Asymmetrical Information

What's sad is that you had to make this post.

What's sad is that you had to make this post.

What's sad is that you had to make this post.

Well, its a step above explaining how she isn't a racist. Someday I'm sure that Jane will have to explain how she isn't a victim of extraterrestrial abduction when she mentions favorably the concept of space travel.

"Someday I'm sure that Jane will have to explain how she isn't a victim of extraterrestrial abduction when she mentions favorably the concept of space travel."

I'm a big advocate of space travel and I've never been up on the big ol' alien mothership.

Someone dropped the ball on this one. I think the big eyed grey skinned ones owe me a ride.

James

I think part of the problem is that many view dissent, in and of itself, as a good. The ability to dissent is a good that should be cherished and protected. But the value of a particular dissent is measured by its ability to produce desirable change.

This distinction is lost on many who participate in anti-this-or-that protests. They think they are doing something great just by protesting -- no matter how inane their position. And like those who think the only way to improve music is to play it louder, too often protesters try to make their protest louder by destroying things or injuring people. It might make the rest of us take more notice, but it seldom does anything positive in terms of moving public opinion in their direction -- meaning it lessens their ability to bring about desirable change.

This distinction also seemed lost on many of the commentators to Jane's prior post. They seemed to feel that the morality of a society could be measured by the level, or volume, of dissent. It cannot. It's measured, in part, the the ability to dissent -- which our society has in spades. (Its astonishingly easy to protest in our society. Some people even do it for a living.) Given the ease of dissenting, there is no legitimate reason to break things and injure people while dissenting. Is there? If I dissent from my wife's opinion, do I have license to throw a lamp or rough her up (just a little)? Not even if I'm justifiably very angry and her position (the one I'm dissenting from) is racist, sexist, or both? (I hope these are rhetorical questions.) Then neither do the anti-whatevers have a right to destroy things or injure people, no matter how justifiable their cause.

Besides, if it were okay for a protester to destroy property and (slightly) injure people in expressing dissent, wouldn't whacking a protester with a two-by-four simply be an act dissenting from the original dissent? If so, wouldn't such a whack raise the overall level of dissent in our society and therefore make this world a better place?

Are we still talking about hypothetical whacking with two by fours, or has there been actual whacking? Are we moving towards a doctrine of pre-emptive whacking? Has there been whacking with baguettes in Paris or with three-day old kidney pies in London?

Norbizness - We are still talking about hypothetical 2x4 whackings. But the throwing of rocks (and worse) by "peaceful" peace protesters is not hypothetical. What I find weird is the thought that average citizens have some civic duty to put up with such acts of protest. They don't.

I'm being mentally flooded by the Simpsons episode Whacking Day, complete with the double entendre and the 'fearsome' snake population being driven down with sticks :)

The Constitution says "...peacably to assemble..."

I do not believe any act that is legal is made illegal because of political motivation.

I do not believe that any act that is illegal is made legal because of political motivation.

I believe that obstructing others who are attempting to go about their legitimate interests must be considered the equivalent of kidnapping.

I believe that civil disobedience is just arrogant petulence unless the participants willingly accept the penalty for their actions and make their jail time an expression of their stand.

I certainly don't believe that shop-owners have to put up with thugs who would damage their property or imperil them. I think I am generally objecting to the tone of this smaller thread (and the larger thread wherein the pre-emptive whacking doctrine is fleshed out) that violence during today's protests were going to be a given. I further object to the simple-minded tarring and feathering of many conscientious, non-violent protestors because of the actions of a few jackasses (the "anarchists" and the WTO protest; the ANSWER Stalinists and the current protests), especially when they're used as a pretext to gas and pepper spray grandmothers and families.

How many people were out in the streets of the world's cities today? 3 million? 5 million? I'm sure that provides a large enough sample to test the theories laid out here. Any problems so far, other than the message?

Jane: 1. I completely agree with you about violent protesters.

2. I ain't seeing any reports of any so far. (NY Newsday's website had one photo of a protester being arrested, but it didn't say what for.)

BTW Jane, this first-hand report speaks to your point about the dangers of crowd control in Manhattan - only he seems to think the police were causing rather than alleviating the problem: http://www.nowarblog.org/archives/000809.html#000809

While at the protest/rally today (taking photos, not joining in, of course!), I overheard on a radio that one of the middle-aged protestors was carrying that a number of "kids" were arrested early in the day, much further downtown from the main rally area.

