposition is purely aesthetic and class-based (rather than the more understandable rationale of D. Sidhe), but really it’s not that big of a deal in the great scheme of things.
Everybody, let’s say we agree to disagree on the smaller stuff so long as we all agree on the big thing: wars like Iraq are stupid and evil and must be stopped and prevented and, also, those who advocate for them must be scorned and ridiculed mercilessly and rhetorically kicked in the teeth. What ya say?
Mona said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:21
HTML writes: And that wanker Matt Welch.
Hey, I don’t mean this rhetorically, I really don’t know: What did he write that gave you such a poor opinion, since last I heard, he was totally sick of the GOP, the war & etc. But I have not kept up with him since he left Reason for the LAT well over a year ago.
As for this from Simba: August 2, 2007 at 4:04
How about we all agree that Dennis Prager is a moron?
It shocks to think anyone who does not realize this can operate a computer.
Simba B. said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:24
Mencken, I have to tell you, I love your posts, I love your comments on this site. I share a number of them with my friends/readers on my journal—seriously, how many blogs are comments worthy of linking to? More often than not, you say exactly what I believe, but am too stupid to put into words. Your command of the English language is amazing, sir, and I salute you. It’s an honor to have you using that talent in the service of “our side”.
Mona said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:25
That said, Mona, really, you gotta understand that we are socialists here.
Like, fuckin’ seriously? Then my sweetheart, you dishonor your namesake. :)
Matt T. said,
August 2, 2007 at 5:06
Mona,
Not at all unrelated. Why are you not advocating a ban on driving unless it is absolutely necessary? Hmmm? Does your desire to drive when you choose trump the risk, you immoral creature, you? Every time you get behind that wheel to just check out the sale at [fill in the blank], or take the kiddies to the beach 30 miles away, you signifcantly risk killing someone. How dare you?
Thanks for reminding me why I don’t can’t libertarians seriously. You can’t argue or persuade in such a way that’d actualy appeal to a progressive’s political ideology, so it turns to hyperbole and snide remarks. Again, if you’re trying to reach consensus or build political bridges, you do a piss-poor job of it.
Mona said,
August 2, 2007 at 5:13
Oh and HTML ask me about this sometime:
of Defending-Cavity-Search-Alito
I’m not an Alito fan at this point, but that case was not about defending cavity searches of kids. It was a civil matter about whether individual cops who thought they understood a warrant should be bankrupted for believing they had a go-ahead after the DA told them so. There is no evidence in the record that the police acted in bad faith — they just didn’t know what the warrant really covered. And because of our sick drug laws, cavity searches of kids are routinely approved.
I don’t think decent cops should lose their homes over a huge warrant fuck-up.
Matt T. said,
August 2, 2007 at 5:14
HTML Menken,
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if libertarians want liberals to find common ground with them, maybe they should try meeting us at least somewhere near the middle instead of insisting we toe their line and then throwing tantrums when we don’t. I’ve seen Mona’s comments here and at other places, and she’s plenty sharp, but come on…”They’re gonna die anyway, so why bother”? You really think that’s a good argument? I mean, look at that. Why should I take any of that seriously?
As for the libertarian anti-war stance, well…you know what they say about stopped clocks and all.
HTML Mencken said,
August 2, 2007 at 5:17
Awww, Simba, that’s really nice of you to say. I dunno how to reply — I never take compliments well — but I thank you sincerely.
Mona — IIRC Mencken was pretty generous with Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman.
RE: Matt Welch, well, look I don’t know the guy. But i don’t like what I do know *of* him. My first exposure was at a baseball site we both used to comment at. He’s a total kool-aid drinking stathead whose sole contribution to any argument was posting X player’s win shares. Blargh.
Otherwise, he’s in that awful LA clique that includes Kaus and Yay Torture Volokh, Luke (If I write enough about the subject, a pornstar might actually fuck me one day!) Ford, and the late Kathy Seipp (an incredibly annoying female Lileks type — sorry, but of the dead only speak the truth). And what amounts to a clique socially amounts to a cabal journalistically — not quite so hermetic and far more self-pitying than the Klein-Yglesias-Sanchez-Drum-Kleiman clique on “our side”, but every bit as navel-gazing, entitled and elitist.
Welch was absolutely awful in the run-up to the war and during its early days, not really much betetr than Instapundit. Welch’s great crusade — instead of, you know, worrying about important things — was to bash “idiotarians”. He says he was “agnostic” about it, but that carries about as much weight as Reynolds’s passive-aggressive plausible deniabilities. Seriously, fuck him.
Mona said,
August 2, 2007 at 8:26
Mona — IIRC Mencken was pretty generous with Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman.
