Moral Decay on the Left
There is no limit to the perversity of those afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome. Taking "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" reasoning to new depths, a self-described "Jewish lesbian" over at Daily Kos writes admiringly about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (HT: Hugh Hewitt).
She writes:
There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding.
In other words, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric denouncing the United States in general, and President Bush in particular, more than compensates for those nasty little facts about his behavior (she forgot to mention his role in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq). The writer concludes with this paen:
Monday, when Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia University in New York, I’ll be listening. Maybe with a bottle of wine and some soft music playing in the background. If I can get past the fact that, as a Jewish lesbian, he’d probably have me killed, I’ll try to listen for some truth.
The "truths" Ahmadinejad outlined include the following (more here):
—On Holocaust deniers:
My question was simple: There are researchers who want to approach the topic from a different perspective. Why are they put into prison? Right now, there are a number of European academics who have been sent to prison because they attempted to write about the Holocaust or research it from a different perspective, questioning certain aspects of it. My question is: Why isn't it open to all forms of research?
—On executions of homosexuals in Iran:
In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that like in your country. ... In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this.
Truths, indeed. The left in America wouldn't recognize a moral truth if it hit them in the face.
She writes:
There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding.
In other words, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric denouncing the United States in general, and President Bush in particular, more than compensates for those nasty little facts about his behavior (she forgot to mention his role in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq). The writer concludes with this paen:
Monday, when Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia University in New York, I’ll be listening. Maybe with a bottle of wine and some soft music playing in the background. If I can get past the fact that, as a Jewish lesbian, he’d probably have me killed, I’ll try to listen for some truth.
The "truths" Ahmadinejad outlined include the following (more here):
—On Holocaust deniers:
My question was simple: There are researchers who want to approach the topic from a different perspective. Why are they put into prison? Right now, there are a number of European academics who have been sent to prison because they attempted to write about the Holocaust or research it from a different perspective, questioning certain aspects of it. My question is: Why isn't it open to all forms of research?
—On executions of homosexuals in Iran:
In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that like in your country. ... In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this.
Truths, indeed. The left in America wouldn't recognize a moral truth if it hit them in the face.
posted by LadybugUSA at 12:46 PM
11 Comments:
Once again I find myself wondering whether Ms. Liebau actually read the material she linked to. Yes, the post is pretty weird: this lesbian Jew thinks that Mr. Ahmadinejad looks just like Kermit the Frog! Yep, definitely a weirdo.
What Ms. Liebau fails to mention is that this article garnered no support. It had only 75 responses and was not even on the recommended list when I looked at it. It garnered a total of 20 recommendations and was rated as having a net impact of 0.219. This is definitely small potatoes in the gigantic world of Daily Kos.
Moreover, not one of those responses communicated support for Mr. Ahmadinejad, and most condemned him. There were a few that argued that he has been demonized by Americans and isn't as bad as they say, but even those didn't go so far as to say they like the man. Several suggested that this diary was so weird that perhaps it was some sort of plant.
Thus, Ms. Liebau finds one nut posting on Daily Kos and generalizes it to the entire left wing. It's pretty crazy to extrapolate from one instance to millions of people, but it's downright dishonest to fail to note the many people who rejected the diarist's position.
Coyote here.
What is downright dishonest is Chepe's citing the lesbian's comment that Ahmadienjad looks like Kermit the Frog (implying she is insulting him), without noting her preceding observation that "Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight."
Carol's comment about the Kos post focussed on the Kos poster. Carol's generalization about the left had to to with the Left's inability to see moral truths.
I also don't understand how Chepe can complain about broadbrushing here and then, in a contemporaneous post, identify several things as "right wing lie[s]".
Chepe is getting in the habit of "wondering" whether those with whom he disagrees don't read, don't think, and don't tell the truth as they see it. This "wondering" is patronizing at best. He should stick to the facts and lay off the ad hominem stuff.
Thank you Coyote for your comments. I know that my post is off topic, but you did provide an opening for me to say something that has bothered me for months now concerning Carol's site.
