dance?

Because the Germans were the leading scientific and technical nation, and we had to keep up. Not the case with Islam, to say the least.

"Why did these deeply peaceful men do this?"

Maybe because they had experienced evil first hand and knew it would not simply go away if they ignored it.

Why this difference? I see several reasons. The first, and most shocking, is moral relativism. While the scientific community in the 1930s did not hesitate to brand Nazism as evil, many if not most of today’s secularists consider “evil” to be an outmoded concept. They see morality as a matter of social convention; at bottom a purely subjective matter of personal taste. If the Islamic world practices brutal self-flagellation, subjects young girls to clitoridectomy, et cetera, et cetera, well, that’s just their way, and who are we to criticize?

I think this hits the nail on the head- moral relativism run amok. We're not allowed to judge other cultures as bad, only our own. I believe it's called hypocrisy.

Scientists, who in my experience are usually astonishingly ignorant about politics, so thoroughly associate the Bush Administration with the religious right that they simply cannot accept the idea that the Administration is waging a war in defense of secular values against theocratic despotism.

Yah. Well, I haven't seen many scientists who would refuse to work on defense projects. It's a matter of the government, I think - and the anti-government aka the Pelosi/Reid Democrats - not of the scientists. They'll go where the work is, for the most part.

Nowadays everyone is waaaaaay too sensitive about being politically correct. Trouble is - there is NO WAY to be politically correct!

They condemn American society as fundamentally racist and exploitative, and a pro-democracy foreign policy as "imperialistic" because it is “forcing” “our way of life” (i.e., freedom) upon other nations. Many of them even hesitate to use words like “terrorist” when describing terrorists. One rarely hears expressed the view that scientists and other secular intellectuals have any obligation to oppose the forces of barbarism—a word many of them would indignantly refuse to employ.

There you have it, the reason the Republicans are in sad shape atm. That is the glue, freedom, and now it's become a word to sneer at in the papers, from both ends of the political spectrum. We've got to take that word back from the ideological tyrants at all four ends of the political compass.

And I thought Szilard was a "Lizard-Play-On-Words"

!

I'm very much reminded here of the always readable Nick Cohen (one of the few writers on the left I still have much respect for), as he has put forward many of the ideas I see in this article.

I would like to think if are territory were attached as in WWII or threatened by a the aggression of another country, secular liberal intellectuals would rally around the President just as most did in Afghanistan or the first Iraq war.

The shame of the intelligentsia is that they no longer have common sense. We see Americans sending W88 warhead designs and targeting techno;ogy to China, submarine and carrier blueprints to Russia, selling triggers to Iran, all in the belief that they are helping communication. We have become a nation of fools, and have elected a really silly yuppie as President.

Today, the west is confronted by an ideology of dogma, chauvinism, nationalism, and brutality—an ideology whose practitioners brutalize women and children, commit unimaginable acts of savage brutality, and who, if they had the power, would wipe away all free scientific inquiry, all freedom of speech, all dissent....What is the reaction of the secular liberal community? While there are a good many of them who have spoken out eloquently and powerfully in defense of the same human values their fathers defended—people like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens—a many others refuse to do so. They point their accusatory fingers instead at the west. They condemn American society as fundamentally racist and exploitative, and a pro-democracy foreign policy as "imperialistic" because it is “forcing” “our way of life” (i.e., freedom) upon other nations.

No one ever remembers history anymore (except around here); it's a shame, really.

What I wonder is: how can it be that secular liberals, who so strongly and rightly oppose the threat of religious tyranny in the west, who are participants in a tradition that defeated the forces of barbarism a half a century ago, are now so willing to make excuses for Islamic theocracy and to employ euphemisms for terrorism? If there are other reasons, I’d be curious to hear them.

He needs to ponder more on his first point of moral relativism. It's nothing but self-loathing- decades of brainwashing Westerners to feel guilty for the colonialism of centuries ago. It's okay to hate America and the West, but criticize the East and you're a racist. Never mind if the criticism is justified such as with female genital mutilation, or religious intolerance on their part. Just be sure to hate yourself and the culture that brought you all that is decent in the world even if that decency took centuries of social evolution to bring about a better, more humane world. Madness.

re: #11 pat

The shame of the intelligentsia is that they no longer have common sense. We see Americans sending W88 warhead designs and targeting techno;ogy to China, submarine and carrier blueprints to Russia, selling triggers to Iran, all in the belief that they are helping communication. We have become a nation of fools, and have elected a really silly yuppie as President.

We elected someone who will be able to take pretty papparazi photos outside of Starbucks when the clarion call to arms comes.

That is all.

Good article. He gets it.

I long ago resigned myself to the idea that I would lose at least one of my four sons in war. Better that than they live a life without liberty.

This article faces hard truths.

I don't know -- I mean let's all consider the current realities, shall we? How in the hell can anyone begin to "sell" so-called "universal human values?" The claim that value X is "universal" will immediately be shot down by all and sundry (especially from the academics) as mere coded language for privileging Western (read "racist") society/culture over that of "the other." The writer perhaps needs to get in touch with his anthropology departments...(as opposed to the physics wing).

re: #13 Sharmuta

Our intellectual class has adopted Eurothink technocracy and the accompanying Colonial guilt complex. Someone needs to smack them out of it.

His book also looks interesting, published by Cato:
Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America

As long as theocracy and the revolt against secular human values can find a safe shelter in the moral relativism of serious intellectual leaders, it will fester until at last it reaches the strength where it can no longer be dismissed as a nuisance.

I think it's already close to a breaking point as it is. Our forthcoming administration would rather talk to iran than do anything about their weapons program. Heaven forbid we take it seriously.

And in the meantime, how many are dying at the hands of barbarism and yet given a pass by the relativists? It's disgusting, and how many more will needlessly die before the dismissal stops? Shameful.

re: #17 J.S.

DO NOT MOCK THE PHYSICS WING!

But yeah, you're probably right, the people who need to read this will never take it seriously. Argh.

re: #11 pat

The shame of the intelligentsia is that they no longer have common sense. We see Americans sending W88 warhead designs and targeting techno;ogy to China, submarine and carrier blueprints to Russia, selling triggers to Iran, all in the belief that they are helping communication. We have become a nation of fools, and have elected a really silly yuppie as President.

I would refer to Obama as a suppie: Stupid Urban Pusillanimous Polecat.

(Not original; my mother came up with that term, though she actually voted for Obama).

re: #16 EmmmieG

I long ago resigned myself to the idea that I would lose at least one of my four sons in war. Better that than they live a life without liberty.

This article faces hard truths.

I have friends that would go to Canada before they would "let" their sons join the military. They don't like to be reminded that their sons will be of age and will make that choice for themselves.

I want my son trained and prepared. I think he'll have a better chance of living that way. Luckily, he is a kid that is thriving in JROTC and is a total gun nut himself--he is on two shooting teams.

I have friends who think I'm insane for thinking that way. If I had a daughter, I'd be the same way.

My observations over quite a few years now indicate to me that moral relativism is a product of the dilution of the power of religion in people's lives. While I am a Christian, I think that most religions (EXCEPTING ISLAM!) provide similar moral compasses. Secular people seem to me to be more susceptible to being unable to evaluate behavior in terms of a consistent ethos, and more compliant with any half-assed dogma that comes along. I'm even old enough to remember when "discriminating" was a compliment!

Excellent article. Saved it to my favorites.

Secular Humanism, like libertarianism is a great ideal that looks good on paper, but like those daffy liberals described in the forward of PJ O'Rourke's book "Give War A Chance" they can cause great ill.
Secular Humanists gave us the League of Nations, and the UN. They have truly great ideals, but they make the mistake of assuming that all other people think like them. Thus you get the cognitive dissonance of not understanding that some people truly have adopted evil as their ideal, and they aren't just misunderstood or underpriveleged.

"While the scientific community in the 1930s did not hesitate to brand Nazism as evil, many if not most of today’s secularists consider “evil” to be an outmoded concept. They see morality as a matter of social convention; at bottom a purely subjective matter of personal taste."

I think one of the main reasons for this sad state of affairs is the fact that so many in the "progressive" community have led breathtakingly sheltered lives.

So narrow was Leo Szilard's escape from the Nazis that he kept a bag packed for escape at the foot of his bed for the rest of his life afterward.

Moral relevance cannot survive that kind of perspective, and that perspective is not something you can get by living on a college campus or in your parent's basement.

Rearranging his letters of his last name to spell 'Lizards' would be a good start.

WE have citizens who don't take the concept of "home defense" seriously. They think it means having an alarm system connected to a central office by means of a phone line.

How can they conceive of true Homeland Security?

Remember that most of our intellectuals today were born after WW2. They have never known anything but prosperity....affluence, really.
The overwhelming majority of them who were of draft age during the Vietnam War took educational deferments.
We're spoiled. We take all that we have for granted. We whine about what we DON'T have.
Spoiled brats are usually very shocked the first time they get smacked hard. They don't truly believe it's possible.

re: #23 revobob

Some of us don't need religion to have a moral compass, I take exception to your point.

re: #30 Thanos

Some of us don't need religion to have a moral compass, I take exception to your point.

Thanos, I agree with you. Sadly, I don't think that is true of the majority of people. I don't know why that is, but the older I get, the more it seems to be true.

re: #26 CIA Reject

GMTA....but you said it much better than I ! :)

re: #28 ggt

WE have citizens who don't take the concept of "home defense" seriously. They think it means having an alarm system connected to a central office by means of a phone line.

How can they conceive of true Homeland Security?

they can't and won't. They've absorbed the idea that "violence is evil" without having been taught that sometimes you have do bad things to prevent even worse things from occurring.

re: #30 Thanos

Religion probably helps for some people, but I throw my chips in with you, Thanos.

The article overlooks the fact that some of the scientists and technicians working on the Manhattan project were Soviet agents. That includes Klaus Fuchs, a German born immigrant from England who was on Stalin's payroll. There were others as well. Oppenheimer himself only suspected of Communist ties, was "close" to other party members: his brother, sister-in-law, and mistress were party members.

Stalin knew not only about the development of the atomic weapon, but he knew America's post-war capacity to assemble more (based on the quantity of fissionable material being processed). He and his scientists learned about these capacities from Manhattan Project spies.

It was not so simple then, and it is not so simple now.

Before anyone thinks I am Joe McCarthy, I will set that straight: I am the first in three generations not to be imprisoned by communists and/or fascists.

Many intellectuals on the left have been blind for a long, long time. There is a reason for that. It is not new, as the author of this article seems to believe.

re: #28 ggt

WE have citizens who don't take the concept of "home defense" seriously. They think it means having an alarm system connected to a central office by means of a phone line.

How can they conceive of true Homeland Security?

I love the Brinks ads where some perp breaks the door and then flees at the sound of the alarm- around here they would have the police response timed out to the minute. And anyone who relies for their safety for someone miles away on a phone is living in a fool's paradise.

I always loved that name BTW, Leo Szilard , so Dickensian.

re: #23 revobob

I was thinking along similar lines. I do not know how moral relativism can be avoided without some theological underpinning. If there is no Creator to reveal what is right and what is wrong, what are we left with? I agree that Islamic theocracy is dangerous, but we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Declaration of Independence was a secular document, to be sure, but it also acknowledged that we are endowed by our Creator with "certain inalienable rights." The founders were secularists, but profoundly religious men.

re: #23 revobob

Moral relativism has its roots in religion. "Judge not lest ye be judged"... "Let he without sin... (as though all "mistakes" are equal)." Nice try.

re: #33 Dark_Falcon

they can't and won't. They've absorbed the idea that "violence is evil" without having been taught that sometimes you have do bad things to prevent even worse things from occurring.

I'm not a bible thumper, but the one thing I've learned from the RC church is that we have a "Christian Responsibility" (their words, not mine) to defend the lives
G-d gave us.

While, I would think it would be a innate survival instinct, it guess it needs to be reinforced by something else --faith, government, family, society, I don't know what.