Not that I’m aware of. And actually, I have some significant admiration for Goldman, but not Berkman. But whatever else is true, Mencken was not a socialist.
About Welch. I know he is a Greenwald fan, so it seems weird that he could be in the Reynolds league. A lot of folks were awful in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, me included. But some of us got a clue before it was popular to do so.
Mona said,
August 2, 2007 at 8:40
That is so fucking totally not what I said, fuck you very much. (My brother, at age 41, burned to death passing out with a lit cigarette.) Anti-smoking activists have argued cigarettes should be taxed and/or banned to save money, but if that is the argument, smokers die earlier and actually save Medicaire/Medicaid dollars.
My brother’s death has saved the federal govt years of disability benefits. That isn’t a thing to celebrate, but it is one example showing that the anti-smoking zealots deploy false economic arguments in support of their crusade. Most smokers lop off years from their old age, which saves the govt $$.
Stephen Ockham said,
August 2, 2007 at 9:11
“Most smokers lop off years from their old age, which saves the govt $$.”
Lets see if I can parse that idea without delving into hyperbolic parody.
If dying early saves the government money, and saving the government money is a great virtue, then should we not encourage all citizens to take up smoking, or other self-destructive practices in the pursuit of decreasing the average lifespan, and in the process decreasing the tax burden on the citizen?
Perhaps, rather than adding prohibitive sales tax to tobacco productions, we ought to create an income tax deduction for tobacco consumption. That way, the government won’t be compelling the citizens one way or the other.
As others have said, this is not an argument that is palatable to your typical progressive/liberal. Callous indifference regarding the quality of life of our fellow citizens is really not what we’re looking for.
Also, the idea that we ought to be open to a group merely because they dislike Bush is a little insulting. Disliking Bush, I think we’ll see as the primary process drags on, will be the new national pastime. Nobody, of any affiliation, will wish to be closely associated with him because he has failed at everything, and America abhors a loser.
I expect that 2008 will be marked by Republican would-be noms trying especially hard to score points by carefully slagging Bush — while endeavouring to avoid also slagging the war or tax cuts, or whatever their Republican plank of choice is (babies and bathwater, ya know).
Flattering though it would be, I hardly think that I only disagree with 28% of Americans. At this point purposing that vouching for another party by pointing out that ‘They too criticize Bush’ carries the same weight as ‘he also finds fire to be hot and water wet’.
Matt T. said,
August 2, 2007 at 9:14
Mona,
Fine. Whatever. We’re not getting anywhere and we’re not gonna see eye-to-eye on this. I’m not even sure what you’re arguing for anymore, apart from anti-anti-smoking zealotry, apparently. You’re not getting my point and that may be my fault, but I honestly don’t care anymore. It’s not worth the effort and I’m sure we both have better things to do with our time.
Stephen Ockham said,
August 2, 2007 at 9:14
arg, they give me a preview but do I use it? Nix “purposing that” from the last para altogether.
owlbear1 said,
August 2, 2007 at 11:14
IMHO-
Marijuana is illegal because there is NO way to effectively tax its sale.
What do you need to grow it?
Earth, water, sunshine, and a little time…
Talk about ‘growing it on trees?
With it illegal, pressure can be brought to bear on the user to ID the seller in order to track down the growers. You know, the ones ‘growing money’.
IMHO
Herr Doktor Bimler said,
August 2, 2007 at 11:48
I’m a bitter, angry, crazy felon with strong opinions and a very large, very sharp axe to grind.
Yeah, but do you have a little list?
Of people who never would be missed?
initiate debate said,
August 2, 2007 at 14:31
Owlbear- you could say the same thing about any crop, including maize, rice, bananas and tobacco, and yet they are all taxed…
While I agree with the point about people dying younger not being a ‘burden’ on the system, that doesn’t make it a good thing. Following that course of argument the best governments/systems would be in Zimbabwe and Iraq, or wherever else the infant mortality rate is depressingly low. Surely there’s a point where it becomes the government’s obligation to look after its people?
Pere Ubu said,
August 2, 2007 at 15:10
you gotta understand that we are socialists here
Well, left-libertarian/democratic socialist ex-right-wing-libertarian here.
That said, CATO is guilty of a classic scam among the Right - “you = small businessman = big corporation”. (One might suggest that this scam grows out of the invalid definition of a corporation as a “person”.) In short, a regulation on one is considered a burden on the other two, to the point where reasonable limits on corporate activity become, to otherwise decent people, insane impositions on Mr. & Mrs. Everywhere by a evil bureaucratic proto-Stalinist government. The fact that you’re probably more directly impacted day-to-day by authority in the home office than from Washington gets ignored; authoritarianism then ONLY comes from the EEEVIL GUMMINT and NEVER from the manager standing over you threatening you with unemployment for having a “Kerry/Edwards” bumper sticker.