Oh, and I've got pics up on my blog. [/shameless self-promotion]

From the NY Times:

In New York, the police reported more than 100 arrests, mostly for disorderly conduct, and said that a deputy inspector had been assaulted and taken to a hospital and that two horses were hurt. But at day's end, Commissioner Kelly said: "I think it went well. For the number of people here, it was orderly. The vast majority of people were cooperative."

Something for everybody!

Believe you me, I have no trouble AT ALL believing that the police got out of line, and I hope that those that do are harshly punished. I've seen jerk policemen looking for a fight as well as jerk protesters trying to give them one, and I once ended up in the middle of a melee when police overreacted to an accident at an ACT-UP rally. And I didn't assume violence was a given. I was reacting to what seemed to be plans to "Take it to the Streets", of which I heartily disapprove. That the dweebs didn't succeed gives me great joy, whether they were stopped by the police, their fellow protesters, or common sense.

That's why you're a better person than me -- I never would have given them the benefit of the doubt on the "common sense" angle.

"And I didn't assume violence was a given. I was reacting to what seemed to be plans to "Take it to the Streets", of which I heartily disapprove."

That's why I see a great deal of the backlash here to your comments as disingenuous, to put it charitably. You were reacting to comments by individuals who indicated that yes, they were going to resort to violence as a means of venting their petulance about not being allowed to do exactly as they wanted (past events suggest that this was a pretense rather than a genuine grievance). Many of the posts here amounted to: "Violent? Who's planning on being violent? Don't be silly." I saw very little condemnation from those who support the protests regarding individuals who were saying that they'd use the opportunity to wreak havoc on NYC. As it turned out, things were relatively calm. Good. That doesn't mean the discussion was out of line, and it doesn't mean that the willingness of the antiwar movement to tolerate advocates of street violence in their ranks won't bear bitter fruit sometime down the road. This discussion wasn't about nothing--ask the inhabitants of Seattle about what happens when these demonstrations get out of hand. I have a strong feeling that the relatively smooth course of events today had more to do with the quietly professional performance of New York's Finest and their counterparts in other cities in the US and elsewhere (I hear the cops in Athens had a few hundred Molotov cocktail throwing anarchists to deal with, but that was apparently the exception rather than the rule) than to a sudden attack of conscience on the part of a gang of violent scum who have proven they have no compunctions about destroying property and endangering lives. The antiwar movement has tolerated a scorpion in its midst, and the fact that it decided not to sting anyone today says little about its willingness to do so in the future. Scorpions sting--it's their nature.

Tell me what part of my discussion of protest actions you disagree with.
And go to some of the websites and tell me they exort people to behave lawfully.

"and some of the confusion maybe my fault, because until a friend emailed me, i didn't know exactly how large a two-by-four was"

jane, didn't the numbers "two" and "four" give you a clue? did you think we were in europe, and it was millileters?

that snide sniping being said, i can assure you that most people on the left (at least the ones i hang out with) are in complete agreement with you as to violent protesting.

personally, i see violent protesting not as protesting, but as revolution, and unless you get the majority of the populous, or at the least the army, to go along with you, it's just illegal vandalism.

i also agree 100% with gene 6 pack when he says "i believe that civil disobedience is just arrogant petulence unless the participants willingly accept the penalty for their actions and make their jail time an expression of their stand."

the trouble with jail time during this administration is, that you could well be denied things we were assured of back in the civil-disobedient days of nixon: access to a lawyer, being charged within a reasonable amount of time, knowledge of charges against you, a speedy trial...especially if you are of swarthy complexion.

jane, i gotta ask...what was wrong with gulf war one that you don't mind about this fracas?

Liar! Get back in formation, Megan, with the rest of us steroid-pumped, Brownshirt, brass-knuckled goons.

From the looks of Asparagirl's mini photo-documentary, the protestors weren't violent but instead kept to their normal, shrill, misguided selves. Lucky them us.

good to see someone who is pro-war, yet smart enough to explain their position beyond "saddam is evil" or any of that regurgitated cnn propaganda. i think both sides have valid points and we should discuss the issue without the mudslinging that is often associated with these type of issues (war, abortion, death penalty, kangaroo jack).

My initial reaction to the 2x4 threads was from my perception that some of the posters assumed that violence was going to occur. Perhaps we need a color-coded system to assess the validity of such sources to begin with. I also partially detected a strain wishing that it WOULD happen; that strain wasn't coming from the anti-war crowd, leading me to my second point...

