Josh's Weblog

Which brings me to this week's scandal about No Such Agency spying on “Americans.” I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

Josh,

I guess you're not a "moonbat" since you are not outraged by Coulter's red meat, just a little flat.

I tell you what tough guy. I suppose you call me a liberal, at least on this issue. I'll give you my address and you bring your big-talking imbecile self to my house and try to remove me to Guantanmo. It will be a pleaseure to bead the living daylights out of your chickensh*t *ss.

Reminds of that "Unhinged" book that someone was pushing a few weeks back. Of course, the difference being that the left's nutbags don't tend to be rewarded with big-ticket speakng engagements.

I blame the high cost of campaign advertizing for the plague of ultra-_______s going around today, because if the people who actually mattered (ie: our government) didn't have to pose an grovel to the true believers for the money to buy those incredibly expensive commercials, maybe there'd be someone to slap some sense in the public debate.

What message do you think it sends to the public when the Vice President of the United States shares a podium with Ann Coulter, as he did at CPAC this year?

Coulter is more of a performance artist then anything else. She doesn't actually believe anything she says, but she gets off on the attention and money it brings her. The only thing more pathetic then Ann Coulter are the poor saps who buy her books.

"There are times I think Ann Coulter says stuff just to get a outraged reaction from the moonbat left."

Oh, ya think?" Holy harangue, Batman! Of course, the problem is that people actually pay her to spout off this nonsense, like she is a serious about it.

Naw -- Ann isn't faking it. She just comes from that talk-radio segment of society that subscribes to the governmental philosophy of 'Shoot 'em all, and let God sort 'em out.' I.e., a Nazi.

As usual, Mr. Coulter's comments are designed to enrage anyone who would actually deign to argue a position that no non-sociopath would take. His continued work in the editorial field reminds me of the drunk at the corner of the bar, too many years subsisting on the nutrition afforded by a cheap vodka, who never quite creates enough of a stir to actually get thrown out by the management.

If that's what Coulter posts to celebrate Christ's birth, I'm terrified of what she's going to post for the Crucifixtion.

Obviously there's a big difference between the moonbat left that stages protests, boos speeches, and throws pies, and the regular left, just as there's differences between the reactionaries like Ann Coulter and others on the right.

The Daou Report regularly throws me on the the Right, simply because I support the Global War on Terror, even though I'm a libertarian. After all, I think the GOP has failed miserably on reducing spending, and only won a little on reducing taxes.

For whatever reason, the Daou Report picks up my articles like this one instead of my other (and I think better) stuff.

Sticks and stones, Josh, sticks and stones....
By Moonbat I suppose you mean that some of us on the left are not quite fully loaded upstairs. You don't bother to elaborate but we can guess who might make your list. Is it that when liberals say things that you find offensive it indicates a diminished capacity,while Ann Coulter "just says stuff"?
I don't know if Ann Coulter is truly a sociopath, or a performance artist as suggested above, I do believe her to be sickening. There's nothing libertarian about imprisoning opponents and torturing an entire ethnicity.
Alas the sun rises, I'll have to return to my perch to hang out.

Obviously people don't understand the term “moonbat” which has been around for years! I consider many comments made by Howard Dean and Chuck Schumer just as offensive as the one made by Ann Coulter above. In general, you'll find me more likely to agree with Larry Elder and Tammy Bruce (but not always).

I do like Ann's willingness to not mince words, however. It's refreshing to see someone, however sociopathic, tell it to us straight. I don't think her comment made above is telling it to us straight, however, but rather was just to get a reaction. It's obviously narcissism on her part. My posting was an attempt to call her on it.

Thinking I agree with her statement above, just because I quoted it, is the the strongest argument for self-diagnosed diminished capacity anyone could make.

Josh writes: 'Obviously people don't understand the term “moonbat” which has been around for years!'

The first known use of the term "barking moonbat" was directed at Libertarian luminary Harry Browne on March 21, 2002, and has been used mostly by many on the right as a name calling device ever since, but that doesn't make it any less juvenile and inane. Can't you discuss politics without resorting to puerile name calling, Josh?

Yeah, I know there are plenty of people on the left who employ similar puerile name-calling tactics, but that doesn't make similar actions by you and many on the right any less puerile.

"I do like Ann's willingness to not mince words, however. It's refreshing to see someone, however sociopathic, tell it to us straight."

The thing is, I don't think she's telling it straight. Or if she is, she's not talking about anything like the America I remember. If anything, she sounds more like the types who argued for round up the Japanese into internment camps. (Plus a bit of racially-tinged advocation of indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations... but wasn't that all the rave in WWII.)