It seems that our current society doesn't stress it very much. AT least the MSM doesn't.

re: #30 Thanos

Some of us don't need religion to have a moral compass, I take exception to your point.

I have to say that I find myself agreeing with revobob. Some people can develop a moral compass without religion, but many cannot. Good religions provide vital social glue.

re: #11 pat

The Western intelligentsia declared war on its host societies about forty years ago. They'd prefer a worker's paradise, where the intelligentsia have far more power to shape the nation. Classical Western civilization [especially America] leaves the "elite" stuck in ivy covered towers on college campuses and drab gray offices in nameless DC bureaucracies... not running the nation, as their "superior" education entitles them.

WWLSD^TM

re: #36 revobob

I love the Brinks ads where some perp breaks the door and then flees at the sound of the alarm- around here they would have the police response timed out to the minute. And anyone who relies for their safety for someone miles away on a phone is living in a fool's paradise.

I haven't heard any "feminists" crying out because the one ad shows a mother and her daughters in the laundry room huddling by the phone. That one makes me want to vomit.

re: #32 wolfie

GMTA....but you said it much better than I ! :)

GMTA indeed, but you make a very valid point about the naivete of those spoiled brats!

re: #42 stevieray

Surely Caroline Kennedy will save us! She has 2 ghost written books on the Bill Of Rights, for God's sake!

re: #13 Sharmuta

He needs to ponder more on his first point of moral relativism. It's nothing but self-loathing- decades of brainwashing Westerners to feel guilty for the colonialism of centuries ago. It's okay to hate America and the West, but criticize the East and you're a racist. Never mind if the criticism is justified such as with female genital mutilation, or religious intolerance on their part. Just be sure to hate yourself and the culture that brought you all that is decent in the world even if that decency took centuries of social evolution to bring about a better, more humane world. Madness.

I think that "fear" is part of the problem too. Or maybe "cowardice" would be a better word.

Leftist:"Protest the injustices that are commonplace and de rigueur under Islam? That would be nuts. I could end up like Salman Rushdie with a Fatwa on my head. No thanks. Its safer to protest against the west."

re: #30 Thanos

He is talking about people as a rule and not isolated individuals. Whether we like it or not......and I for one wish it were not so....it does seem that religion is crucial in the development and maintenance of a moral compass.

I think intellectual dishonesty plays a role here as well- if the intellectuals Mr. Sandefur discusses were to truly think about the ideals they claim to support, than at what point are those ideals worth defending? If they don't think they're worth defending, then why are they holding to these ideals in the first place?

I also wonder if it's not bigoted to make exceptions for other cultures- that barbarity can be excused in their case, but not ours, and to therefore disregard the victims of that barbarity. Again- it's hypocritical and extremely cruel.

re: #47 Syrah

I vote "cowardice". I've spoken to many in academia and in private they espouse good values, they just don't take a stand... tall poppies and all.

Why did these deeply peaceful men do this?

The saw, and understood the face of evil.

re: #31 ggt

Thanos, I agree with you. Sadly, I don't think that is true of the majority of people. I don't know why that is, but the older I get, the more it seems to be true.

It's easy to become disillusioned with humanity, for what we hear is their ill deeds. The news is not comprised of the good we do, but rather the evil a few have done. It's very easy to become pessimistic, but I can never allow myself to for very long. There's several thousand years of progress to point to every time I get down. There are grim setbacks, and sad periods, but overall things are getting better across the planet for all humans. That's not happening because "people have no moral compass". It's happening sometimes in spite of immense opposition. Regardless, we progress.

re: #46 pat

Surely Caroline Kennedy will save us! She has 2 ghost written books on the Bill Of Rights, for God's sake!

Then send her ghostwriters to the Senate!

re: #29 wolfie

Remember that most of our intellectuals today were born after WW2. They have never known anything but prosperity....affluence, really.
The overwhelming majority of them who were of draft age during the Vietnam War took educational deferments.
We're spoiled. We take all that we have for granted. We whine about what we DON'T have.
Spoiled brats are usually very shocked the first time they get smacked hard. They don't truly believe it's possible.

Sadly this is very true. People who have never really had their asses kicked just cant see themselves getting their ass kicked. They literally believe themselves to be invincible and cannot conceive that they cannot talk or bluster their way out of any potentially violent situation.

Respect for the secular values of freedom and individual rights form enough of a basis to serve as a "moral compass".

re: #48 wolfie

He is talking about people as a rule and not isolated individuals. Whether we like it or not......and I for one wish it were not so....it does seem that religion is crucial in the development and maintenance of a moral compass.

Theodore Dalyrymple (sp?) who writes for City Journal and himself an athiest/agnostic (I can't remember) has written about this. Society works better when people go to church or have a religious foundation in their lives.

I do think that a "Creator" (of whatever flavor one prefers) that is not of this earth serves a need. Least of which is that that Creator is the source of natural law and natural rights --things that cannot be changed by ANYONE on this earth.

re: #30 Thanos

Some of us don't need religion to have a moral compass, I take exception to your point.

BY all means do- notice I did not advocate a particular religion or code. I realize there are thoughtful atheists, several here on LGF. But as ggt says people in general seem to be becoming less ethically oriented. I regard this as all part of the 'dumbing down' process our world is undergoing. When people don't read history, and when they are given the idea that natives in Papua or Islamabad have worldviews that are just as valid as those of the western world, it is easier to lead them astray, and harder for such people to understand a need to stop behavior that is evil. The Judeo- Christian, Greco-Roman foundations of our culture were derived from thought and analysis (hand in hand with the scientific method) that few other cultures have undertaken.

re: #35 65DropTop

Yes, many intellectuals of that era were ardent apologists for Stalin's monstrous regime
And when the article mentioned that intellectuals did not believe that Japan presented a real "threat to human values," you have to cringe.

re: #48 wolfie

He is talking about people as a rule and not isolated individuals. Whether we like it or not......and I for one wish it were not so....it does seem that religion is crucial in the development and maintenance of a moral compass.

People as a rule are good. That line between good and evil that passes through every human heart leans to the good in general. If it did not we would not be able to feed and cloth the millions that we do. Sometimes the opposition to that good has been religion, so I can't say that religion is the only reason.

re: #52 Thanos

Not always, much was lost with the fall of the Roman Empire. We also digress.

re: #54 doriangrey

Sadly this is very true. People who have never really had their asses kicked just cant see themselves getting their ass kicked. They literally believe themselves to be invincible and cannot conceive that they cannot talk or bluster their way out of any potentially violent situation.

Then they cry like babies for their lawyers. . . .

I must go to bed, but I very much agree with this article.

re: #56 ggt

Theodore Dalyrymple (sp?) who writes for City Journal and himself an athiest/agnostic (I can't remember) has written about this. Society works better when people go to church or have a religious foundation in their lives.

I do think that a "Creator" (of whatever flavor one prefers) that is not of this earth serves a need. Least of which is that that Creator is the source of natural law and natural rights --things that cannot be changed by ANYONE on this earth.

I'd have to say that Dalrymple's point is that people need a decent code to live by if they are to live well. He's not pro-religion per say, but rather he favors the proper rules for living that can be imparted by religion.

The party that occupies the White House matters to many of these "intellectuals". If the Islamic world continues to spit out terrorists and human misery, even after the One's ascension, some may begin taking the threat seriously.

re: #56 ggt

Well said.

re: #55 Dan G.

Respect for the secular values of freedom and individual rights form enough of a basis to serve as a "moral compass".

Without a classical liberal education --in which students are taught "real" history, logic and rhetoric --in which they are challenged to think--where does that respect come from?

I think it is better to have an literate, but uneducated population follow a a religion for their moral compass than a government.

re: #4 Sharmuta

I think this hits the nail on the head- moral relativism run amok. We're not allowed to judge other cultures as bad, only our own. I believe it's called hypocrisy.

I believe it's called suicide.

Moral Equivalence.

Removes the concepts of good and evil, right and wrong. One aw shit wipes out a thousand attaboys. We practiced slavery, who are we to talk about Mao wiping 60 million people from the face of earth. Slavery bad, mass murder bad. We're all bad.

Since we are all bad nothing is worth fighting for, only criticizing. However since the left's intentions are "for the greater good" criticism is muted, since every thing we do is for "capitalism" that is the worst bad of all.

re: #67 solomonpanting

I believe it's called suicide.

That's what Mr. Sandefur calls it:

In short, many secularists, terrified of being labeled an -ist, -ite, or -phobe, are unwilling to draw moral lines except within the boundaries of the United States (and even then, not against anyone of a different ethnicity). This is, of course, an utterly suicidal attitude.

I didn't find anything to disagree with in this article.

re: #65 wolfie

thanks!

re: #25 Thanos

libertarianism is a great ideal that looks good on paper

Your problem with Libertarianism? You don't like lower taxes and less regulation? Smaller gubbmint has proven time and again that it improves individual lives.
My only argument with some libertarians is some would prefer to hide their head in the sand regarding foriegn threats. However many of us aren't isolationist, naive, fools. We just want gubbmint to quit trying to control our lives and start controlling the length of the lives of America's enemies

OK, since I'm more liberal than most here, I'll try to give a purely intellectual take on the mid east. First, don't take anything I say to excuse terrorism, there is no excuse to randomly kill civilians.
I don't buy that the radical Islamic's hate us because we're free or are lifestyle. They hate us for interfering with there dream to toss out the kings and dictators in the Mideast and impose their warped theocracies.
We have troop there, and we are peeing on their parade by supported the leaders they hate. Obviously we can't just pull out, or drop our support to the kings and such, for one, we need their oil. My gut tells me, the solution is to cut them off at the knees but trying again to solve the Palestinian issue and working to work to support moderate leaders in hopes of getting more democratic governments.
If we could manage that, they'd lose their biggest recruiting tool. We must support Israel at all costs, but appear to be more even handled in brokering a peace. Sending aid money for Israel's defense is a given, but using the money to expand settlements in Palestinian just makes it harder to dismantle them later, and makes is easier for the terrorists to recruit more idiots.
Support the more moderate Palestinian's and stave Hamas while standing four square behind Israel. That's this moderate, left of center opinion. BTW, if Iraq works out, a stable democracy there will certainly help.

OK I'm gonna get crucified here...

I agree with the article, except for this: All those European scientists were hot and heavy for destroying the Nazis. Good.

But when the Nazis were defeated in April 45, they started having second thoughts. Hey, germany is defeated, why continue whith the bomb?

Groves had to twist their arms to make them realize the Japanese were also worht defeating. True, by this time they were not going to win the war. The scientists knew it too. A bunch of them felt that they should stop the project. The war could be won in a conventinal manner. The scientists did not have to be tainted with the use of this weapon. The death of hundred of thousand of allied troops and millions of japanese - and Chinese and Koreans- did not factor. As long a science could remain pure.

I don't like the fact that for them defeating the Nazis was worth nuking Berlin (which it was), but once the Nazis were done, they sorta lost interest. A million soldiers, a million Chinese, not important.

re: #61 ggt

Then they cry like babies for their lawyers. . . .

Yup, they get someone else to fight their battles and think it's the correct thing to do. They simply cannot understand people who do not think like they do, people willing to resort to violence as a first option. The notion of such people is so alien to their way of thinking that they refuse to believe anyone could really be that way. What is truly frightening is how many innocent people fools like that will get killed.

re: #19 Sharmuta

I think it's already close to a breaking point as it is. Our forthcoming administration would rather talk to iran than do anything about their weapons program. Heaven forbid we take it seriously.

And in the meantime, how many are dying at the hands of barbarism and yet given a pass by the relativists? It's disgusting, and how many more will needlessly die before the dismissal stops? Shameful.

In support of your comment, there was this bit of news recently:

Obama to create Iran outreach post
Eli Lake, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Friday, December 19, 2008

EXCLUSIVE:

The incoming Obama administration plans to create a new position to coordinate outreach to Iran and is considering a number of senior career diplomats, State Department officials and Iran specialists say.