As for the "willingness to tolerate advocates of violence".... what sane, non-violent anti-war protestor would want to see their story completely overshadowed by the activities of anarchist jagoffs? Trust me, I'd be on the phone with Admiral Poindexter at the Total Information Awareness Office to find out which of those morons bought an inordinate amount of bicycle chains and gasoline-soaked rags so that they could be removed from the proceedings before they began.

Of course, given our country's shining history of infiltrating dissent groups, I wouldn't be surprised if the TIA list had a bunch of Langley addresses.

the trouble with jail time during this administration is, that you could well be denied things we were assured of back in the civil-disobedient days of nixon: access to a lawyer, being charged within a reasonable amount of time, knowledge of charges against you, a speedy trial...especially if you are of swarthy complexion.

Such vile lies render suspect anything else this schmuck has to say.

Too bad. For a second there, he looked rational.

A while ago I helped kill some people, and I didn't even read them their Miranda Rights first.
Viollent demonstrators seldom go to trial for their violence because their arrests are usual made in the middle of lots of people whose behavior is not exactly Queensbury. We need to bring back the reading of the Riot Act. Then, everybody who does not disperse is subject to arrest. All very constitutional. When you lend your presence to a mob, ypou are guilty of all the damage the mob does.

I had no idea what a parade (okay, a march) involves in New York - I have West Coast standards on these things, and the issues are very different there. So I am deeply appreciative of Jane and all the folks who discussed that. It puts many things in different context.

Jane:

Americans will tolerate a great deal in the name of free speech. I was living in Washington D.C. at the time of the Iranian Revolution that toppled the Shah. After the American hostages were taken, Iranians in this country announced a march through downtown D.C. supporting the Ayatollah and denouncing the U.S.
At the time, the Metro subway was still under construction and the downtown area was full of rubble: brick, broken masonry, etc. Yet during the march, no one so much as stooped to pick up a brick. Many spectators were standing on piles of rubble to get a better view.
The marchers, a couple of hundred at most, pushed baby strollers with infants in the first row. There were a few signs, and chanting, and no other sound at all save the clip-clop of mounted policemen's horses and the foot falls of the marchers.
Opportunities for violent counter-protest were everywhere. After all, Americans had been attacked on "American soil". There was absolutely no violence; marching behind infants, though, conveyed a powerful message that wasn't lost on the crowds watching in silence.
Protests convey lots of information; many of the messages reflect quite negatively on those protesting. On the other hand, protests supply leadership with all kinds of information that they ignore at their peril.
The current American administration has made lots of mistakes: treating ordinary American travellers guilty until proven innocent, a constant barrage of domestic initiatives that reduce the Bill of Rights, and seeming lack of resolve abroad that emboldens opposition and calls into question the underlying peril.
Speech is a fundamental right vis a vis government, and Americans correctly tolerate a great deal to assure that the flow of information continues. I was still in D.C. when the hostages were released, and the parade that followed was an entirely different matter: celebratory, noisy, and peaceful.

A two-by-four is exactly 1.5 x 3.5 inches, obviously.

You are far too kind to treason marchers.

I would welcome news that large numbers of counter-demonstrators have launched violent clashes with these enemies, and actually started to impose a cost on treason.

Even the NY Post has been too soft on them.

Much too soft.

Marcus Tullius Cicero:

So you're the bastard I had to translate in high school Latin III. Catalina finally caught up with you, huh?

I thought Marcus Antonius sobered up long enough to wack you. Guess I was wrong.

Hafta get Tony and Christopher the next time. Stay out of Jersey...

Some people keep saying that peaceful protestors never do anything about the violent ones. That's just not true. Both in Seattle and in Washington, legitimate protestors were restraining hooligans and handing them over to the police.

The problem with Jane's first post is that it really was giving cops (and bystanders) a greenlight to jump the gun and "preemptively" use violence -- which is the cause of half the riots we see. This last post is obviously the result of more deliberation.

And generally, except for a few, comments from the right in these threads drip with contempt toward all protestors. If you don't respect dissent, I don't see how you can respect the dissenter -- making it likely that seeing violence between cops and protestors will leave you "too busy laughing."

Amitava, you have missed the point. There is no such thing as categorical "respect for dissent." One may categorically respect the willingness to dissent. One may categorically value the ability to dissent. But a specific dissent is only respectable as regards its specific content; therefore a general "respect for dissent" cannot be achieved.

