[Osx-nutters] AHMADINEJAD

[Patrick Coskren]

On Sep 27, 2006, at 10:22 AM, Jeffrey Hergan wrote:
>
> On Sep 25, 2006, at 4:02 AM, David Cake wrote:
>
>>> =. Try that in Iran/Saudi Arabia/North Korea/Cuba/any one of
>>> dozens of other countries beloved of the Western liberal elite.
>>
>> 	I think this sentence clearly shows that Guys political rants  
>> have headed into crack pipe territory. I mean, who really thinks  
>> the Western Liberal elite love Saudi Arabia (which draws far more  
>> support from a Western right wing elite who want its oil), or  
>> North Korea?
>
> Well...I think there is clearly a cultural relativism thrust  
> forward by the liberal elite, and liberals in general, that says  
> (at least) "Don't judge them because we really ought to respect  
> their culture regardless of the actions of the state (of Saudi  
> Arabia or N. Korea) or some individuals within the state.

That sentence is so broadly phrased that I don't know what you mean.   
Generally what I hear on the left is "don't hate them just because  
they're Muslim".  That doesn't mean that criticisms of specific acts,  
or of specific trends in Islam, are out of place.  It's entirely  
consistent to say, "beheading as a punishment for marital infidelity  
is wrong" and, "a lot of these right-wingers are just expressing  
their own religious bigotry".

> I wouldn't say those countries are 'beloved' but they certainly are  
> poster children of the liberal elite, used in criticisms of the  
> right wingers.

This is the part that's just silly.  One of the biggest criticisms  
used by liberals against the right wingers is that the Right is too  
tied to Saudi Arabia and too foolish with regard to North Korea and  
Iran.  That doesn't make those countries poster children in any way  
shape or form.  "These countries are bad, and you're fucking up how  
you deal with them", is not a "poster child" argument.  To even argue  
that liberals have a fondness for those countries makes it sound like  
you're not listening to any actual liberals (although I'm sure you  
can find a few extremists somewhere who'll say anything).

> The right is quick to make ethical and moral judgments.  The left  
> would withholds judgment.  That isn't love.  But it is unrealistic  
> and idealistic in a world where those two traits are quite dangerous.

You're not paying attention if you think the Left makes no moral  
judgments.  It's just that they think morality is about something  
different from what's in your pants and what religious figure you  
pray to.  Typical liberal policies like universal health care,  
vigorous diplomacy before engaging in war, economic equality, civil  
rights, not torturing people, the right to a fair trial, etc, these  
are all motivated by moral principles.  Even gay marriage, the Right- 
wing electoral cudgel, is motivated by moral principles: it's just  
that on the Left, we don't think morality is a matter of the gender  
of who you love.  We think it's a matter of *standing by* the person  
you love, and being able to do so.

What the Right likes are simple, black-and-white moral judgments.   
But the world isn't black and white.  It's like turning up the  
contrast on your monitor (Universal Access control panel) all the  
way, so all the colors are black or white.  You're not going to get  
much done that way.

-Patrick