Berkeley is the original home of the Manhattan Project -- many of the fundamental concepts for the physics and the bomb design were sketched out in LeConte Hall on the U.C. Berkeley campus, after the Manhatten Project was first launched, and before Oppenheimer, Teller and co. decamped to New Mexico. It could be said, really, that the bomb was "invented" in Berkeley, which has as much claim to it (if not more) than many of the other candidates (Alamagordo, Chicago -- even Copenhagen, if you want to go that far back).

And yet when the city of Berkeley recently compiled a list of the city's many "firsts" -- something they're inordinately proud of in Berkeley, thinking of it as the place where trends start and inventions are designed -- mysteriously, inexplicably, the Atomic Bomb was left off the list. Not even the slightest mention.

Now why would that be?

Are they ashamed of taking part in the climactic battle against global fascism? Of playing a role in bringing the Axis to its knees?

Why, silly, no, they're so inculcated in the retro "Ban the Bomb" thinking and in declaring Berkeley a "Nuclear-Free Zone" that, frankly, they're embarrassed the Bomb was invented there. So they continuously try to cover it up, and make the world forget that fact.

But that brings up Charles' original question:

What Would Leo Szliard Do?

re: #75 Syrah

The linky,
[Link: www.washingtontimes.com...]

re: #55 Dan G.

Respect for the secular values of freedom and individual rights form enough of a basis to serve as a "moral compass".

I would love to agree with you, but the test is pretty simple- how many of the people any of you know would not take something not theirs if they were SURE they would not be caught? Religion certainly can and has been used to commit violence and evil in and of itself. I think the distinction I would try to make is between a religious moral/ ethical code, and the actual behavior of too many religious groups. As both Thanos and Dan point out, a moral code does not require a deity, but it sure makes it easier to instill in children (and yes, that too is a two edged sword) whereas moral atheism as I understand it derives from a process of thought and growth that few people seem to undertake.

re: #74 doriangrey

Yup, they get someone else to fight their battles and think it's the correct thing to do. They simply cannot understand people who do not think like they do, people willing to resort to violence as a first option. The notion of such people is so alien to their way of thinking that they refuse to believe anyone could really be that way. What is truly frightening is how many innocent people fools like that will get killed.

A while back I read a news report of a couple who were held-up (I believe in NYC) by an armed criminal. They laughed out loud and asked the guy "What, like you are going to shoot us". Well, he did.

Wish I could remember the source.

re: #72 avanti

Avanti, Jihad is not a 20 century affair. When Islamist have their way, they don't exactly install democracies when they win...

They want to replace Dictatorship with Theocracy. It's still Tyranny. Look at Iran.

I think Leo Szilard was different from the “secular liberal intellectuals” or (SLI) we have today. He did not abandon his moral compass. The SLI’s we have today would trade their moral compass for power any day of the week. Just look at the Obama-Rahmbo-Blagojevich scandal.

Further, the US we live in is highly fragmented with “new immigrants” who have no plans to integrate into our society (many of them flatly refuse to learn English and do quite well in their own “hoods”). They are here for the money and freedom.

Many plan to score a good stash of cash then leave (or send the cash back to their family in a distant country). There are a growing number of “Minority Majority” States where divisiveness works quite well.

Obama has set the trend where it is possible to obtain the highest position on the planet through racial and ethnic division. He has done quite well but probably will only enrich himself and his friends. That model will be adopted by other youths.

On a different note but similar to other threads to this page, we have a hard time actually identifying our enemies.

Recent news report indicate that the arrogant “shoe thrower” was much more that just a publicity hound. It looks like he or his handler was a killer and should have been treat as an enemy (or at least refused entrance into the room Bush was speaking). I think it is dangerous to allow anyone – including “news reporters” to hurl objects at the President of the United States for safety reasons.

Here is the story from Iraq:

BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Sunday said that investigations have revealed that a man involved in the “slaughter” of several Iraqis was behind the shoe-throwing incident.
“We will not oppose the court’s decision if al-Zaydi is acquitted,” Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. Last week, Muntadher al-Zaydi, a correspondent for al-Boghdadiya TV, threw a pair of shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush at a Baghdad-based joint press conference with Maliki

See: Aswat al Iraq

Shouldn’t the killer be prosecuted?

We must support Israel at all costs, but appear to be more even handled in brokering a peace.

Avanti, what you wrote in that one sentence --- is not possible. You cannot do both.

You did, however, nicely summarize the problem.

They condemn American society as fundamentally racist and exploitative

By condemning only America, these critics exhibit the same flaw when refusing to condemn or critique or hold certain segments of our society to the same standards as all folks: the soft bigotry of low expectations.

re: #71 Neo Con since 9-11

I lean libertarian, so I don't have too much argument with what you've said, but what you've said isn't today's libertarian party. You have the non-agression neo anarchist wing, the paleo isolationist wing, and the racist lew rockwell wing in control of the party. None of those people are reality based thinkers, so like I said, great on paper, not going so hot in practice.

re: #75 Syrah

That was indeed exactly what I was thinking about when I made that comment. Mr. Sandefur goes on to say:

Without a solidly grounded, enthusiastic defense of universal human values against moral relativism, I believe the result within my lifetime will be the rise of a significant fascist movement within the United States.

I'm not sure if he knows how correct he is, or how close at hand I believe that is. As Jonah Goldberg said, (paraphrasing) fascism will come to America wearing a smiley face.

re: #76 zombie

I have a feeling that there are a lot of Berkley-ites who think the whole world should walk around stoned and everything would be fine.

/ I guess food, shelter and clothing would fall from the sky

re: #72 avanti

Condi? Is that you? :)

re: #73 dak

OK I'm gonna get crucified here...

I agree with the article, except for this: All those European scientists were hot and heavy for destroying the Nazis. Good.

But when the Nazis were defeated in April 45, they started having second thoughts. Hey, germany is defeated, why continue whith the bomb?

Groves had to twist their arms to make them realize the Japanese were also worht defeating. True, by this time they were not going to win the war. The scientists knew it too. A bunch of them felt that they should stop the project. The war could be won in a conventinal manner. The scientists did not have to be tainted with the use of this weapon. The death of hundred of thousand of allied troops and millions of japanese - and Chinese and Koreans- did not factor. As long a science could remain pure.

I don't like the fact that for them defeating the Nazis was worth nuking Berlin (which it was), but once the Nazis were done, they sorta lost interest. A million soldiers, a million Chinese, not important.

Nothing to crucify you about. Truth is, immediately after the war, Oppenheimer and Einstein and many others joined the disarmament camp, begging the government to stop production of any future bombs.

But you know why Truman didn't listen? Because of traitors like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who (we knew even then) had leaked the bomb design to the Soviets, and even if we stood down and stopped production, the Soviets certainly wouldn't. And so the Cold War Arms Race began.

But you can blame that on the communist spies who leaked the bomb secrets, not on Truman. He had no choice. He could not disarm in the face of a newly militant Russia who had the same nuclear capability we had.

I think it rather ironic that the men who developed the Atomic bomb, and some of whom expressed moral doubts about doing so, by doing so, by enabling the United States to annihilate two Japanese Cities, gave today's coddled elitists with some of their strongest reasons for hating the US. The US was EVIL for using those bombs (No, I don't think so and that's not what I'm getting at here). For the elites of today, as CIA Reject and Wolfie said so eloquently up at #'s 26 and at #29 respectively put it: "We're spoiled. We take all that we have for granted. We whine about what we DON'T have.
Spoiled brats are usually very shocked the first time they get smacked hard. They don't truly believe it's possible."
Indeed, we have gone from an intelligentsia which believed - in their hearts - that no man is truly free as long as any man is a slave, to those who wish to condemn the US for "pushing" freedom.
I honestly don't see any other equation that makes sense: the US was EVIL personified when we dropped those atomic bombs, and that evil carries over to our pushing for freedom. There MUST be an evil intent to want people to be free everywhere.
I'd say it's not really moral relativism, but much more a case of no morality AT ALL. That explains Pol Pot and Robert Mugabe - how the West allowed those two (among others) to commit genocide - because there is no sense of morality at all in most of today's liberal/leftist elitists (they can't be accurately characterized as intellectuals).

re: #86 ggt

Hey Zombie, luv your photo reporting by the way.

Berkeley. Do you know what they call a particle acelerator designed to enrich Uranium?

A Calutron.

As in California University tron.

Yeah, they don't brag about it.

re: #86 ggt

I have a feeling that there are a lot of Berkley-ites who think the whole world should walk around stoned and everything would be fine.

/ I guess food, shelter and clothing would fall from the sky

zombie had a picture of a protest lying on the ground with a sign..
"feed me" or something like that.

re: #89 realwest

I'd say it's not really moral relativism, but much more a case of no morality AT ALL. That explains Pol Pot and Robert Mugabe - how the West allowed those two (among others) to commit genocide - because there is no sense of morality at all in most of today's liberal/leftist elitists (they can't be accurately characterized as intellectuals).

I agree, Realwest, absolutely.

re: #73 dak

The war could be won in a conventinal manner.

Have you ever seen the estimates put forth on the anticipated casualty rates for both the Allies and the Japanese if we were to invade Japan "in a conventional manner"?

In American, we can't even make the Act of Slavery a capital crime. Which is what I would categorize child rape.

We have Saudi's with diplomatic immunity being caught keeping slaves as domestic help --(one which made big news a year or two ago --NYC --UN person) .

WTF?

Right now we have the exact same tension going on. We have a window of technological arms superiority, but it's closing. The next weapons are going to make nuclear seem tame. China and Russia are working to that goal now, and we are debating conventional forces vs. 4GW force strategies. That window of opportunity is going to slam hard on our fingers within 30 years if we don't continue weapons advancement.

re: #89 realwest

The moral downfall of the intellectual Left has been truly spectacular since 9/11/2001.

Before that date, they at least had a leg to stand on, in some of their positions in the liberal/conservative debate. But since that date, all pretense of any moral stance has evaporated, as the Left have taken to defending the evil side in plainly good-vs.-evil battles.

re: #90 dak

Hey Zombie, luv your photo reporting by the way.

Berkeley. Do you know what they call a particle acelerator designed to enrich Uranium?

A Calutron.

As in California University tron.

Yeah, they don't brag about it.

University of Washington had a research reactor, a very small one. Some protestors where out protesting something nuclear in Red Square, I mentioned the "reactor" it was a stampede when they heard the was a genuine evil nuclear reactor on campus.

This reason may actually give grounds for hope that the Obama Administration (widely, if dubiously, assumed to represent secularism) will be more effective in rallying vital intellectual support for the campaign against the forces of what our grandfathers called anti-civilization.

Yes, ironically Obama is well positioned to kick the tar out of the islamic fascists:

1. "D" not "R", media will be unable to say "Obama Warmonger"

2. "Of Color" thus not a white man beating up the disadvantaged third worlders.

3. Some islamic experience himself, he can "talk" to them and maybe with force as they understand naught else.

Of course we would not need these "advantages" were it not for the quisling media and the lazy public, who mostly do not read history, nor try to see the big picture.

re: #96 zombie

The moral downfall of the intellectual Left has been truly spectacular since 9/11/2001.

Before that date, they at least had a leg to stand on, in some of their positions in the liberal/conservative debate. But since that date, all pretense of any moral stance has evaporated, as the Left have taken to defending the evil side in plainly good-vs.-evil battles.

Ummmm, whaddya mean, "Plainly evil...?"
//// Must I?

re: #95 Thanos

That is what really scares me about Obama. I think he will CUT military research and development.

re: #89 realwest

I don't see it as evil. It is the original Shock and Awe.

The japs lost the war in 43. They kept fighting for terms. The Imperial Japanese bet that if they could raise the cost of a victory for the allies to an obscene body count (they didn't care about japanese casualties), then the allies would give up and the Imperials would get to keep their jobs.