Now, I consider those to be some of our coutries low points, and I'm someone who thinks Dershowitz's idea of torture warrants might deserve a serious look, if only because open sanctioning of it would include a kind of accountability our current secretive practices lack. (The "ticking-bomb" scenarios toted out to justify what we've been doing would obviously still be approved, but a warrant system with some kind of evidence standards would at least limit the abuses produced by our system of executive discretion.)

The persons who is 'diminished' here is clearly Josh.

He makes a post about this outrageous post from Ann Coulter, says that it's 'moonbats' who disagree with it, and then tries to avoid any accountability for his weak condemnation - buried in his praise for Coulter generally outside this 'exception' - by misrepresenting the criticism of his weak condemnation as if it were claiming he doesn't disagree with this post at all.

It's as if he said that while Hitler was so often an outstanding leader, he's a little flat on the Holocaust policies which are aimed at outraging the pro-zionist radicals (tee, hee, that little right-wing commentator giggle), then claiming he'd condemned Hitler, too, when criticized.

Moonbat is purely and simply a propaganda term - worse than name-calling, its purpose is to prevent objective consideration of the other side's views - much as calling the Germans 'Krauts' in WWII had little rational content, but served to provide a word with which to focus dismissive hatred.

'The moonbats say 2+2 = 4' is designed to get the listener to scorn the idea without consideration.

This is why so much of the right-wing culture now is bogged down in cult-like behavior. It's handy for winning elections - see the aforementioned Nazis - but there's a price for when rational, democratic discussion is so crippled - see the aforementioned Nazis.

The blinding effect of such propaganda - of which Coulter is a contributor - has the simple effect of giving huge license to the leaders of the cult, which results in things like the current policy on domestic spying, oomplete with Bush lies about always having a warrant (right wing: who cares?)

IMO, Josh is the enemy of good in our society, harming good debate. The system must allow him to participate - but in itw own interest, it's important that his views are understood and rejected by the body politic as a liver does for the body with other unsavory substances.

Let's see...
A commentator calls for increased government spying on Americans of a certain ethnicity and for deportation and potential torture of domestic dissidents (not even dissidents, really; just those lukewarm about the ruling clique), and you're mildly amused, but cannot find it in yourself to distance yourself from her views.

You're quite a libertarian, Josh. Ron Paul must be proud.

Far better to be a moonbat than a Kool-Aid addled wingnut who finds the demands for mass-murder based on ethnicity/torture and detention based on political affiliation "amusing."

Hopefully, those who don't find the Fascitic direction of this nation "amusing" will be able to halt it before it goes too far, and even the self-titled "patriots" get caught up in a net of their own making.

Josh,

You mention that the Daou report puts you on the right, when you are really a libertarian.

I guess in a 'you are either with us or against us' sort of way I don't think that you can argue a particularly principled Libertarian position when you endorse, through selective quoting, Ann Coulter.

I mean...the Woman is here arguing very specifically that we should torture people-not a little, not as a semantic slip, but actively and publically. And then, ship the 'liberals' off to a 'facility' that at the very best denies the protection that the Fourth Amendment offers to Americans.

So...if you are a principled Libertarian you had sure as hell be feeling a bit more than 'flat' at her column. If you are anything other than outraged than frankly you are supporting a woman who is arguing against the Constitution.

Is there anything principled _or_ libertarian about sending your political opponents to a torture camp?

How about violating US law, and International treaty obligations, by advocating for torture?

No...those are the arguments that can only be made from someone who is not operating from a Principled Libertarian stance.

I'd go so far as to argue that those points can not be argued by anyone who has _any_ principles.

At no point did I endorse or even say I was amused by Ann's column. In fact, all I did was point out she was saying things just to get a reaction. I think the same of Ted Rall most of the time. My reaction is mostly, “whatever” because I know these people aren't serious about these positions except to get attention.

I don't get outraged by much, folks, and neither do most people out there. If I had time to be outraged, I'd certainly be spending most of it on people trying to kill me because I value freedom, rather than people like Ann or Ted.

If you like being outraged, why not post your own column about her essay, rather than make up fanciful theories about me, my values, and my motivations for noticing this particularly loathsome passage?

Josh,

I understand that people come here without reading the rest of your material, and acuse you of supporting things you merely find interesting, but don't be so quick to exchange intellectual honesty for some kind of talking point.

Terrorists don't want to kill you because you value freedom. They want to kill you because, among other things, they (not unlike our president, actually) have a strong faith, which they do not question, that they feel justifies the base actions they may take in its name. In addition to a firm belief that they are right, they also know they can't survive a direct military confrontation, nor can they force the kind of mutually assured destruction stand off that North Korea has so far pull off.