We on the Right have contempt for these dissenters not because they're dissenting, but because the cause they uphold is scrofulous and foul, and any rational human being ought to know better than to support it.

"the trouble with jail time during this administration is, that you could well be denied things we were assured of back in the civil-disobedient days of nixon: access to a lawyer, being charged within a reasonable amount of time, knowledge of charges against you, a speedy trial...especially if you are of swarthy complexion."

An arrest for disorderly conduct is, at least here in New York, handled from beginning to end by local authority. You're arrested by the NYPD, taken to the local precinct, appear in front of a criminal court judge and, being charged with a very low level offense ("dis con" is a violation, not even a misdemeanor), sentenced to a small fine and time served.

"[The] administration" and federal law don't even enter the picture.

And, yes, I actually do know, because I used to be a prosecutor in Brooklyn.

"And generally, except for a few, comments from the right in these threads drip with contempt toward all protestors. If you don't respect dissent, I don't see how you can respect the dissenter -- making it likely that seeing violence between cops and protestors will leave you "too busy laughing.""

Peaceful protest is just another form of lawful political expression. I support the right for people to exercise it, but that doesn't obligate me to have anything but contempt for the beliefs that motivate it if they are contemptible from my POV (or fill in the emotion: amusement, nausea, whatever). Non-violent protestors who don't otherwise violate the law should be left alone by police except as is necessary to insure that they don't interfere with the normal functioning of the city they're in (there is no "right" to "shut down a city", and threatening to do so is something that the authorities have a right to react to with necessary precautions and actions). I won't laugh at the sight of a cop beating an unarmed protestor--I'll be wondering when the investigation will begin that will determine whether that cop ends up without a job or in jail. On the other hand, if it's a thug with a brick or other weapon being stopped from attacking people or destroying property, then yes, I will be cheering the cop on. I lived in Southern California during the Rodney King riots, and my tolerance for individuals who do such things is precisely zero.

Amitava,

You have it exactly reversed. The American Constitution demands that we respect the dissenter, in the form of an individual's freedom of speech is protected.

But WHAT the dissenters say is not automatically respected. While government has no right to prevent you from speaking, based on the content of the argument (w/ some obvious exceptions), the dissenter has no "right" to be heard, much less "treated with respect."

Do you really think of the Skokie Nazis as somehow meritorious because they are protesting? How about the KKK? Are they not dissenting?

Their RIGHT to dissent is protected, and indeed cherished, just as the RIGHT of the crowd, yesterday, to protest was not really an issue. But don't ask me to "respect" that bunch of idjits, who have little understanding, as far as I can tell, of either the real costs of their stance, or a genuine policy answer that goes beyond "Bush is a moron" and "It's all about oooiiilllll" and "Peace is Better than War---Always."

Yo Amitava:

Please distingush between form and content. You cannot object to a 'form'of speech - which a PEACEFUL Petition of Redress is [it's even in the Bill of Rights: you can look it up], but you can certainly agree or disagree - peacefully again - with the intrinsic content.

I can - no must - allow you to get on a soap box and scream that the earth is flat, moon landing were faked in Hollywood - whatever you BELIEVE is protected.

But I and many other can, based on our individual judgements - doesn't even have to be reasoned - judge you to be a misguided fool. Any number can play cause numbers of fools or wisemen don't or won't change my judgement, especially if they're demonstrating. I tend to get turned off by carrying signs and having jolly outdoor meetings: but that's me.

Call me a cynical New Yorker, Ami, but I've seen them all before. And they're generally the same set of dupes.

Hasta la vista, Baby

"Such vile lies render suspect anything else this schmuck has to say. Too bad. For a second there, he looked rational."

well, calling me, a perfect stranger, a schmuck, makes you look really rational.

we doubt you will, because it looks as if, like most conservascists, you'd rather hurl invective than do research, but if you want to read the articles i base my original statement on, take a gander:

Attorney General John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be 'enemy combatants' has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.

Attorney General John Ashcroft had argued that while he was obliged to disclose the names of those charged with criminal behavior, he did not have to say publicly who was arrested on immigration charges. In addition, department officials said they were refusing to release the names to protect the privacy of those arrested.

the Bush administration asked a federal judge in New York last night to reverse his decision allowing a Jose Padilla, the man suspected in a plot to detonate a radioactive bomb, access to a lawyer to challenge his detention as an enemy combatant.

more examples, dean esmay:

Azmath was in solitary confinement from September 14, 2001, when he arrived at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, until he was transferred to the jail's general population sometime this August. He was assigned a lawyer only after he was charged with the credit-card crime, in December.