They lost their gamble, the US had an ace in the hole.

re: #84 Thanos

I think we are in agreement. Libertarian core principles are the best way to run a country but the Libertarian party right now is controlled by anarchists and conspiracy nuts.
I'm not giving up on the philosophy of liberty, tho.

re: #80 dak

Avanti, Jihad is not a 20 century affair. When Islamist have their way, they don't exactly install democracies when they win...

They want to replace Dictatorship with Theocracy. It's still Tyranny. Look at Iran.

I think I just said that was there goal. See my "They hate us for interfering with there dream to toss out the kings and dictators in the Mideast and impose their warped theocracies "
quote.
I happen to believe we can not let them do that, or we're screwed. The difference I may have with others is how to stop them. The liberal me tells me to try and appeal to the moderates in Iran before turning it into a parking lot.

My intellectual side thinks of the shit storm from doing that short of a direct attack on us, or on Israel. As a matter of fact, attacking a country without such a threat, does not seem to be a conservative act. Iran is a bigger threat to Isreal then we are, and I'm confident that they can do the parking lot thing if the time comes. Basically, we are not the only cop on the block.

re: #90 dak

Yes, because Ernest Lawrence invented the cyclotron in Berkeley. His first model was literally held together with baling wire and sealing wax. And with that, he first glimped into the heart of matter. Truly astounding.

re: #96 zombie

The moral downfall of the intellectual Left has been truly spectacular since 9/11/2001.

Before that date, they at least had a leg to stand on, in some of their positions in the liberal/conservative debate. But since that date, all pretense of any moral stance has evaporated, as the Left have taken to defending the evil side in plainly good-vs.-evil battles.

But, the problem will still have is that the right has a moral pretense, and pretense is all it is. This is not conservative that we are looking at in DC any longer. I don't know what they are, but they are bowing down to the plutocracy while at the same time supporting their own little kleptocracy (EI: the current Congressional cost of living wage increase of 4700 dollars)

Does anyone trust the moral stance of either side, or even more so, any politician?

re: #95 Thanos

Right now we have the exact same tension going on. We have a window of technological arms superiority, but it's closing. The next weapons are going to make nuclear seem tame. China and Russia are working to that goal now, and we are debating conventional forces vs. 4GW force strategies. That window of opportunity is going to slam hard on our fingers within 30 years if we don't continue weapons advancement.

I agree, yet the other side of the coin is the lack of defending our values of individual rights and democracy. The next generation of weapons would be need much less if other nations were striving for those ideals. Why would they bother to strive for them when our own intelligentsia can't be bothered with defending them, and goes out of it's way to excuse the behavior of rogue nations like iran? Our ideals should be defended with words, and our way of life with force if need be.

re: #98 Ojoe

Great looking tower cam tonight.
[Link: www.astro.ucla.edu...]

re: #93 solomonpanting

Yes this is why I think the scientist's reasoning stink. A million allied casuaties for Op Olympic.

That is slaughter, not victory. But some of them tought that would be better than to drop the bomb.

re: #107 DesertSage

Cool.

BBL

re: #96 zombie

The moral downfall of the intellectual Left has been truly spectacular since 9/11/2001.

Before that date, they at least had a leg to stand on, in some of their positions in the liberal/conservative debate. But since that date, all pretense of any moral stance has evaporated, as the Left have taken to defending the evil side in plainly good-vs.-evil battles.

Yep. That's because the "intellectual" left is not interested in what is good or right. They are only interested in a favored position among the "elite." That was true before 9/11/2001, by the way. It is just more obvious now.

re: #14 Buster Bunny

I did not elect the Big 0!

"Journalists," lawyers, Unions and the radical left did.

re: #104 zombie

Yes, because Ernest Lawrence invented the cyclotron in Berkeley. His first model was literally held together with baling wire and sealing wax. And with that, he first glimped into the heart of matter. Truly astounding.

Lawrence's cyclotron.

re: #110 Defogger

Yep. That's because the "intellectual" left is not interested in what is good or right. They are only interested in a favored position among the "elite." That was true before 9/11/2001, by the way. It is just more obvious now.

Concur.

re: #108 dak

There is a great description of the decision to use the bomb in Churchill's book "Triumph and Tragedy"

Good Night All

Nite all- wheat dreams!

re: #107 DesertSage

Great looking tower cam tonight.
[Link: www.astro.ucla.edu...]

Photoshop.

re: #111 Ledger1

I did not elect the Big 0!

"Journalists," lawyers, Unions and the radical left did.

Even if we didn't elect him, we're stuck with him.

re: #115 revobob

Nite all- wheat dreams!

wheat?

re: #89 realwest

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head RW- NO morality at all.

"...[the] general formula of the moral law: "Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings."

I doubt that Pol Pot, Mugabe, Osama, or any of the troglodite moonbats who worship them would be willing to have the maxims from which they operate be made UNIVERSAL laws, because that would mean the same demented reasoning could be turned against THEM

...Can't have that now can we?

re: #118 ggt

wheat?

I'm trying to go with the grain...

re: #108 dak

Yes this is why I think the scientist's reasoning stink. A million allied casuaties for Op Olympic.

That is slaughter, not victory. But some of them tought that would be better than to drop the bomb.

Sounds like they advocated a "proportional response."
And they thought wrongly.

re: #103 avanti

How to stop them. It is an Ideological war.

re: #116 Racer X

Photoshop.

Wow, even the towercam is photoshopped now?

Time for me to get some sleeps, I have some last minute stocking stuffers to grab in the am.

I'll leave you with a tune I find inspirational

re: #114 Ojoe

There is a great description of the decision to use the bomb in Churchill's book "Triumph and Tragedy"

Good Night All

Churchill was a master of description and a great fighter against tyranny. The left will not listen to words such as his, of course, though if they did they might learn some measure of wisdom.

re: #123 DesertSage

Wow, even the towercam is photoshopped now?

Heh.

I'm trying to figure out where the light is coming from off in the distance.

re: #102 Neo Con since 9-11

Me neither

re: #82 65DropTop

Avanti, what you wrote in that one sentence --- is not possible. You cannot do both.

You did, however, nicely summarize the problem.

Ok, not being a smart ass, but why impossible. Give Israel all she needs to defend herself, but speak up when they start expanding settlements for example. BTW, the Palestinians passed up a sweetheart deal a few years back so I don't intend to infer we pressure Israel give up the farm so to speak. Maybe just try once again to be a more active broker in the process.

re: #76 zombie
Great comment zombie, truly great. I again go back to what I said in my #89 - the liberal/leftists (and frankly I'm now sorry I used the word liberal there) do not have any sense of morality because they can't believe that the United States is not evil - and that first sin - or the greatest sin - was the use of the Atomic Bomb. And we dropped it in defense of democracy; ergo, in their extraordinarily sheltered worlds, defending democracy caused "democracy" to destroy nearly 200,000 human beings.
The lack of analytical or critical thinking ability among the leftists today is absolutely STAGGERING.
And to answer your (and Charles original) question of "What Would Leo Szliard Do" I think he would weep, nearly uncontrollably, at what the anti-Democratic movements in this world have created. And I think he'd grab that "overnight" bag and run as fast and as far as he could go - to a place where individual liberty and the right to live as free men and women existed, only to discover, to his dismay, that the only place to which he could run, would be the United States of today.

re: #103 avanti

I think I just said that was there goal. See my "They hate us for interfering with there dream to toss out the kings and dictators in the Mideast and impose their warped theocracies "
quote.
I happen to believe we can not let them do that, or we're screwed. The difference I may have with others is how to stop them. The liberal me tells me to try and appeal to the moderates in Iran before turning it into a parking lot.

My intellectual side thinks of the shit storm from doing that short of a direct attack on us, or on Israel. As a matter of fact, attacking a country without such a threat, does not seem to be a conservative act. Iran is a bigger threat to Isreal then we are, and I'm confident that they can do the parking lot thing if the time comes. Basically, we are not the only cop on the block.

The moderates in iran are being betrayed by the upcoming administration.

re: #84 Thanos

I lean libertarian, so I don't have too much argument with what you've said, but what you've said isn't today's libertarian party. You have the non-agression neo anarchist wing, the paleo isolationist wing, and the racist lew rockwell wing in control of the party. None of those people are reality based thinkers, so like I said, great on paper, not going so hot in practice.

We lean libertarian too but attended a few "meet ups" here in Southern California a few years. Couldn't wait to get out of there.

re: #121 solomonpanting

Yes, and it depends who is a victim or an actor in the proportional response.

Many soldiers who fought the Nazis were not looking forward to rooting out the Japanese out of million square miles of conquered territory.

China, Burma, Phillipines, Korea, etc. etc.

Plus all the POW in japan were not looking forward to being executed.

So while it may have looked as more humane not to drop the bomb, the bloodshed would have been tremendous otherwise.

re: #91 jcm

zombie had a picture of a protest lying on the ground with a sign..
"feed me" or something like that.

No, she didn't have a sign -- I merely reported in the caption that she had said,

“I feel it’s important to be in touch with the ground at this time. Perhaps someone will bring me some food.”

But the photo ended up being one of my most popular ones ever, for unknown reasons.

So, I forgot to put a dryer sheet in with my fleece blankets and the noise produced by trying to separate them was somewhere between very cool and creepy. Is there anyway to harness that energy?

It seems like we are surrounded constantly by little bits of energy (such as dryer static) and no way to harness it.

re: #120 revobob

I'm trying to go with the grain...

groan

re: #55 Dan G.

Respect for the secular values of freedom and individual rights form enough of a basis to serve as a "moral compass".

for some.
thats actually a pretty sophistocated position.
I think its a trevesty but true of human nature that there are very few of us so innately moral and honest that we do not need some sort of belief to keep us on the straight path.

those who are not sophistocated
or who need that little push that the social glue of a church or a belief system and a community that goes with it, sometimes benefit from a Belief. Either they need a healthy fear of the social disapprobation of being caught doing something that is proscribed, or the more simple yet fear of going to hell for doing something unworthy or sinful.
in the end G-d is the eye that sees us when nobody else is around and the stick that might beat us with ghenna or hell or curse us with bad fortune if we stray.
now theres a lot of great people who are inherently righteous, and who will stand up for what is right and know evil when they see it without having to have a moral leader tell them whats what.
unfortunately they are few, and therefore referred to in scripture as "the elect."
righteousness isnt easy
its often thankless.
can even lead to bad things happening to you (see california state law if you try to help pull someone out of a flooding river, and they get hurt)
so yeah theres gotta be some social reenforcement there for many who are weak, to do right and do it every day. even if its just the gauzy promise of heaven if they are good, where they will get to see beloved gramma again.

re: #128 avanti

Ok, not being a smart ass, but why impossible. Give Israel all she needs to defend herself, but speak up when they start expanding settlements for example. BTW, the Palestinians passed up a sweetheart deal a few years back so I don't intend to infer we pressure Israel give up the farm so to speak. Maybe just try once again to be a more active broker in the process.

What is wrong with you? The Palestinians passed up a sweetheart deal a few years back because it was not in their agenda to ever live peacefully with Israel. Their sole reason for existing is to push Israel and the Jew's into the sea. To kill as many Jew's as possible. It's their religion.... If you cant understand this there simply is no hope of you ever understanding why their is violence in the middle east.

re: #134 ggt

So, I forgot to put a dryer sheet in with my fleece blankets and the noise produced by trying to separate them was somewhere between very cool and creepy. Is there anyway to harness that energy?

It seems like we are surrounded constantly by little bits of energy (such as dryer static) and no way to harness it.

GGT for Secretary of Energy! ;).

re: #130 Sharmuta

The moderates in iran are being betrayed by the upcoming administration.

OK, I'll bite, how is that ? All I've read from the right is criticism for BHO setting up a office to do just that. Until recently the Bush administration would not even talk to Iran.

re: #133 zombie

OK this is asking for it. Perhaps I can bring her something she can ... munch... on?

re: #137 doriangrey

What is wrong with you? The Palestinians passed up a sweetheart deal a few years back because it was not in their agenda to ever live peacefully with Israel. Their sole reason for existing is to push Israel and the Jew's into the sea. To kill as many Jew's as possible. It's their religion.... If you cant understand this there simply is no hope of you ever understanding why their is violence in the middle east.