They dislike many things about us, they publish them on various jihadi sites and the like. Our "freedom" is very unlikely to be anywhere on their list. Largely, they seem to hate us because we have the audacity to exist on their turf at the invitation of their leaders.

While troops in Saudi may be good for a stable oil supply, last I checked it's not co-terminous with our freedom. Government that reincarnates a Total Information Awareness program (which was specifically defunded by our law-makers) in an Iran Contra-style executive order... that's more of a threat to our freedom.

from http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Movies and Dreams...

...We were visiting Iraq and I was around 8 years old. I walked in on someone, somewhere, watching what I thought at first was news footage because of the picture quality. It showed what I later learned was an Iraqi POW in Iran. I watched as Iranian guards tied each arm of the helpless man to a different vehicle. I was young, but even I knew what was going to happen the next moment. I wanted to run away or close my eyes- but I couldn’t move. I was rooted to the spot, almost as if I too had been chained there. A moment later, the cars began driving off in opposite directions- and the man was in agony as his arm was torn off at the socket.

I never forgot that video. Millions of Iraqis still remember it. Every time I hear the word “aseer” which is Arabic for POW, that video plays itself in my head. For weeks, I’d see it in my mind before I fell asleep at night, and wake up to it in the morning. It haunted me and I’d wonder how long it took the man to die after that atrocity- I didn’t even know human arms came off that way.

The horrors of what happened to the POWs in Iran lived with us even after the war. The rumors of torture- mental and physical- came back so often and were confirmed so much, that mothers would pray their sons were dead instead of taken prisoner in Iran- especially after that video that came out in either 1984 or 1986. Every Iraqi who had a missing relative from that war, saw them in the agonized face of that POW who lost his arm. SCIRI head Abdul Aziz Al Hakim and his dead brother Mohammed Baqir Al Hakim were both well-known interrogators and torturers of Iraqi POWs in Iran.

There isn’t a single Iraqi family, I believe, that didn’t lose a loved one, or several, to that war. There isn’t a single family that didn’t have horror stories to tell about the POW that came home. They were giving back our POWs up until 2003. In our family alone, we lost four men to that war- three were confirmed dead- one Shia and two Sunnis- and the fourth, S., has been missing since 1983.

When he left for the war, S. was 24 and engaged to be married within the year- the house was even furnished and the wedding date set. He never came back. His mother, my mothers cousin, finally gave up hope that he’d come back in 2003. With every new group of POWs returning from Iran, she’d make phone calls and beg for news of her darling S. Had anyone seen him? Had anyone heard of him? Was he dead? With every fresh disappointment, we’d tell her that in spite of the long years, it was possible he was still alive- there was hope he’d come back. In 2002, she confessed to my mother that she wished someone would come along and crush the hope once and for all- confirm he was dead. In her heart, a mothers heart, she knew he was dead- but she needed the confirmation because without it, giving up hope completely would be a form of betrayal.

The agony of the long war with Iran is what makes the current situation in Iraq so difficult to bear- especially this last year. The occupation has ceased to be American. It is American in face, and militarily, but in essence it has metamorphosed slowly but surely into an Iranian one.

It began, of course, with Badir’s Brigade and the several Iran-based political parties which followed behind the American tanks in April 2003. It continues today with a skewed referendum, and a constitution that will guarantee a southern Iraqi state modeled on the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The referendum results were so disappointing and there have been so many stories of fraud and shady dealings (especially in Mosul), that there’s already talk of boycotting the December elections. This was the Puppets’ shining chance to show that there is that modicum of democracy they claim the Iraqi people are enjoying under occupation- that chance was terribly botched up.

As for the December elections- Sistani has, up until now, coyly abstained from blatantly supporting any one specific political group. This will probably continue until late November / early December during which he will be persistently asked by his followers to please issue a Fatwa about the elections. Eventually, he’ll give his support to one of the parties and declare a vote for said party a divine obligation. I wager he’ll support the United Iraqi Alliance - like last elections.

Interestingly enough, this time around the UIA will be composed of not just SCIRI and Da’awa- but also of the Sadrists (Jaysh il Mahdi)- Muqtada’s followers! For those who followed the situation in Iraq last year, many will recognize Muqtada as the ‘firebrand cleric’, the ‘radical’ and ‘terrorist’. Last year, there was even a warrant for Muqtada’s arrest from the Ministry of Interior and supported by the Americans who repeatedly said they were either going to detain the ‘radical cleric’ or kill him.

Well, today he’s very much alive and involved in the ‘political process’ American politicians and their puppets hail so energetically. Sadr and his followers have been responsible for activities such as terrorizing hairdressers, bombing liquor stores, and abductions of women not dressed properly, etc. because all these things are considered anti-Islamic (according to Iranian-style Islam). Read more about Sadr’s militia here- who dares to say the Americans, Brits and Puppets don’t have everything under control?!