There are a handful of, "commentators," here who seem to turn the dialogue sour, I hate to say! What they bring to the discussion is so demeaning and mean spirited, that I (and I'm sure that there are others) don't want to comment anymore because the atmosphere seems to be so poisoned. They know who they are and you know who they are, but because of their nasty demeanor, the fun of joining in on the discussion, has lost its satisfaction and challenge! Two years ago, this site was fun, but now it's been reduced to something that's uninviting and disappointing. Maybe someday the atmosphere will change, but for now I'll just sit on the sidelines. I don't mean any offence, but I had to let you and others know how I feel. Maybe a new dialogue will arise because of it.
I am surprised that you took my point about Kermit the Frog as an insult -- I LIKE Kermit the Frog! I certainly did not mean it as an insult.
Yes, those "right wing lies" comments were broad-brushing and were not logically justifiable. I'm pleased to learn that you too consider broad-brushing to be unacceptable. I'll not ask you to explicitly condemn Ms. Liebau's much, much greater excesses in this regard -- I realize that would be asking too much of you.
Yes, the "wondering" comment was speculative -- that's why I used the verb "wonder". It would have been more strictly correct to simply accuse Ms. Liebau of dissimulation. Would you prefer me to take that approach in the future?
Perhaps Carol needs to consider how dummy downed she wants her site to be. A comment of one blogger may or may not reflect broad views. Since comments are anonymous, it may or may not be posted by someone from the left. It could just as easily be posted by a troll from the right.
Cliff, I am truly sorry if my comments have reduced the substance of this blog. I have been searching for three years for a discussion blog where I can engage conservatives in genuine intellectual intercourse, as opposed to the sloganeering and mudslinging that so often dominates such places. I don't know why I have hung around this blog so long -- Ms. Liebau's commentary is devoid of substance, constituting nothing more than what is now termed "polarization entrepreneurship". I suppose I found it so easy to demolish the illogical positions offered that I tarried.
I would dearly love to find a discussion blog that permits liberals and conservatives to concentrate on bridging the gap, where intellectual honesty is the most highly cherished virtue. If you have any recommendations for where I might find such a blog, I would greatly appreciate them.
Chepe Noyon, Thanks for taking responsibility and admitting what you did, that was very refreshing to hear! I would like to know, if you don't mind, why you don't engage in adult and meaningful dialogue here, rather than spewing the bitter venom that you do? I KNOW that many of us here would welcome that and be glad to hold a meaningful conversation with you and any others who are on your side of the isle.
As far as a list of good blogs, start with the list that Carol provides on her home page. From there, you can find others as you
search further on other sites.
Again, dump your nastiness and join the conversation! All of you are welcome! Let's restore Carol's blog to the higher level that it once enjoyed.
Over 650,000 Iraqis dead because of Bush's executive decisions.
I find that far more abhorrent than anything Iran has come up with over the years.
There are 25,000 Jews living in Iran presently. Their existence is protected by official fatwa. If Iran is so evil then why aren't they being sent to death camps?
I'll just have to disagree with the condemnation of Chepe Noyon (race horse), who's comments are enjoyable and typically pretty sound.
Some times Carol's post are just smear and right-wing mantras that leaves little to comment on.
Is Salient Oversight's only standard for human rights violations whether people are being sent to death camps? Are the Jews supposed to be grateful they're not being exterminated?
As for protection by fatwa, one might note that the Soviet Constitution offered much protection as well.
Cliff, I suggest that you confuse disagreement with nastiness. Compare my words here with Ms. Liebau's:
Ms Liebau accuses the left of "moral decay" -- based on a single post from a single person. Is that not hyperbolic mudslinging?
I wonder whether Ms. Liebau actually read the material she linked to. Wow! What a nasty thing to say! ;-)
Ms. Liebau talks about the perversity of those afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome -- suggesting that those who criticize Mr. Bush are insane.
I accuse Ms. Liebau of generalizing about the entire left wing based on a single nutcase post. Gosh darnit, that's a really vicious thing to say, isn't it?
Ms. Liebau writes "The left in America wouldn't recognize a moral truth if it hit them in the face."
I write, "It's pretty crazy to extrapolate from one instance to millions of people, but it's downright dishonest to fail to note the many people who rejected the diarist's position." Note that I attack the sin, not the sinner.
Now, which of us is nastier and which of us is nicer?
Post a Comment
<< Home