Thank you. That's what I was thinking, also.
Sorry, Avanti, but it's been tried . . .

re: #138 Pvt Bin Jammin

GGT for Secretary of Energy! ;).

Naw, I'd just throw money at it. . . .

re: #128 avanti

Ok, not being a smart ass, but why impossible. Give Israel all she needs to defend herself, but speak up when they start expanding settlements for example. BTW, the Palestinians passed up a sweetheart deal a few years back so I don't intend to infer we pressure Israel give up the farm so to speak. Maybe just try once again to be a more active broker in the process.

I think the burden is on the palis to show they're serious about peace. They've never been about a peaceful settlement to the issue. It's in the charters of hamas and fatah to wipe Israel off the map. How much more can Israel bend over to show they're honest brokers at the table?

re: #128 avanti

Ok, not being a smart ass, but why impossible. Give Israel all she needs to defend herself, but speak up when they start expanding settlements for example. BTW, the Palestinians passed up a sweetheart deal a few years back so I don't intend to infer we pressure Israel give up the farm so to speak. Maybe just try once again to be a more active broker in the process.

As doriangrey wrote, no peace is possible at this time, nor will be possible until the Palis give up their "Once an Islamic state, always an Islamic state" Attitude. Reforming that attitude, however, is not something either the US or Israel can do. All we can do is keep it in check with resolute action.

re: #142 ggt

Naw, I'd just throw money at it. . . .

I think you should throw some money at me.... ;)

re: #92 Defogger
Thank you Defogger - I confess to having just now taken peak at my rating on that comment and while pleased that zombie and stevieray had "updinged me" no one else had.
It is nice to know that one's thinking can get some of the more respected members of the LGF community to take positive notice of it.

re: #137 doriangrey

What is wrong with you? The Palestinians passed up a sweetheart deal a few years back because it was not in their agenda to ever live peacefully with Israel. Their sole reason for existing is to push Israel and the Jew's into the sea. To kill as many Jew's as possible. It's their religion.... If you cant understand this there simply is no hope of you ever understanding why their is violence in the middle east.

The fact that we came close with the terrorist Arafat gives me hope to try again with the more moderate leaders today. Until Israel gives up all hope of peace, we need to help them achieve it.

re: #139 avanti

There are millions of Irainian who would LOVE to be rif of the mullahs. Talk to our Winston. He's an Iranian now in Canada.

Since the inception and using of the atomic/nuclear weapons there have been moral issues raised. I am not strictly a scientist, but engineering, my profession, is a type of science. We are schooled in the various scientific fields, as engineering is a combination of many of them. The concept of atomic explsion is easily grasped by most engineers, and I would venture to guess that some of the great minds which brought us into the "Nuclear Age" were trained as engineers.
I have doubt that there are many conditions where the delivery of a nuclear weapon is justified.
However, in retrospect, I firmly believe the two bombs dropped on Japan in WWII were justified. And I come to that conclusion merely based on the probable fact that many American military men would likely have been killed in traditional warfare had we been forced to land on Japan in order to subjugate it. There would have been even more Japanese military and civilian casualties. So, what was the best outcome? I insist it was what actually happened. I was never in favor of most of what Harry Truman did, but I agreed with him on using the bombs.
Perhaps the fact that my own life may well have been spared because of the two "Bombs". I was in an Army infantry unit which had been trained to articipate in the invason of Japan. We had finished our training, and were being readied to ship out for Japan when the "Bombs" were dropped. Within a week I was ordered to entrain for Philadelphia, and, once there, entered into a rush, rush program learning the language and culture of the Japanese people in order to be commissioned into an intelligence unit. When I learned that entailed a nine-year time commitment to the Army or officer reserves, I asked for a transfer, and got it.
Nevertheless, although I believe the first bombs were justified, I can hardly envision a case where there use would presently be warranted.
Ido, however, see that we must have such weaponry to serve as a counter to others who have them.
Just my opinion,
Old Engineer

re: #133 zombie

No, she didn't have a sign -- I merely reported in the caption that she had said,

“I feel it’s important to be in touch with the ground at this time. Perhaps someone will bring me some food.”

But the photo ended up being one of my most popular ones ever, for unknown reasons.

That's the one! I wish someone would bring me food!
Especially with all the snow on the ground.
(no worries I'm well stocked, plan for the earthquake is to be on my own for 6 weeks).

re: #142 ggt

Naw, I'd just throw money at it. . . .

A very "Flying Lizard" approach.

/ I couldn't resist. Its a fun song.

re: #129 realwest

...the liberal/leftists (and frankly I'm now sorry I used the word liberal there) do not have any sense of morality because they can't believe that the United States is not evil - and that first sin - or the greatest sin - was the use of the Atomic Bomb. And we dropped it in defense of democracy; ergo, in their extraordinarily sheltered worlds, defending democracy caused "democracy" to destroy nearly 200,000 human beings.
The lack of analytical or critical thinking ability among the leftists today is absolutely STAGGERING.

A major contributing factor to this hatred of the United States that developed on the Left in the '60s is that, as was suspected then and which we later found out to be true, the Soviets and the Chinese had in fact infiltrated the leading radical organizations and slowly turned them even more leftward to make the transition from "patriotic opposition" to "openly seditious anti-American communists." Many many young people were lured into these groups (and into their orbit, if not directly in the groups themselves), and in their total naivité were easily brainwashed into hating America, irrational though that may have been.

Those brainwash victims are the professors and pundits of today. And yet they're STILL brainwashed. Some of them persist even though they subsequently learned that they were brainwashed, because by that time they had too much invested in their identity.

re: #147 avanti

They never came close. arafat never had any intention of honoring any agreement with Israel. My advice would be to read up in the LGF archives to understand what kind of "partner" Israel has at the "peace" table.

Any twitterers out there> Just getting started.

re: #147 avanti

The fact that we came close with the terrorist Arafat gives me hope to try again with the more moderate leaders today. Until Israel gives up all hope of peace, we need to help them achieve it.

You need to put the fucking crack pipe down Djimmny Carter. We never ever came close with AFuckingRat... He did what all good Muslims do.... He lied to our faces and killed as many Jew's as he could and we funded his doing it.

Nite' all!

re: #147 avanti

The fact that we came close with the terrorist Arafat gives me hope to try again with the more moderate leaders today. Until Israel gives up all hope of peace, we need to help them achieve it.

Abbas is not a moderate. He just talks like one when he is speaking English. When he uses Arabic, he talks of "Zionist aggression" and "martyrdom". He does not seek peace with Israel.

re: #147 avanti

The fact that we came close with the terrorist Arafat gives me hope to try again with the more moderate leaders today. Until Israel gives up all hope of peace, we need to help them achieve it.

I forget - what did Arafat bring to the table (other than his sorry ass)?

re: #94 ggt WTF, indeed. As I pointed out in my #89 above, genocide and other horrific treatment of human beings cannot be morally justified in any way, yet today's left lacks the moral compass with which to judge true evil.

re: #142 ggt

LOL

Sometimes I forget those dryer sheets. If it's dark you get a free "light show". There is some kind of spray you can buy but can't remember what it's called.

re: #145 doriangrey

I think you should throw some money at me.... ;)

ah, you got a research plan in mind (for energy)?

re: #146 realwest

I always appreciate what you have to say. Your place in Lizardom is well established!

Critical self examination, a cornerstone of Western success, has become a fetish among 'progressives'. The whole point to critical self examination is that it is a tool that allows you to look at a problem from all sides, take in as much information as possible so that you can finally make a choice! To finally make a choice, take a stand after looking at all sides, is to end the process of self flagellation that progressives love so much.

Progressives are not reasonable people. It must be understood, Conservatives are mostly driven by fear, progressives are driven by hate. Hatred of their own culture (brought on by excessive critical self examination), and hatred of white people outside of their own narrow social spectrum (ie rednecks, practicing Christians, businessmen). Essentially this is self loathing projected across the political sphere. Progressives hate themselves, hated their stogy old parents, hate the fact that they have to work their butts off for some jerk boss to make any money, hate that others might judge them for doing whatever deviant/self indulgent thing they feel like, hate 'rednecks', hate blue collar plebes with their calloused hands and homes full of screaming kids...

Those earlier scientists that helped to build the bomb, they were different people. Ideologically they were a different species from todays progressives. They hated only those that would take away their freedom, destroy civilization. Todays progressives have their narrow list of enemies and they will embrace anyone and anything in their war against those enemies... even if it means their own destruction.

re: #161 ggt

ah, you got a research plan in mind (for energy)?

Ummm, yea.... thats right... a research project for energy...... ;) But I'll need millions...... ;)

re: #147 avanti

Look- before I found LGF, I didn't understand a lot of the issues surrounding the conflict in Israel. I will say arafat ALWAYS gave me the creeps- I always thought he was not a good man. Do some research on LGF, and that will likely help you understand.

Try the tools in the left side bar- read Nekma's troll hammer and the other resources and read up on older LGF threads.

re: #155 doriangrey

Cool down a bit, DG. He may be hearing the truth about the Palestinians for the first time (the MSM certainly doesn't tell it). Let us see if he applies his lessons.

re: #160 Pvt Bin Jammin

LOL

Sometimes I forget those dryer sheets. If it's dark you get a free "light show". There is some kind of spray you can buy but can't remember what it's called.

Static Guard --and it works very well if you spray it in your hair brush before brushing your hair. IIRC, it stinks tho.

re: #164 doriangrey

Ummm, yea.... thats right... a research project for energy...... ;) But I'll need millions...... ;)

stand in line.

re: #149 Old Engineer

Yes, I agreee, nuclear weapons are not really so useful in modern warfare. That's because nuclear weapons are totally indiscriminate and obliterate a wide area, whereas modern weaponry in designed to be as precise as possible -- we can target a single building with a bomb now, a single vehicle. There are too many political ramifications to cope with if we obliterated an entire area -- so even though we may "win the battle" in the most lopsided and decisive way possible, we'd still be considered the "losers" because there would inevitably be innocent casualties, so we'd lose the moral nitpicking afterward.

Ok, have to take doggies out and go to bed. I have to be at the Post Office when they open and hope my packages get to the North Pole in time to make it onto Santa's sleigh.

weet dreams all!

Well, gang, it's way past my bedtime, so I'll be signing off.

Play nice, everyone.

G'nite!

re: #134 ggt

So, I forgot to put a dryer sheet in with my fleece blankets and the noise produced by trying to separate them was somewhere between very cool and creepy. Is there anyway to harness that energy?

It seems like we are surrounded constantly by little bits of energy (such as dryer static) and no way to harness it.

there was a guy you should google
try Tesla
people laughed but he was awesome.

re: #169 zombie

UN would make us give all the acquired "territory" back.

/////gah

re: #167 ggt

Bingo. I kinda forgot about that smell, tho. Better just dry your fleece throws again. I think I sprayed that "Static Guard" on my Laguna Beach slip before we went to church. LOL

They felt it their obligation to defend the values of individualism and freedom of the mind against an aggressive ideology of ignorance, dogma, compulsion, uniformity, and authoritarianism.

I wish I had some guys like that where I work... :-)

Just finished a movie (it was awful) and read the article ....

Well, we now have a prez elect who ...in my opinion ...agrees with his Rev. Wright that the U.S. bombings in Japan were a mistake and we are and were the bad guys ...

Do you remember the commercial during the campaign that Daddy Soros/Moveon put out with the woman holding the baby and saying ..."No, you can't have my baby" ...and why have we almost totally stopped showing the bombings on 9/11 on the media ...I swear some people act like it was just a bad dream...

I believe we will be able to tell in a very short period of time just how serious Obama took his first Intel briefing ...and for our sake I hope he is smarter than I think he is ...