Americans constantly tell me, “What do you think will happen if we pull out of Iraq- those same radicals you fear will take over.” The reality is that most Iraqis don’t like fundamentalists and only want stability- most Iraqis wouldn’t stand for an Iran-influenced Iraq. The American military presence is working hand in hand with Badir, etc. because only together with Iran can they suppress anti-occupation Iraqis all over the country. If and when the Americans leave, their Puppets and militias will have to pack up and return to wherever they came from because without American protection and guidance they don’t stand a chance.

We literally laugh when we hear the much subdued threats American politicians make towards Iran. The US can no longer afford to threaten Iran because they know that should the followers of Sadr, Iranian cleric Sistani and Badir’s Brigade people rise up against the Americans, they’d have to be out of Iraq within a month. Iran can do what it wants- enrich uranium? Of course! If Tehran declared tomorrow that it was currently in negotiations for a nuclear bomb, Bush would have to don his fake pilot suit again, gush enthusiastically about the War on Terror and then threaten Syria some more.

Congratulations Americans- not only are the hardliner Iranian clerics running the show in Iran- they are also running the show in Iraq. This shift of power should have been obvious to the world when My-Loyalty-to-the-Highest-Bidder-Chalabi sold his allegiance to Iran last year. American and British sons and daughters and husbands and wives are dying so that this coming December, Iraqis can go out and vote for Iran influenced clerics to knock us back a good four hundred years.

What happened to the dream of a democratic Iraq?

Iraq has been the land of dreams for everyone except Iraqis- the Persian dream of a Shia controlled Islamic state modeled upon Iran and inclusive of the holy shrines in Najaf, the pan-Arab nationalist dream of a united Arab region with Iraq acting as its protective eastern border, the American dream of controlling the region by installing permanent bases and a Puppet government in one of its wealthiest countries, the Kurdish dream of an independent Kurdish state financed by the oil wealth in Kirkuk…

The Puppets the Americans empowered are advocates of every dream except the Iraqi one: The dream of Iraqi Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen… the dream of a united, stable, prosperous Iraq which has, over the last two years, gone up in the smoke of car bombs, military raids and a foreign occupation.

PS: IMHO, Ann Coulter doesn't have any idea of what she is talking about at least 87% of the time (a corallary of Sturgeon's Law?.

Josh,
Whether Coulter is serious or not, the consquences of her hate-mongering are very real. People take her seriously: I visit message boards where her (and other demagogues) hate has infected people ... people who talk about "liberals" needing to be put down, how "liberals" are ruining the country, how "liberals" are the "enemy within."

Coulter talks about liberals the way Nazis talked about Jews, and there is no indication that she is not to be considered seriously when she writes a column or makes one of her numerous tv appearances.

The reason people are upset with you is because you implied that only "moonbats" would be upset by this column, when in reality any feeling, thinking, compassionate human should be revolted by her despicable out-group eliminationist rhetoric.

". . .Ann Coulter says stuff just to get a [sic] outraged reaction from the moonbat left. . ."

False. She says stuff only to gratify the people who buy her books and sit through ditech.com ads to watch her say stuff. You have to look in the minds of these cable junkies--wingnuts-- to find the reactions that tickle her.

Coulter is the perfect exemple of the dangers of Crystal Meth.

Anne Coulter proposes, as usual, torturing and killing all enemies of the Right -- and this leaves you "flat"? I note you are advertising her book, which proposes more murderous, criminal activities. You should be ashamed of yourself.

And I might add -- you are for the war in Iraq, which means that you are *against* the war on terror. Please remember that Saddam for all his evil didn't crash planes into or blow up the World Trade Center, didn't destroy the Cole, didn't bomb embassies all over the world, didn't bomb London or Madrid.

The Bush government abandoned the war on terror to invade Iraq -- they even claim they know where Bin Laden is and yet will do nothing to capture him, while he laughs at us and plans his next terrorist act.

Joshua Poulson, you should be ashamed of yourself.

You might be interested to know Ann Coulter doesn't even come close to having her facts straight. The fact is, most Arab Americans, upwards of 75%, are Christian. What's more, only 25% of Muslim Americans are Arab. And many of those Arab Americans aren't just "American," as she likes to put it, but they're as American as anyone else, having been here for three, four, or five generations, and served this country in its military and government as well as any other group. Ms. Coulter, Ms. Malkin, and their ilk either don't know this or conveniently ignore it.

If you're interested in some further reading about this, drop by my blog.