(Show me CATO addressing, say, the need for better workplace safety policies or the surveillace state the modern office seems to be becoming, and I’ll reconsider. Somehow I don’t see it happening, though.)
Lawnguylander said,
August 2, 2007 at 17:04
If dying early saves the government money, and saving the government money is a great virtue, then should we not encourage all citizens to take up smoking, or other self-destructive practices in the pursuit of decreasing the average lifespan, and in the process decreasing the tax burden on the citizen?
We should focus on recruiting the type of people who would have no qualms about lighting up in confined spaces and in the presence of non-smokers. A profile could easily be developed by the CATO institute and their tobacco industry allies. Free cartons of cigarettes and Joe Camel beach towels for every current non-smoker who talks though movies, has a loud mobile phone conversation on a train, illegally parks in handicapped spaces, Yankee fans, you know the type. Such people will spread the economic benefits of smoking to non smokers in the form of second hand smoke. These new smokers will be vociferous in defense of their rights (Go out on the sidewalk? Go fuck yourself.) and will loudly join CATO and the tobacco companies in the “nanny state, nanny state, nanny, nanny, nanny state” chorus whenever and wherever totalitarian, progessive do-gooders and those more concerned with their own health seek to address the situation through legislation.
owlbear1 said,
August 2, 2007 at 17:05
Yet none of those grow like ‘weeds’.
The crops you mention all require a great deal of infrastructure to produce AND are difficult to turn around directly into cash.
DAS said,
August 2, 2007 at 17:09
But they have repeatedly gone against corporate and Republican interests, vehemently and strongly, too many times to count. - Mona
Indeed. And certainly, while I find myself disagreeing with Cato more often than not, most of them seem to be good people. They do an excellent job at not letting the source of their $$ influence their thinking … better, in fact, than some in academia who claim the mantle of objectivity.
But that’s the point. Cato wouldn’t serve the interests of those who fund it if it just regurgitated corporate propaganda, like some of the other think-tanks (and when talking about some of them, I use the term “think tank” loosely). Cato’s niche is it’s honesty and good faith. Because on so many specific issues it goes against the interests that fund it, it has a trustworthiness in making anti-government arguments that other organizations don’t have.
And while I understand that we disagree on the role of government, from my POV, the net affect of so much anti-government rhetoric (strengthened by the intellectual window dressing provided by Cato) is not to promote a bona fide libertarian agenda but rather to discredit the idea that government can do anything right which discredits the idea (an idea that ironically has been repeatedly and explicitly stated by Cato affiliates) that our leaders are people we hire to do a job, so we should hire people who do the job well!
Instead, continual anti-government rhetoric fuels the thinking that government is not a tool to get things done (something about which liberals and libertarians tend to agree, even if liberals are wont to use this tool for almost everything and libertarians for only a select few things) or to provide an infrastructure for and environment of social order, but rather something more existential. If people are thinking of hiring an employee to fill the job of “president” they don’t hire the likes of Bush. However, if people are thinking that gummint is inherently futile, they aren’t thinking of a campaign as a job interview, but instead as some sort of class-president-election popularity contest … and they’ll happily elect someone who’s the toughest talker or the one they’d like best to have beers with.
And when people hire a government to do a job, it doesn’t serve corporate interests — even if they were to hire a bona fide libertarian. But when people think government is futile and tainted anyway, they’ll happily elect corrupt and tainted people who do serve corporate interests to run the government (and to set up a viscious cycle). By providing intellectual justification and cover for such an anti-government attitude, Cato does serve corporate and GOP interests even if the express thinking of Cato’s affiliates often goes against not only specific corporate or GOP agenda items but also against the general grain of the view of government to which anti-government thinking ultimately leads.
DAS said,
August 2, 2007 at 17:14
Yet none of those grow like ‘weeds’. - owlbear1
In the interest of fitting in as a nit-picking Sadly, No! commentor, I disagree with this usage of “grow like weeds” (though the pun is sure funny!). Weeds don’t “grow like weeds”. I tried growing dandelions (which have yummy leaves, roots that substitute for chickory, flowers that can flavor wine and tea) once … and I realized why you can’t get them cheap in the market. Dandelions are perverse plants that only grow where you don’t want them to grow. If you plant a dandelion patch, they just won’t grow there!
Golden Boy said,
August 2, 2007 at 17:17
Visigoth says, “Am I the only one who thinks Praeger and the rest of the wingnuts are a buzzkill? I’m actually excited about a Global Caliphate! Man, that would rock!