How do you defeat an enemy who wants everything you believe in gone ...wiped off the face of the earth ...because if anyone thinks they would stop with Israel they are kidding themselves ...

I wonder how many of the people who had loved ones or friends die in the bombings of 9/11 want to extend a hand to Dinnerjacket ...I realize we cannot just go bombing the crap out of every country in the middle east but I sure would feel better knowing that we have the ability to do so if it ever comes to that .. some people always act like "it will never happen to me" ...yeah, well if they start setting off bombs in the local mall ...baby, it can happen to you ...cuz you ain't special ...

I thought that was an excellent article ...(well till he mentioned Hitchens ...I don't like him much) ....

re: #166 Dark_Falcon

Cool down a bit, DG. He may be hearing the truth about the Palestinians for the first time (the MSM certainly doesn't tell it). Let us see if he applies his lessons.

Excuse me? Retired Navy and you are suggesting that this might be the first time he has ever heard the truth about Palestinians? The only people ever to serve in the US Navy who don't know the truth are/were liberal infiltrators who joined for the college benefits but hate the military and the US.

re: #169 zombie

we'd still be considered the "losers" because there would inevitably be innocent casualties, so we'd lose the moral nitpicking afterward.

Yeah, we'd be just like worse than the islamobombers whose murder totals are basically all innocent civilians.

re: #155 doriangrey

You need to put the fucking crack pipe down Djimmny Carter. We never ever came close with AFuckingRat... He did what all good Muslims do.... He lied to our faces and killed as many Jew's as he could and we funded his doing it.

OK, I'll go to bed with but one question. If we accept that the Palestinians will never want peace, how do we proceed ?
Israel is still trying, should we tell them to quit and turn up the heat, or just ignore the issue and let the pot boil more slowly. My opinion is that by not trying, even if success is unlikely is the idiots will use that to enlist more terrorists to kill more Jews and maybe US citizens.
What is the down side of talking since even the occasional cease fire saves lives. As long as Israel wants peace, I feel we need to help them seek it just as much as we support them in war.

re: #169 zombie

Unfortunately, Nukes have an additional problem in that they are worse than useless if your enemy has reason to believe that you won't use them save for the most dire situations.

Under Carter, nukes were little more then giant paper weights.

Under Reagan, nukes made our enemies have a few sleepless nights.

Not that I think that Reagan would have used them except in the most dire situations, but our enemies did not know that.

re: #152 zombie

In order to change they would have to face the fact that they were wrong in the past. They might even have to come to terms with the role they played in handing over SE Asia to butchers like Pol Pot.
The one thing about leftists that is most remarkable is their inability to admit errors of thought, mistakes in policy, not to mention moral fault.
There is a spiritual disease at work here. They cannot handle guilt at all.
Not on any level.

re: #96 zombie Zombie, I certainly agree that since 9/11 the moral downfall of the left has been indeed spectacular in it's speed and completeness.
But I would submit to you that both CIA Reject and Wolfie hit the nail on the head at #'26 and 29 above: never having actually SEEN or FELT any of the many horrors that confront many people - indeed one is tempted to say most people in Third World countries themselves, they cannot begin to fathom what evil human beings are capable of performing and being.
This is where analytical/critical thinking - or the lack thereof, comes into play in Leftist Elites hands: we cannot understand, say, World War I because we weren't there and the histories which have been written about it can't be believed, because the HORRORS committed by humans against other humans cannot be truly comprehensible. It is, I would propose, one of the reasons why the ABSOLUTE EVIL AND HORROR of the Holocaust cannot be truly fathomed by the Leftist Elites. They simply lack the personal experience or the analytic ability to intellectually understand these horrors AT ALL.
And thusly, having no ability to discern true human evil from what the United States did with the Atom Bomb, much less "push democracy" around the world, and the realities of life in the Third World, they indeed are left with no morality whatsover.

Just checkin' out the highlights of my Giants game.

They look pretty good... almost back to full strength. They really missed Jacobs, not Plaxico.

All in all, a good win... and NBC has to love such a high profile game being so well played on both sides of the ball.

re: #177 doriangrey

Excuse me? Retired Navy and you are suggesting that this might be the first time he has ever heard the truth about Palestinians? The only people ever to serve in the US Navy who don't know the truth are/were liberal infiltrators who joined for the college benefits but hate the military and the US.

I did not know he was retired Navy. That does change matters. Still, I'm withholding judgment pending subsequent posts from avanti.

re: #139 avanti

OK, I'll bite, how is that ? All I've read from the right is criticism for BHO setting up a office to do just that. Until recently the Bush administration would not even talk to Iran.

The above is your answer to #130 Sharmuta's "The moderates in iran are being betrayed by the upcoming administration"...?

You say that B-Zero is "setting up a office to do just that"...? To betray the moderates in Iran?

Wait, wait... You are USN retired?

Are you somehow not aware that Iran is financing, training, providing ammo and weapons for the KILLING of our military over there, and plotting the annihilation of Israel?!?! You truly BELIEVE that the president of the United States of America should sit in the same room, at the same table and play nicey-nicey with murderers and terrorists?

Wish I could stick around to slap you around a bit more, but it is late and I must go.

re: #184 Dark_Falcon

I did not know he was retired Navy. That does change matters. Still, I'm withholding judgment pending subsequent posts from avanti.

He read the books ...he bought it all ...he told me a few days ago ...go back and read his posts ...It's his right to his opinions ...I am just not on the same page ...

re: #179 avanti

OK, I'll go to bed with but one question. If we accept that the Palestinians will never want peace, how do we proceed ?
Israel is still trying, should we tell them to quit and turn up the heat, or just ignore the issue and let the pot boil more slowly. My opinion is that by not trying, even if success is unlikely is the idiots will use that to enlist more terrorists to kill more Jews and maybe US citizens.
What is the down side of talking since even the occasional cease fire saves lives. As long as Israel wants peace, I feel we need to help them seek it just as much as we support them in war.

What cease fire? The Palestinians idea of a cease fire is Israel quits firing but the Palestinians keep firing. They have never ever honored a cease fire. For the Palestinians a cease fire is time to reload. Israel should forcibly evict all the Palestinians. Period. And treat any attack against them from anyone as an act of war and retaliate against the nation from which that attack originated with extreme prejudice regardless of whether that attack was sanctioned by that nations official government.

re: #187 doriangrey

Artillery

re: #117 Dark_Falcon

Maybe and maybe not.

Maybe he will screw up so badly that he will be legally removed from office. Nixon did. There probably other ways from him to be removed. Obama can only hurt the ones closest to him – which is what is going on right now.

And, there are other countries to move to – or spend a majority of your time away from Obama’s grip.

You can go ahead a work for him and report back to us your findings. I will give him as much respect as the liberals gave to Bush.

re: #101 dak dak - I do not disagree with you, but my #89 was not about the "Japs winning or losing" the war; it was about the rise of the US as the source of Evil in this world in the eyes of the liberal/leftisit elities and the inability of those liberal/leftist elities inability to recognize true morality AT ALL.
And, for about the FOURTH TIME here, I sincerely suggest you go and read #26 and #29 by CIA Reject and Wolfie, respectively.

re: #179 avanti

OK, I'll go to bed with but one question. If we accept that the Palestinians will never want peace, how do we proceed ?
Israel is still trying, should we tell them to quit and turn up the heat, or just ignore the issue and let the pot boil more slowly. My opinion is that by not trying, even if success is unlikely is the idiots will use that to enlist more terrorists to kill more Jews and maybe US citizens.
What is the down side of talking since even the occasional cease fire saves lives. As long as Israel wants peace, I feel we need to help them seek it just as much as we support them in war.

The down side is that Hamas calls for ceasefires when they are losing and then uses said hudnas to rearm. I say no further ceasefires until Hamas is wrecked as an organization. Hams says they are at war with the US and Israel, so I say they should not be offered any terms of truce save unconditional surrender.

re: #183 stevieray

Riding high with a Chargers win and an improbable Broncos loss at home. Can't believe Coach Mike let that one get away. Playing for all the AFC West marbles next weekend in SD. I'll take 8-8 and playoffs but we still suck. LT looked healthy so IF Pitt comes to town, watch out.

re: #163 Mr. E. Train

Spot on.
Except that earlier "secular intellectuals" weren't necessarily so enamored of freedom and Western civilization. Quite a few of them were entranced by Mr. Stalin, and I'll bet that most favored social engineering over classical liberalism.

re: #139 avanti

OK, I'll bite, how is that ? All I've read from the right is criticism for BHO setting up a office to do just that. Until recently the Bush administration would not even talk to Iran.

The people 0bama wants to talk to ARE NOT THE MODERATES OF IRAN. The moderates of Iran are being betrayed because 0bama would talk to the very men who keep the moderates down, beaten, threatened and killed.

The secular moral compass we need we already have, but so few recognize it. Let's look at it logically, from the ground up...

We are spatiotemporally finite, self-and-other-aware beings, surrounded by others similar to but not identical with ourselves, whom we know and care for in varying fashions and degrees - as lovers, family, friends, acquaintances, celebrities, annoyances, enemies and strangers (and some people wear more than one of these hats at the same time). We have to share finite space and resources on a shrinking sphere, yet still provide for ourselves and our dependents in a reasonably free, peaceful, and prosperous fashion - and each of us is going to selfishly pursue those goals for ourselves and our loved ones, even at the expense of unloved others, if possible. How do we FAIRLY and EQUITABLY go about it?

Well, first we have to streamline a vehicle with which to concentrate our consensus, so that an aggregate of self-intersted individuals may make collectively beneficial decisions efficiently, while not abusing those who do not share that consensus (the dreaded tyranny of the majority). So we institute a voting democracy regulated by a constitution, with a bill of guaranteed rights rights that prevents the majority from unjustly imposing their will on the minority. We separate the processes of legislation, interpretation, and enforcement, so each function can check and balance the propensity of people in power in the others to engage in greedy and power-hungry excesses. We ensure that those in power can be turned out of power by regular popular votes. And we instititue a military to defend our land, people, government and borders, but we place it under civilian control, so that it is more difficult for it to arrogate dictatorial rule unto itself.

This system allows each of us to live where we please so long as we can afford it, to each be the barterer of our own skills and abilities for fair and competitive compensation in a common economy, and to choose to live our private lives in whateve ways we can devise that maximize our comfort, safety and happiness, so long as they do not impinge upon the rights of others to do the same - and where conflicts between competing rights and freedoms inevitably arise, we strive to resolve them by means of equal and proportional compromise.

This is the quality product we have to sell the theocratic and totalitarian world; a model of peace, freedom, safety, individuality, and prosperity here and now, in this world, to counter the seductive snake oil offers of those who sell the people they exploit and oppress the sky pie of bliss in the next world, or in some undefined far off future, as long as they agree to be the tools of powerful, pious or authoritative others in this one, or those who demand the devout sublimation of the individual to the exigencies of a collectively national or supposedly celestial will.

All right it's bed time for this Lizard....

re: #177 doriangrey

Excuse me? Retired Navy and you are suggesting that this might be the first time he has ever heard the truth about Palestinians? The only people ever to serve in the US Navy who don't know the truth are/were liberal infiltrators who joined for the college benefits but hate the military and the US.

OK, night all, at least we were taking. BTW, I did not serve in the Navy and go to Vietnam because I hated the military or my country and I resent the inference that only those on the right love their country. We may differ on issues, but slamming someone's love of country in so doing is BS.
Although I served partly to protect your right to express such opinions, I have a right to call you out. We are a democracy last time I checked.

re: #192 Mel Lono

Just get in the playoffs, and anything can happen.

LT got old and slow really quick... but that isn't unusual for RBs. When they lose that step, the end comes quick.

re: #179 avanti

OK, I'll go to bed with but one question. If we accept that the Palestinians will never want peace, how do we proceed ?