The U.S. government's willingness to compromise on human rights to fight terrorism sets a dangerous precedent and drives away some nations from joining that war, Human Rights Watch said Tuesday.

The class action lawsuit sought an immediate injunction against further arrests and alleged that large numbers of men who came forward to register in Southern California last week had been unlawfully detained.

"I'm not a real libertarian (this from a former communist). I'm a fascist, I'm a violent thug showing the true stripes of the conservative movement, which really just wants to beat the crap out of people for fun."

What an abominally senseless and stupid thing to say. I have previously enjoyed reading the site because of insightfull observations and analysis, but this is just so dumb. What gives, Jane?

some more examples, dean esmay:

Actions taken by the administration of President George W. Bush and Congress since Sept. 11 in the effort to combat terrorism effectively erode individual freedoms while exceeding the historical powers assumed by past presidents in times of national emergency, according to a new report from a New York think tank.

The class action lawsuit sought an immediate injunction against further arrests and alleged that large numbers of men who came forward to register in Southern California last week had been unlawfully detained.

Now Ashcroft is upset that a federal court ruled against the government in a critical motion, and he may yank Moussaoui out of his civilian trial and send him to a military tribunal where the attorney general's notion of justice will not be impeded by legal process

you may agree with ashcroft in all these instances, but you certainly cannot call what i said "lies."

well, sure you can, you did, and you probably will go on doing so, but i meant, a rational, civil adult could not.

The U.S. government's willingness to compromise on human rights to fight terrorism sets a dangerous precedent and drives away some nations from joining that war, Human Rights Watch said Tuesday.

Skippy,

I followed your link to the ABCnews story, but Human Rights Watch merely makes this assertion without any backup. I was wondering which enlightened countries, exactly, were loath to fight terrorism because the US wasn't respecting human rights enough. Not something I've heard about France or Germany, and I'd have trouble believing it from the vast majority of countries outside Europe.

I do think the US could be a bit more scrupulous about respecting some human rights, but there's a big gap between what the federal government has done in some cases and throwing protestors in jail without "access to a lawyer" etc.

And something we can all agree on from Human Rights Watch: "The United States is far from the world's worst human rights abuser," said Kenneth Roth, the group's executive director.

Hey Skippy:

Things change in war time. Abe Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War [that's about as bad as it gets]. Other presidents have done other things of lesser import. For example, the sainted FDR pulled a few fast ones himself.

However, at the end of the day and the emergency, we find ourselves in a nation with a large amount of civil rights: in fact arguably greater now than at the end of World War II.

My keen sense of analysis says that maybe you don't think we in a state of war. I kinda think that the US Congress disagrees: we have a joint resolution on record that says different. Said resolution is an effective declaration of war.

Historic note: the Roman Senate would pass a resolution in similar circumstances ordering the consuls [the effective heads of state] to "take such precautions as needed so that no harmm befalls The City. Then the consuls were effectively 'dictators': meaning rule by 'what they say'.

ALL states effectively give dictatorial powers to their rulers in case of war. That's why they survive. And our 'dictators' have the tradition of reverting to status quo ante [I'm bursting with Latin today] after the hostilities. Starting with Washing, through Lincoln and FDR/Truman, and - I expect, but maybe you're paranoid, who knows, to Bush today.

If they didn't, they would/will got Congress and Courts on their tails.

Wake up and be grateful you are where you are. If the present regime were what you say they are, you'd be having a knock on your door long since. And it wouldn't be the pizza delivery.

Cheers

PS: The shift key is on both sides of the keyboard. No apologies unless you're e.e.cummings returned from the dead.

You are far too kind to treason marchers.

I would welcome news that large numbers of counter-demonstrators have launched violent clashes with these enemies, and actually started to impose a cost on treason.

This is the kind of talk that makes the pro-war contingent sound mean, fascist, and ultimately irrelevant (if the consequences weren't so deadly), rather than the rationally pragmatic image I think Jane would prefer.

For those who would call anti-war protesters as "treasonous", I have only one quote:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war... (but) it is always a simple matter to drag people along ... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." --Herman Goerring at the 1946 Nuremberg trials.

Charles: do we have an exit strategy for this "War on Terror"? How will we know when we have won, so we can revert to "status quo"? When the Taliban folds? When Saddam is gone? When all of the states in the Middle East (including Saudi Arabia) have democratic governments? When all muslims are dead? Please tell me when we we'll be able to rest.