It would be like the 1001 Arabian Nights and every Ray Harryhausen monster movie rolled into one. I could ride my magic carpet to work blah blah blah.”
No, Visigoth, actually it would be like living in a place where insulting Islam, the Koran, and the Prophet are felonies.
Apparently we live there now. Enjoying it yet?
Simba B. said,
August 2, 2007 at 17:19
It’s called snark, dude.
And you’re in it’s capital on the Internets.
MCH said,
August 2, 2007 at 17:19
Matt T. said,
August 2, 2007 at 9:14
Mona,
Fine. Whatever. We’re not getting anywhere and we’re not gonna see eye-to-eye on this. I’m not even sure what you’re arguing for anymore,
Quite respectfully, Matt, it seemed to me like Mona was clarifying what the “smokers dying saves money” study was about: not advocating that we should allow smokers to die to save money, but showing that the saving-money argument as deployed by anti-smoking activists is false.
There are plenty of other good reasons to argue that people should quit smoking etc., but “it saves the gov’t money” is not one of them. It undermines the case, like when they talk about heavy metal “contamination” of tobacco, when the “contamination” in question is caused by the fact that tobacco is a plant grown in dirt, and that all other plants grown in dirt have similar levels of “contamination” (ie, unavoidable trace amounts).
It’s akin to saying we should get out of Iraq because our occupation is killing all the unicorns there. Right answer, wrong reason.
Whatever your opinion of Cato (mine is mixed, myself), pointing out a flaw in the antismoking argument is no more “anti-anti-smoking zealotry” than noting Iraq’s lack of unicorns is warmongering. (That’s the old “opposing the Iraq war is Islamofascism” trick, with which we’re all familiar…)
Lawnguylander said,
August 2, 2007 at 17:29
No, Visigoth, actually it would be like living in a place where insulting Islam, the Koran, and the Prophet are felonies.
Apparently we live there now. Enjoying it yet?
You live in Saudi Arabia, Golden Boy?
Golden Boy said,
August 2, 2007 at 17:30
Simba,
Assuming that you were talking to me, I am aware that Visigoth was being flip. I am not sure that flippancy is appropriate when the First Amendment is being undermined in the face of Muslim aggression, but hey, make silly faces and call names if you think it helps.
I’ll repeat: insulting Islam, the Koran, and their vile prophet are now apparently felonies in the USA. Is the needle moving at all for you people or are you sure, just sure, that it will never affect you?
Simba B. said,
August 2, 2007 at 17:31
but hey, make silly faces and call names if you think it helps.
It does help, thanks.
Simba B. said,
August 2, 2007 at 17:31
I’ll repeat: insulting Islam, the Koran, and their vile prophet are now apparently felonies in the USA.
Chazmo, is that you?
Golden Boy said,
August 2, 2007 at 17:35
Nope, I live in the States. The same place where no newspaper would dare re-publish the cartoons that insulted Muslims and their despicable prophet. The same place where a young man was arrested and, and the urging of Muslim “civil rights” groups, charged with felonies for throwing the ridiculous Koran in a toilet.
Hey, you don’t need the First Amendment anyway, do you? Just close your eyes and laugh ’cause it’s happening to people that don’t vote the same way you do.
MCH said,
August 2, 2007 at 18:04
The same place where no newspaper would dare re-publish the cartoons that insulted Muslims and their despicable prophet.
Isn’t that a felony, or something?
initiate debate said,
August 2, 2007 at 18:13
Bananas and rice don’t require a huge infrastructure to produce or grow, they just require an infrastructure to grow them in sufficient quantities to meet demand. Are you saying the same wouldn’t be true of growing marijuana, or that that isn’t the case at the moment?
Righteous Bubba said,
August 2, 2007 at 18:27
The same place where no newspaper would dare re-publish the cartoons
Noted left-wing rag Harper’s published them.
Righteous Bubba said,
August 2, 2007 at 18:36
Quite respectfully, Matt, it seemed to me like Mona was clarifying what the “smokers dying saves money” study was about: not advocating that we should allow smokers to die to save money, but showing that the saving-money argument as deployed by anti-smoking activists is false.
Maybe. There are a lot of health and property expenses - not to mention deaths - that I don’t think have been dealt with in such arguments. I don’t have any suspicions as to whether one side of the scale tips or the other does, but apart from their addictive qualities it seems silly to let people run around with small disposable fires.
mikey said,
August 2, 2007 at 18:53
Holy shit. Is that a wingnut crying about the loss of constitutional rights? Hey golden boy, where do you stand on the fourth amendment? What about habeas? Are you ok with locking people up forever without due process? I somehow bet you are, especially if they’re vile muslims.