I'm all for killing the bad guys. I can pay people to do it with my taxes, or given a chance, put me in coach. If they are going to deny me a peaceful world in which to ply my peaceful trade and raise my family, then fine, their blood spills the same as mine. So, my whole attitude is a) kill the bad guys and b) when more bad guys pop up, we kill them too. Maybe they will get tired of dying sooner or later.

re: #164 doriangrey

Ummm, yea.... thats right... a research project for energy...... ;) But I'll need millions...... ;)

ummm... correction: But I'll need millions BILLIONS......

/available for partner... ;D

re: #198 stevieray

I'm glad to see Michael Turner get his chance in ATL but, damn we gave him up for nothing.

re: #105 Walter L. Newton
Walter my friend - I know it's terribly late and you are terribly tired - from working so hard and from that half an ambien you took (!) but if you would be so kind as to slog your way through my #89, I'd appreciate it.
The simple fact is this: our democratic form of government - which is obviously under siege right now amongst members of both parties - still managed to provide the Iraqi people with FREEDOM. And indeed it was President Bush's burning desire (and the heroic efforts of our troops) which gave Iraq democracy. Yet this act is considered by liberal/leftist elitists as being EVIL. I would ask you to read my #89, and all of zombie's posts tonight to understand where zombie, myself, wolfie and CIA Reject are coming from.
There is NO morality left in the liberal/leftists elitists in this nation, none at all.

re: #197 avanti

OK, night all, at least we were taking. BTW, I did not serve in the Navy and go to Vietnam because I hated the military or my country and I resent the inference that only those on the right love their country. We may differ on issues, but slamming someone's love of country in so doing is BS.
Although I served partly to protect your right to express such opinions, I have a right to call you out. We are a democracy last time I checked.

No such inference was made by me. And no one disputed your right to speak. I would ask however, that you inform yourself before again exercising that right on this topic.

re: #147 avanti

You simply don't get it. Any rational legal system would lock the mullahs up as being dangerous to themselves and others. Their beliefs are totally twisted and fully qualify as evil. The mullahs literally do worship death. Their god is not the god of Jews and Christians. It revels in fear, terror, misery and death. It feeds off of the negative emotions of its victims. Once you understand that, everything about it and its practitioners starts to make sense.

Much as it makes my stomach churn, I think dropping the bomb at that time actually saved lives. I remember going to the United Nations building in 1989. The display made me feel bad about being American. What horror those people went through. All in all, I still think we did the right thing because the war would have gone on and on. Look how many Chinese they killed.

UN out of the US.

re: #119 CIA Reject
Thank you for posting that! When I saw that neither you nor wolfie had "updinged" my #89, I was afraid that perhaps I had misread your wonderful comment in #26! And since I've been using both your comment and wolfie's comment at #29 all night, I was uneasy until I read your #119!
Thanks, again.

re: #205 Pvt Bin Jammin

I have personally visited both detonation sites at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It was horrible what happened, yes.
The effect was to save lives, on BOTH sides, however.
Today Japan is an ally. Everyone we bomb becomes an ally eventually. Think on that one for a minute.

re: #207 rawmuse

Everyone we bomb becomes an ally eventually. Think on that one for a minute.

Dale Carnegie, eat your heart out!

re: #207 rawmuse

You are absolutely right. It's still just hard to think about but a necessary evil. My Dad was just civilian Army Air Corps but I know he knew. I have his orders from that August in with my keep sakes.

re: #152 zombie
Well, I would submit to you that

Those brainwash victims are the professors and pundits of today. And yet they're STILL brainwashed. Some of them persist even though they subsequently learned that they were brainwashed, because by that time they had too much invested in their identity.

the "brainwashing" had throughly deprived them of the ability to think analytically or critically and thus led to their INEVITBLE down fall from any sense of morality - right and wrong and good and evil and that they are now passing THIS along with all that they themselves have been brainswashed into believing, into the minds of - I fear MOST - of our young people today who, unlike you and I, have never experienced trauma on that sort of scale - again I cite, shamelessly(!) wolfie and CIA Reject at #29 and #26.

There is a little known story of WW ll and heavy water and the Norwegian resistance ...

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

All these men are well known in Norway and heroes to them - little known in the west and about the sacrifices they made.

re: #162 Defogger
Again, thank you - although I'm not so sure WHERE that place in Lizardom might be! LOL!

re: #4 Sharmuta

I think this hits the nail on the head- moral relativism run amok. We're not allowed to judge other cultures as bad, only our own. I believe it's called hypocrisy.

[Thinking out loud.]

Could it be that while rejecting the supernatural aspect of religion, these scientific types simultaneously bought the notion (taught by religious leaders) that morality has a supernatural source? Having rejected that source (but having bought the notion), they lost their proverbial "moral compass".

Curiously, they may have looked at all the religions of the world, and rationally deduced that since they can't all be right, and since none have anything close to the kind of proof that any decent scientist should accept - that THEY MUST ALL BE WRONG. Ironically, in contrast, they look at all the conflicting moral codes in the world and decide THEY MUST ALL BE RIGHT.

Perhaps they felt that - unlike a deity - morality was something that was essential to society. Or maybe they didn't want to be labelled immoral (or ammoral). Really, they probably just lacked the philosophical framework that they needed to make moral judgements (partly because their remaining framework had also come from the very religion they had rejected), and so they decided such judgements simply could not be made objectively and rationally. Or maybe when society/govt became God for most of them, they simply lined up to accept their new God's morality. Probably, it varies with the individual.

Regardless of how it happened, yes, I think this has a LOT to do with where they're coming from. They're really mixed-up and confused about morality, at it will almost certainly prove to have dire consequences for many countless thousands over the next few years.

re: #199 rawmuse

I'm all for killing the bad guys. I can pay people to do it with my taxes, or given a chance, put me in coach. If they are going to deny me a peaceful world in which to ply my peaceful trade and raise my family, then fine, their blood spills the same as mine. So, my whole attitude is a) kill the bad guys and b) when more bad guys pop up, we kill them too. Maybe they will get tired of dying sooner or later.

I agree - and it's going to take more with those who embrace death as a martyr.

re: #177 doriangrey dorian,you might as well point him to Nekama's Troll Hammer (upper left under LGF Resources) if that doesn't get him to come around, that's it, lights are out for him.

re: #183 stevieray
YES! GO BIG BLUE! Loved that game (well, after we won!) glad you were watching too!
Oh and thanks for the upding on my #89 above - it is truly appreciated.

Just as a personal observation, avanti is a Liberal, he says so himself.
He means well, he served his country (for which he has my gratitude) but I am convinced, based on his prior posts that he is terribly naive in most matters regarding war and religion. He still thinks that our enemy can be reasoned with, has never heard of taqiya, or hudna, and is basically a cockeyed optimist. We have room for him on these threads, and I think he is capable of self improvement here.

After some consideration, I also consider myself a Classic Liberal. I want respect for the weak, promotion of the arts and science, and of Western Civilization, proper Socratic methods applied to debates, and most of all,

Freedom!

re: #207 rawmuse

I have personally visited both detonation sites at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It was horrible what happened, yes.
The effect was to save lives, on BOTH sides, however.
Today Japan is an ally. Everyone we bomb becomes an ally eventually. Think on that one for a minute.

"The Mouse That Roared".

re: #184 Dark_Falcon
Point him to Nekama's Troll Hammer (upper left under Resources) if that doesn't bring him around, nothing will!

re: #211 Bobibutu

I think there is a documentary movie about that one I recall watching.

re: #217 rawmuse

Problem is Classic Liberalism has been distorted beyond belief.

Gotta get some sleep! I hope you all have a GREAT EARLY MORNING and that I get the chance to see you all down the road!

Good night, all.

re: #221 Bobibutu

Problem is Classic Liberalism has been distorted beyond belief.

So has Conservatism. Welcome to the year 2008.
Humorous, eh?

re: #220 rawmuse

I think there is a documentary movie about that one I recall watching.

Yes - couldn't find the link - time well spent - a mind boggling tale of heroics, sorrow and doing what was right - by just a handful of men.

re: #221 Bobibutu

Problem is Classic Liberalism has been distorted beyond belief.

See wiki's Social Liberalism

re: #216 realwest

I had the easy part -- the ding. You did the heavy lifting!

And yes, it was a great game! Even when I changed the channel a few times... sometimes I can't stand to watch, until curiosity compels me to go back to the game again.

re: #217 rawmuse

Just as a personal observation, avanti is a Liberal, he says so himself.
He means well, he served his country (for which he has my gratitude) but I am convinced, based on his prior posts that he is terribly naive in most matters regarding war and religion. He still thinks that our enemy can be reasoned with, has never heard of taqiya, or hudna, and is basically a cockeyed optimist. We have room for him on these threads, and I think he is capable of self improvement here.

After some consideration, I also consider myself a Classic Liberal. I want respect for the weak, promotion of the arts and science, and of Western Civilization, proper Socratic methods applied to debates, and most of all,

Freedom!

I agree- I managed to learn, and I think avanti can learn too, which is why I pointed out our resources here at LGF. I hope he comes back later and sees these comments and does do some studying on the issue(s). Nothing wrong with being naive on the subject, just if you choose to stay that way.

re: #223 rawmuse

So has Conservatism. Welcome to the year 2008.
Humorous, eh?

Yes - in my younger years I defined myself as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

You summed it up for now with simply - FREEDOM!

re: #111 Ledger1

I did not elect the Big 0!

"Journalists," lawyers, Unions and the radical left did.

Um, I think you left out "African-Americans", who probably put him over the top. They cast probably about 1/5 of his votes. Most of them may be Democrats, but I'm not sure they all would fall under "radical left". Similarly, they're not all union members, lawyers, or journalists.

[This is where somebody's supposed to call ME "racist"...]

re: #225 rawmuse

See wiki's Social Liberalism

Thank you - I am more impressed with Wiki every day.

re: #228 Bobibutu

I have adopted the Classic Liberal moniker in my dealings with others here in order to not be promptly pummeled to death with Prada pumps in Union Square.

re: #202 realwest

Walter my friend - I know it's terribly late and you are terribly tired - from working so hard and from that half an ambien you took (!) but if you would be so kind as to slog your way through my #89, I'd appreciate it.
The simple fact is this: our democratic form of government - which is obviously under siege right now amongst members of both parties - still managed to provide the Iraqi people with FREEDOM. And indeed it was President Bush's burning desire (and the heroic efforts of our troops) which gave Iraq democracy. Yet this act is considered by liberal/leftist elitists as being EVIL. I would ask you to read my #89, and all of zombie's posts tonight to understand where zombie, myself, wolfie and CIA Reject are coming from.
There is NO morality left in the liberal/leftists elitists in this nation, none at all.

I did read the posts connected to this, and yes, I do agree, But, as I said before, I don't see this as a left/right issue anymore.

The longer we play sides, the longer each side is going to be able to continue to get our support, and continue to play there little games. Giving away money and influence to the plutocracy and taking for themselves and their kleptocracy.

Look at what Bush did this week The Congress couldn't get on the same page about the auto bailouts, and across the country, the people didn't want it. So what happens. Bush goes over everybody's heads and gives the car companies what they wanted,

Congress could have voted NOT to accept the 4700 COLA raise, considering it is one week from Christmas, and people are suffering financially. But no, they took it. Even if they had a 100 percent approval rating, this would have been a fucking poor public relations move on their part.

The mayor of denver is telling the police and fireman and other city employees that they will be getting wage freezes and possible furloug days off. He's got to cut money. But the city council voted themselves a raise over a month ago, and they are not giving it back.

So, who's moral, the left, the right, or are they all taking everything that isn't nailed down right now. Who evil, the whole damn fucking lot of them is evil.

You don't believe that, you think your side is so good, keep watching, keep informed, make a list, your heros are going down soon.

re: #231 rawmuse

I have adopted the Classic Liberal moniker in my dealings with others here in order to not be promptly pummeled to death with Prada pumps in Union Square.