What is so conerning about this particular war, and the way the Bush administration is waging it, is the ambiguity of the definition of our enemy.
And I think that's what Skippy is reacting to.

Oh, and I know some Roman history also. After Caeser came into power, the Republic never returned. Crossing the Rubicon indeed....

OK, Andres:

When Islamofascism is heading for the ashcan of history. When religon does not pretend to rule all states in the name of Allah. When Islam learns tolerance and civility, joining a secular society.

When the women of the society are co-equal with men. When Rushdie doesn't have to stay in hiding to preserve his life. When religous police are a thing of the past. When you can take the word of an Arab (perhaps: that last is my opinion)? When the Arabs at least join the nineteenth century. When arabic schools do more for their pupils than let them memorize the Koran.

When an arabic press can criticize the mullahs. When some arabic nations stop being kleptocracies.

I can give you more; that's enough for a while.

BTW, the reason Caesar crossed the Rubicon (Alea jacta est and all that) was that the reactionaries of his day wnated to stiffle reforms. Check out Suetonius. I think Plutarch also has some words on this.

And for extra credit, trace back to Marius and Sulla...

Vale

Andres:

While I'm in a classic mood:

"Si vis pacem, para bellum."

Vale

Andres: Political violence is hardly an exclusive domain of "fascist" political parties. In using such trivializations of historical patterns, you lead your readers to take your arguments solely on their ideological merits. Which for me is not at all in the case of your last post.

I think some people read too much into what I wrote. I wasn't trying to make a great distinction between form and content, nor was I trying to make any sort of constitutional argument. My point was essentially that Jane and others are perhaps so flippant about the use of violence, that would inevitably affect innocent marchers, because you just don't respect what they're saying. And that's too bad. Because they do have a legtimate position, despite what some have said.

Amitava:

Fair enough. You have made your point.

On behalf of The Little Green Persons

Thank you

This reminds me of my explanation to my students in one of those "town vs. gown" schools where about half of the daily population is made up of students. I tell them the reason they are watched more carefully and treated more strictly is that "they (permanent residents) are living in their homes, and you (students) are living in a motel-equivalent, and each is acting like it." Same goes for Jane vs. demonstrators.

Re: Roman history. Whatever Caesar's stated reasons were for crossing the Rubicon (and all that followed), the outcome was the same: the Roman republic died and the empire took its place. I hear little from your camp on the dangers of an equivalent outcome here in America. Given that the 2000 election was far from a clear victory, that Bush's tax plans so clearly favor only the very wealthiest Americans, that members of the Bush administration were deeply involved in corporate scandals, and that Bush is waging a war that a very large percentage (possibly a majority) of Americans do not want, I don't think it's hysterical to fear for the end of our democracy. Whether that indeed will occur nobody can say.

The Goerring quote is to be taken at face value. Yes, governments of all stripes resort to propaganda and sometimes violence to further their ends. And all governments deserve to be questioned when they resort to such tactics. To accuse fellow Americans of treason because they oppose a war that may not only be unjust but will also certainly compromise our safety in the future, is to participate in the violence that Goerring so concisely describes. Whether or not the violence is "fascist" is merely a matter of semantics.

Finally, Charles, your comments about the Middle East reveal ignorance about the history of the region and the extent to which the West has helped create the very conditions you condemn. But the phrase "when you can take the word of an Arab" reveals much about your belief structure and its racist subtext. So, I think we probably share very little common ground upon which we can have anything resembling a discussion.

That's true. There are dangers to empire, and I personally am not sanguine about the results to us or others. But I don't see how giving the French and Germans a vote helps matters. And the anti-war side hasn't really addressed how US power is supposed to be used; the assumption that if we just stayed home things would be fine is thoughtless drivel, and the idea that actions are somehow better if representatives of the world's dictators give them the thumbs up doesn't make for a very coherent foreign policy. The fact is that most regions of the world, particularly those with a lot of natural resources and little else, quickly fall into war and worse when outside powers aren't applying pressure; and that their natural resources make it against our interest to ignore this. Since we're the only ones with the power, we're going to have to articulate a clear vision of what American power is supposed to be doing, and it's going to have to be a lot more sophisticated than what I'm hearing from the anti-war crowd, which largely consists of the word "No." I can get that from my two year old, and his tantrums are cuter.

This is entertainment, folks. Everybody stop taking yourselves seriously. No one else does. Trust me. I know.