So take your first amendment crocodile tears, freeze them into little shards with sharp edges and shove them up your ass one by one.
You think anybody is fooled by your situational concern about the constitution? It’s a complete document. You either support it’s protection as a whole, you you are a lying hypocrite. I know which one I think you are…
mikey
mikey said,
August 2, 2007 at 18:56
…and the urging of Muslim “civil rights” groups…
See? Here you use scare quotes around the phrase civil rights. You don’t think muslims deserve the same rights as anybody else? Why would that be? I believe the constitution you so deeply value speaks of “equal protection under the law”. Did I miss the “racial and religious hatred amendment”?
mikey
Golden Boy said,
August 2, 2007 at 19:12
Mikey,
I support the full Bill of Rights. Did you think that I did not? You obviously feel quite strongly about this subject, but you’ve jumped in feet first on something you know nothing about (my personal political beliefs.) Somehow I get the feeling that’s not the first time you’ve done something like that.
Care to weigh in on the subject of insulting the Koran? Or would that frighten you too much? I don’t blame if you if it does, somebody has already been charged with felonies for “desecrating” it.
Righteous Bubba,
Good, more progressive publications should have published the Danish cartoons. My comment is on the fear that everyone felt in discussing them.
If Muslims wish to abase themselves before a vile ideology, and further abase themselves by worshipping a book, I can only look at them with pity. I do draw the line at having their absurd claims of superiority enforced on me. See the difference, Mikey?
Stephen Ockham said,
August 2, 2007 at 19:33
Can’t we just all agree that all religion is for losers? Why focus on mulsims when the differences between the major faiths are of so little consequence when viewed from a perspective outside of their influence.
Doesn’t the christian insistance on holding a book sacred evoke pity from those of us who know better? All I ever hear these days is ‘christian nation’ this, and ‘one true faith’ that, I draw the line at having their absurd claims of superiority enforced on me.
Why do I get the feeling that Golden Boy probably wouldn’t say anything about ‘christians abasing themselves before a vile ideology’ or find much fun in comic characatures of ‘the despicable profit Jerry Falwell”.
The diction and flavour just reeks of the ‘religious freedom for christianity’ strain of annoying wingnut bullshit. This tack of ‘In the name of freedom I will take the opportunity bash the religion of my enemy while hiding my real motivation’ is a very old, very boring cliche.
If I was cold and needed kindling, I wouldn’t think twice about reaching for a bible or a koran.
Simba B. said,
August 2, 2007 at 19:36
Can’t we just all agree that all religion is for losers?
Yes!
Matt T. said,
August 2, 2007 at 19:40
MCH,
Fuck if I care what she was trying to do. It’s still a piss-fucking-poor argument and I imagine whatever back up she’s using comes from pro-tobacco industry sources like, say, the Cato Institute. You notice she never posted any links to any arugments that backed it up, she just kept repeating that same shit-ass comment, over and over, like I supposed to just accept as word from high. I had very little use for the foundation of libertarian thought before she and I got into it, and I have even less afterwards. She’s welcome to it and hope it works out for her.
Righteous Bubba said,
August 2, 2007 at 19:44
You’re making your own assumptions Golden Boy. You’ll find me ragging on the Koran somewhere in this site and I believe Mikey does the same. We just don’t freak out when someone wrecks someone else’s stuff and gets arrested for it - which I believe is the case with Mr. Koranflusher. I am willing to accept correction on this point.
Of course Muslims are going to get upset: they view that book as god’s word in a far more literal way than Christians and they treat it with respect as part of their devotions. There’s a little resting-place for it in most mosques that is pretty distinct from a nice lectern for a bible.
Certainly people got upset at Piss Christ and if Serrano had stolen anything to make it you’d better believe he’d have been in legal trouble. So what’s new?
Golden Boy said,
August 2, 2007 at 19:50
Stephen,
I find Christianity just as ridiculous as you do. Jerry Falwell and his band of fundraising idiots inspire no love in my heart, believe me.
The difference is that if you tossed a Bible into the fire, no one would come after you for committing a crime. Try tossing a Koran into a fire in public; what the heck, you’ll be briefly famous as you get arrested.
So yes, all religion is for losers. I have no problem signing up to that statement. You simply cannot dismiss these concerns as being those of a sectarian triumphialist; in fact, it is the sectarian triumphialism and superiority of Islam that I object to.
Well, that and its open advocacy of violence, but that is a whole different story.