A wise decision ... and with your input and my - now - understanding of it - thank you again - I shall follow suit.

re: #228 Bobibutu

Yes - in my younger years I defined myself as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

You summed it up for now with simply - FREEDOM!

Some call that a "small-l libertarian". The "small-l" is to distinguish from the anarchists and druggies that the Libertarian Party is notorious for. If you want to further distinguish yourself from guys like Ron Paul, it's "neolibertarian" vs. Paul's "paleolibertarianism" (the distinguishing feature of which is the naive assertion that if we keep out of the world's affairs, they'll simply leave us alone and everything will be wonderful).

I think I'm probably as close to being neolibertarian as any other category I've heard of, myself.

Ironically, President Bush came in as a Social Conservative, and is leaving as a Conservative Socialist.

re: #228 Bobibutu

Yes - in my younger years I defined myself as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

You summed it up for now with simply - FREEDOM!

Oh, and the following will give you a good indication of where you stand, politically:

[Link: www.theadvocates.org...]

It goes one step deeper than just "right" vs. "left.

re: #130 Sharmuta

The moderates in iran are being betrayed by the upcoming administration.

the moderates? there is no moderates within the Iranian regime AFAIK

re: #148 Sharmuta

i m here

re: #234 Optimizer

Round and round we go - what I know for me is what I hold as right and wrong.

I can make no definitive statement as to what that is on a broad spectrum other than Freedom and pick the specific issues one at a time. I grow weary with the constant bickering. So add in - Peace of mind.

re: #237 winston06

the moderates? there is no moderates within the Iranian regime AFAIK

I didn't mean in the regime- I mean the people the regime is oppressing.

re: #236 Optimizer

Oh, and the following will give you a good indication of where you stand, politically:

[Link: www.theadvocates.org...]

It goes one step deeper than just "right" vs. "left.

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 50%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...

CONSERVATIVES tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently
support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional
values." They oppose excessive government control of business,
while endorsing government action to defend morality and the
traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong
military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market
economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.

re: #240 Sharmuta

got it

re: #241 Bobibutu

I seem to be exactly on the border of Libertarian and Right Conservative - and as far away from Centrist as possible.

... Without a solidly grounded, enthusiastic defense of universal human values against moral relativism, I believe the result within my lifetime will be the rise of a significant fascist movement within the United States.

As long as theocracy and the revolt against secular human values can find a safe shelter in the moral relativism of serious intellectual leaders, it will fester until at last it reaches the strength where it can no longer be dismissed as a nuisance.

The bottom line is that I believe we will soon face, if we do not already face, a choice not unlike that faced by Szilard and his contemporaries: a choice to put ourselves on the line in defense of universal human values. That defense may take many forms; for now, I believe simply articulating and intellectually defending them would be enough. But if we fail in that, we will find ourselves faced with that same choice in a far more terrible form.

Basically, he's talking about a sort of domestic Civil War. Only this time the industrialized war machine gets controlled by the fascists, and is unlike anything the world has ever known. Merry Christmas!

re: #239 Bobibutu

Round and round we go - what I know for me is what I hold as right and wrong.

I can make no definitive statement as to what that is on a broad spectrum other than Freedom and pick the specific issues one at a time. I grow weary with the constant bickering. So add in - Peace of mind.

No need to go "round and round" - the two political dimensions identified are essentially Social Freedom and Economic Freedom. If your you heavy into both kinds of freedom you fall in the libertarian quarter. Congrats! You're in good company, with Thomas Jefferson as our poster-boy. (Many of the Right wingers aren't as in line with the Founders as they like to think.)

If you favor economic, but not so much social, freedom - you're on the Right. Vice versa, the Left.

If you're against most social AND economic freedom it's called "authoritarian". We're talkin' commies & fascists down in that dark hole. Some on the Left talk freedom, but are really in THIS camp.

They leave a spot in the middle for "centrist".

re: #245 Optimizer

Fair enough - finding the line of humility, integrity and compassion seems to be the challenge. And that is what I find myself struggling with from time to time.

Thanks for your input.

A great article, well-writtten. Everyone should read it.

"They [Manhattan Project roster of scientists] felt it their obligation to defend the values of individualism and freedom of the mind against an aggressive ideology of ignorance, dogma, compulsion, uniformity, and authoritarianism. "

Of course, they were opposed to Nazism. And the author wants todays secular liberal intellectuals to oppose Islamofascism.

But when I read "an aggressive ideology of ignorance, dogma, compulsion, uniformity, and authoritarianism", I thought of Leftist fascism displayed on Huffpo and the current black-listing of those who supported Prop 8 in CA.

Sandefur omits what I think is the origin of this failure. The Left picked up the habit of doublethink during the Stalin years. Having learned the trick of excusing, minimizing, rationalizing, or otherwise vitiating the horrors committed in the name of anti-fascism and social justice, it is not all that hard to find something to admire in Islamofascism. The jihadis are authentic noble savages, aren't they?

I hope we also remember that many of those same scientists recoiled in horror after they were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So yes, they didn't want to see Nazi Germany with the bomb, but they really didn't want to see anyone with the bomb if it could be avoided.

I would say the key difference is the war itself. The war against terrorism is not one of survival of the nation. The quote that Charles put up a few days ago about terrorism being the tool of losers is quite apt. They won't ever win. There's no way they will be able to bring the United States to its knees. They are a tiny minority that has no hope for the future. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were quite different. They were making their ambition real. Germany conquered nearly all of western Europe, Japan was on its way to taking over all of Asia. They had global domination within their grasp. Had Hitler not been so crazy and listened to his generals advice, things would be very different. If Japan had just held off on Pearl Harbor for a little while as Hitler and Japan both solidified their territorial gains, things would certainly be different.

Do you really have that same fear with Radical Islam?

And I'm going to be quite honest. I think propaganda is absolutely necessary if you want that kind of war. Generals and politicians alike during World War II saw the necessity for propaganda for domestic consumption. General George C. Marshall said that his drafted troops' morale was too low, and he blamed it on the apathetic public (pre-Dec. 7). Later, in 1944, when the tide of war had turned decisively in the Allies' favor, he and others noticed that people were no longer willing to make the same wartime sacrifices they had been making for 2 years. They saw the war as won, labor and business no longer put aside their petty squabbles for the war effort, people rationed less. During the second World War, there was no problem in censoring all forms of media for things we would today be outraged over. The men in positions of power wanted propaganda and censorship to sell the war.

If even "The Good War" like World War II needs constant selling, what hope does a war on terrorism have?

Why this difference? I see several reasons. The first, and most shocking, is moral relativism. While the scientific community in the 1930s did not hesitate to brand Nazism as evil, many if not most of today’s secularists consider “evil” to be an outmoded concept. They see morality as a matter of social convention; at bottom a purely subjective matter of personal taste. If the Islamic world practices brutal self-flagellation, subjects young girls to clitoridectomy, et cetera, et cetera, well, that’s just their way, and who are we to criticize? The idea that science is a practice rooted in propositions that themselves have moral significance—the very idea of universal moral significance—is simply not taken seriously. The idea of universal human values is regarded as, well, it often is not regarded at all. Our ideas of equality and individual rights are declared to be no more or less intellectually respectable than Sharia law.

In short, many secularists, terrified of being labeled an -ist, -ite, or -phobe,

Even though Che was a monster, secularist leftista adore Che (though - they aren't sure why other than they are following the idiotic lead of other idiot leftists who do it too)

Great read. Saved to favorites and will get my teenaged son to read it.

re: #227 Sharmuta

I agree- I managed to learn, and I think avanti can learn too, which is why I pointed out our resources here at LGF. I hope he comes back later and sees these comments and does do some studying on the issue(s). Nothing wrong with being naive on the subject, just if you choose to stay that way.

OK, a few points. I am here to learn and hopefully inform. I want to share my opinions with you and hear yours. I disagree with the concept that my opinions are always naive because I don't agree with those on the right. You may approve a move to war wih less talk, than I might for example, but we both base are opinions on our own politics.
I enjoy the dialog back and forth as long as we don't go down the liberals hate their country and must be reeducated road. I'm not here so much to reach agreement on all issues, more to find some common ground between the right and left on some.
Yep, I bought the "there is no red state America, no blue state America, just the United States of America"line. I'll never accuse the right of not loving their country, and if I could get the same iwe'd be off to a get start.
I think we need both the left and right to get us down the middle, simple as that.

re: #240 Sharmuta

We have no indicators that show that "moderates" in Iran are anything more than a rag-tag fringe minority. How devout individual Iranians is also open to question. Certainly, no regeim is made up of all true believers. But Iran has had no Ceder Revolution. Instead, fighting through their Hezbollah surrogates, Iran has managed to quash the Ceder Revolution in Lebanon. Iran is also active in promoting terrorism around the globe, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and even South America.

There is already a State of War between Iran and the US. Iran started it during the Carter Administration. It has waxed and waned during the subsequent years, but it has always been there. Any Iranian dissident movement is too small and too isolated to be able to launch a coup against the Mullahs. Part of this, to be sure, is the intrangence of the Regeim itself, but one has to acknowledge that there simply isn't the political will to launch a coup.

Looking to the Iranian people to overthrow the Mullahs is as much pixie dust as Obama opening dialog with the Mad Mullahs. Neither one of these is going to bring peace. On the contrary, allowing Iran to fight proxie wars in the Middle East (let alone if Hezbollah decides to bring the war to America) is a losing strategy. The Mad Mullahs themselves are one of the biggest hurdles that must be crossed to bring a peaceful conclusion to the matter. Until they are removed by force, they will continue to support for terrorism all around the globe.

Here's my hope for Iran. 60% of the population is under 30, and I'd rather try and reach them, before moving to war. Yes I know the link is from the MSM, but these kids are not the ones that captured our embassy. For lack of a better term, they are the lefties that we should be courting by talking.
Hopefully, we'll see some movement after their elections, and only then try to open a dialog.

Pixie Dust

re: #89 realwest

Thought-provoking article, and your morality issue is central. I think it must be stated that our society has been able to remain pluralistic and tolerant precisely because it has been framed within a Judeo-Christian world view. This has not only provided our basis of moral law and societal conduct - but has allowed for the freedom to believe or disbelieve.

As our post-modern culture tries to segregate and/or eradicate this framework from our country, we have begun to lose our bearings. Szilard states in his article: "many if not most of today’s secularists consider “evil” to be an outmoded concept. They see morality as a matter of social convention; at bottom a purely subjective matter of personal taste . . . [and are] unwilling to draw moral lines." But is this not a natural evolution? If we were to become completely secular, to what moral standard or value system would we be appealing to? Is this not the root of moral relativism and the confusion at the heart of our culture?

Yet he invokes a moral mandate in order "to defend the values of individualism and freedom of the mind against an aggressive ideology of ignorance, dogma, compulsion, uniformity, and authoritarianism."

I think we should look at what's happening to Europe - They are experiencing a second islamic invasion and a strictly secularist worldview is unable to contend with it. As they become more "Islamicized" Europe will experience a system that no longer honors individual liberty and tolerance, as Szilard puts it "an ideology of dogma, chauvinism, nationalism, and brutality—an ideology whose practitioners brutalize women and children, commit unimaginable acts of savage brutality, and who, if they had the power, would wipe away all free scientific inquiry, all freedom of speech, all dissent." I would argue that the fight is not between religion and secularism, the real fight is between Islam and Judeo-Christianity.

re: #253 avanti

Didn't mean to offend you, but your comments about Israel leave the impression you're knowledge on this topic is lacking. Under "resources" in the left side bar you'll find information that will help I believe.

Please see Nekama's Troll Hammer- the best comment ever left on LGF.

plainly stated and irrefutable. a great article, the substance of which would be missed by so many now in power, leading our country down a dangerous path.
they take no notice of the perils along the way.
they are too committed to their selfish personal ideology.
they are so incapable of sound judgment.
as civilized countries wait and play 'patty-cake', the savages grow more brutal and push forward.