Golden Boy said,
August 2, 2007 at 19:56
Righteous Bubba,
The point is that the young man who dumped the Koran in the toilet is being charged with felony hate crimes, and that this is happening in response to intense pressure from Muslim “civil rights” groups (Mikey, there is a reason for those words to be in quotes here, but I think it is too subtle a point for you.)
I am well aware that Islam calls for worship and veneration of the Koran. I’m not sure why Muslims think they can force me into accepting that absurd claim, though. They are using the legal system to force that, and that is what is so dangerous and pernicious.
This is precisely on point to Prager’s comments. Muslims in States are taking a “softly, softly” approach to enforcing their claims of superiority on Americans. If it is a hate crime to dump a Koran in the toilet, is it a hate crime to say that Mohammed was a pedophile?
What the heck, maybe it is now a hate crime to deny the veracity of Islam. This is death by a thousand cuts.
Righteous Bubba said,
August 2, 2007 at 20:08
The point is that the young man who dumped the Koran in the toilet is being charged with felony hate crimes, and that this is happening in response to intense pressure from Muslim “civil rights” groups
I believe I noted that with a big “so what”. This dummy gave them an “in” to exploit and they’re exploiting it. You’ll find Christians all over the land doing the same thing.
mikey said,
August 2, 2007 at 20:55
Actually, GB, I don’t know where you hang out, but I’m fairly well known in the neo-atheist and secular progressive community. But where you and I seem to differ is I don’t use my dislike for religion as a vehicle to justify what appears to me to be a racial, or at least sectarian, hatred. If you think it’s somehow odd that someone would get the impression that you have a particular problem with muslims, you need to reconsider the language you use. Again, the scare quotes around civil rights as applied to muslims? Calling it a “vile ideology”? And people are supposed to get the impression you’re an equal-opportunity hater? Your pants, young man, are on fire.
I’m willing to bet that there will be no conviction for hate crimes, merely for harassment or mischief, if that. But your hysteria about an arrest, long before the facts can be determined in a courtroom, indicates to me you might just have another agenda here…
mikey
tigrismus said,
August 2, 2007 at 20:56
Since I’d rather talk about weed etc. than Islam,
IMHO-
Marijuana is illegal because there is NO way to effectively tax its sale.
In my none-too-humble opinion, marijuana should be treated the way home-brewed beer is, in that one could raise a certain amount for one’s personal use but not sell it. Liquor distillation should be treated similarly, so that any income was taxed and customer safety could be maintained, but dammit I ought to be able to do what I like for myself, and I sure as shooting want a still.
Golden Boy said,
August 2, 2007 at 21:05
Mikey,
I’m not sure if that young man will be convicted of felony hate crimes, either. I am sure that I would not want to be the one betting my future on it.
Islam is rapidly becoming a special, protected ideology in the States. This is largely due to the influence of extremely aggressive Muslims in this country who are using our own legal system against us. If throwing a Bible in the toilet resulted in felony charges against someone, I’d decry that too. The fact is, however, that Muslims are violently asserting their supremacist ideas on Americans. I find that to be very disturbing.
The question, why don’t you? Are you like Righteous Bubba, who just shrugs his shoulders because he thinks the person arrested for insulting Islam is an “idiot”?
And yes, Islam is a vile, illiberal ideology, by any objective criteria. Anyone who practices its core beliefs - that non-Muslims are inferior, that one should bow to a rock in Mecca, that one should follow a prescription for living for everything from defecation to the arts - is demonstrably debasing their own humanity.
Simba B. said,
August 2, 2007 at 21:11
What is it with the passive-aggressive wingnuts around here in the past few days?They blow in here saying wingnutty things and then all the sudden they’re ready to be serious. They’re still saying the same vile, wingnutty things that they always do, it’s just that they start out trolling and then it’s all serious discussion and argument all the sudden.
Seriously, WTF?
Matt T. said,
August 2, 2007 at 21:19
MCH,
Okay, that was nastier and more snappish than I prefer to be, and I apologize. Still, I’ve said all I’m gonna say on this topic. I just don’t see the point in arguing it anymore, either smoking bans specifically or the validity of libertarian ideology for liberal consumption in general. I got nothing against Mona and still think she’s pretty sharp, I just think that particular argument was and is incredibly weak and myopic. Obviously, she felt the same way about mine. Fair enough, but I’m done.
tigrismus,
If weed was legal to raise for personal use but not for sale, how if at all do you think it would affect the existing black market? Growing weed, either in a field or hydroponically, is a bit of a pain in the ass, and I doubt most tokers would go through the effort, even if they had the resources, which most of us don’t. Personally, I don’t see Sam stepping off the grass any time soon, in any event, but if it was legal to grow but not sell - and you know plenty of folks would supply to “friends” if it worked as you say - I do think Johnny Law would be a bigger prick about getting a quarter than he already is.
mikey said,
August 2, 2007 at 21:23
Actually, I’m not a terrified little bedwetter, G-Boy. I’m not terrified of muslims, mexicans, terrorists, pedophiles or any other of your boogeymen. My government sent me thousands of miles to a beautiful country to kill communists, but I wasn’t afraid of communists either. This is a strong, powerful land full of strong, fair people (then there’s you, of course, but we’ve always had the scared little boys, racists and idiots to deal with, and I reckon we always will) who will accommodate the newcomers and keep our identity, diverse and strong. They won’t dominate us any more the christianists or the communists or the nazis or anybody else has dominated us.
Look at yourself. You’re either irrationally terrified of a small minority or you’re using the whole anti-muslim sentiment in the US since 9/11 as a justification for your own racial fear and hatred. It has to be one or the other. You’ll do us all a service if you figure out which one it is, admit it, and quit pretending. Your position as you are currently voicing it is untenable…
mikey
atheist said,
August 2, 2007 at 21:24
Islam is rapidly becoming a special, protected ideology in the States.
The fact is, however, that Muslims are violently asserting their supremacist ideas on Americans.
Dude, bullshit. Muslims aren’t asserting supremacist ideas on Americans, they are cowering in the corner hoping they can stop the hate against them. If you seriously think that US culture endangered by a Muslim takeover of some kind, you are living in a fantasy world.
tigrismus said,
August 2, 2007 at 21:53
I don’t know, Matt. I guess I’m not really looking at it as how to improve the situation for the government, but rather I’m wondering what business does the government have with it in the first place, constitutionally speaking. I just can’t see how it’s any of the government’s business if I grow my own tobacco, wacky or otherwise, as long as I don’t sell it. I suppose the black market for pot would be like any other, like the cash-only labor black market, in that there’s not really any way to police it, and any legal remedy would be more along the lines of tax evasion. Plus, I assume if it were legal but regulated like the alcohol business, manufacturers could sell them, so those lazy folks wouldn’t have to resort to the black market. As long as I can have myself a little still, I’m easy about the details ;-)
Righteous Bubba said,
August 2, 2007 at 21:55
Are you like Righteous Bubba, who just shrugs his shoulders because he thinks the person arrested for insulting Islam is an “idiot”?
Guy, he stole the books. That’s the behaviour of an idiot. Note:
The incidents came amid a spate of vandalism cases The incidents came amid a spate of vandalism cases with religious or racial overtones at the school. In an earlier incident on Sept. 21, the school reported another copy of the Quran was found in a library toilet, and in October someone scrawled racial slurs on a student’s car at the Westchester County satellite campus and on a bathroom wall at the campus in lower Manhattan. Police did not connect Shmulevich to those incidents.
I’m not a big fan of hate-crimes legislation, but this guy might deserve a serious scare.
Golden Boy said,
August 2, 2007 at 22:11
Mikey,
I’ll answer you first since it’s the simplest response.
How can it be racist to oppose Islam? Islam is nothing more than the perfect marriage of religion and politics; as most Muslims aren’t even Arab it seems to me that crying “racist” is a pathetic attempt at hand-waving that won’t carry much water for long.
Take a look at countries ruled by majority Muslim populations. Saudi Arabia, for example, where Bibles are illegal; Malaysia, for another, where conversion from Islam can be punished in the legal system (did you even know these things?) Can’t you see how Islam is made the basis of the political system?
Move on to countries with balanced Muslim and non-Muslim populations, like Nigeria, Thailand, and the Phillipines, and witness the bloodshed as Muslims struggle to impose their ascendancy on the civilized portion of the population. Even in countries like France and Holland can we see violent coercion, as filmmakers are knifed in the street for insulting Islam.
If Christianity dictated such actions, I’d condemn it. Islam is nothing more than the struggle to impose a particularly vile ideology over humanity in the guise of religion. You must know this; is it because you don’t want to admit it that you resort to insults?
Righteous Bubba said,
August 2, 2007 at 22:15
filmmakers are knifed in the street
Name two.
Golden Boy said,
August 2, 2007 at 22:19
Atheist,
Saudi money is pouring into this country. Who do you think funds CAIR? It’s not Muslims in America - their membership is very small - it is the Saudis. The results can be seen in mosques popping up all over this country, and vigorous legal action against anyone who dares to insult Islam.
Cowering in the corner? Did you have in mind the Somali recently sentenced for plotting to blow up an Ohio shopping mall, or his countrymen who are refusing to give taxi rides to blind people with guide dogs? Or maybe you are thinking of the imams who terrorized Americans on an airplane, and then sued them when they were baited into reporting them. Atheist, no Muslims I know (and I know a few) are cowering at all. They cower about as much as a certain Aryan youth did, convinced of their supremacy over lesser breeds.
Simba B. said,
August 2, 2007 at 22:26
I seriously do not understand the wingnut obsession with CAIR. Really, I don’t.
atheist said,
August 2, 2007 at 22:32
Dude, that’s ridiculous. If you’re so worried about some dumb ass Muslim terrorist rejects who make pathetic attempts to blow up malls but get arrested when they blab to some shmo who then tells the FBI, then why the fuck aren’t you worried about the very well-organized, well-armed, and often rich groups of white supremacist Christians that exist all across this country, and want to do the exact same kind of terrorism, but have about 100 times the likelihood of actually achieving their aims? Your whole setup is so tendentious that I can’t take anything you say seriously.
Golden Boy said,
August 2, 2007 at 22:43
Atheist,
Of course I’m concerned about Muslim terrorists in this country. After all, they have had some pretty spectacular successes. I think it is possible to be concerned about Muslim terrorism while at the same time wish the FBI well in its (usually) very effective campaign against white supremacist violence. Make sense?
CAIR is a particular concern because it is accepting vast sums of Saudi money to work against Americans. Federal prosecutors named tem as unindicted co-conspirators in their case against Hamas (http://www.nysun.com/article/55778). So there are some hints for you initially, Simba; any concern registering yet?
Atheist, you may not take me seriously but we are now in a time when insulting Islam publically can result in felony hate crimes. This is simply not the case with any other group that you care to bring up, including white supremacists. Muslims take this as their due; they are taught a supremacist ideology and seek to enforce it on others wherever they exist in enough numbers. If you like, I’m happy to list the countries where Muslims are ascendant and what the consequences of that are for the unfortunate non-Muslims that live there.
atheist said,
August 2, 2007 at 22:45
And if you’re so worried about CAIR trying to change society, then why the fuck aren’t you worried about AIPAC, which has vastly more money, influence, and members, doing the exact same thing?
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are trying to start some evil shit, rather than dumb enough to believe what you say.
mikey said,
August 2, 2007 at 22:47
Fuck you, Tin-Hearted Boy. If I was as afraid of the boogeyman in my adulthood as you are, I’d be embarrassed to shout it from the highest hill. But since it’s plainly obvious that you are less terrified than you are full of hate, you can fuck off. If anybody is going to win the scary brown muslims support in this country, it’s crackers like you. So take it on the road, scum…
mikey
Golden Boy said,
August 2, 2007 at 22:53
Atheist,
Is AIPAC trying to enforce Judaic law in this country? Is it supporting lawsuits against airline passengers who report suspicious behavior? Wow, that’s awful. I’ll definitely look into it. In the meantime, enjoy your slightly-restricted civil liberties in deference to Islamic sensibilities. I’m sure you won’t have to give any more concessions away; just make sure you follow the Koranic advice on proper submission to Muslims.
Mikey,
I think all you have to do now is throw in the threat of physical violence if you ever see me, and you’ll complete the online trifecta of ad hominem idiocy. I see that you cannot address the facts I bring up with any reason; you have my pity.
atheist said,
August 2, 2007 at 22:57
No, moron, AIPAC is trying to get us into a new fuckin’ war with Iran over bullshit reasons that don’t even make sense when looked at closely. Dude, hate and fear muslims all you want. The way you are doing it here is really fucking unconvincing.
mikey said,
August 2, 2007 at 23:17
Oh yeah. Thanks for the reminder. Hope some day to kick your ass…
mikey
D. Sidhe said,
August 2, 2007 at 23:27
Can’t we just all agree that all religion is for losers?
Yes!
See, now, this is the kind of thing maybe Mona was talking about, coming here for the company and the snark only to see one’s positions on certain issues denigrated. I don’t get offended by this, in that I don’t care and am probably the closest thing to a pagan atheist you will ever meet, but I just thought I’d mention it isn’t only libertarians who have to deal with this here–it’s women, men, fat people, the religious, pot advocates, vegetarians, non-vegetarians, gays, straights, bisexuals, gun owners, gun control advocates… Pretty much everybody, in fact, at one point or another.
It’s probably worth shrugging and moving on most of the time though I respect that that can be difficult.
D. Sidhe said,
August 2, 2007 at 23:30
mikey, couple thoughts. My partner likes to say that I think violence solves everything. No, I reply, but the *threat* of violence solves many things.
Also, Herr Doktor Bimler seems to feel we should work on a cookbook together, though I largely suspect that after I made Corn Dog Lasagna, you wou