How I shook hands with the theocratic statist-right.

Original content for the DR.

I was in the midst of getting a cup of coffee from downstairs when I was beckoned to a side office. Sue Lowden, who is running for US Senate against the much maligned statist Harry Reid, was paying our office a visit.

By what appears to be coincidence, not but 30 minutes earlier I had read a piece by Justin Raimondo over at Antiwar.com, which had an advertisement for Sue Lowdens campaign. Creepy but true. I read Sue's opinion on the issues and found that I almost resoundingly disagree with her on everything. Which is fine, because I have been resisting the urge to vote for a long time now.

What are the odds? I don't know, but what I do know is that the owners of the company I work for are Republicans, and participate/donate heavily in the local state party machine. This means the office is frequently visited by candidates of one caliber or another. No surprise, the last company I worked for in this state had many fund raisers for local campaigns. This allowed me the opportunity to shake hands with many a future judge and politician. Among the more notables, I once had the chance to meet former-Sheriff Bill Young of Clark County and his future-now-current replacement Doug Gillespie.

Bill Young was interesting, we chatted about our mutual enthusiasm for personal firearms ownership while munching on various forms of cheese and seafood. His buddy Doug, scared me, I shook his hand but I voted for Airola. That was back in the day when I still voted, but I digress.

Sue Lowden was the original reason for this post. I knew how she stood on most every issue, except the war. At this point, with the memory still fresh in my mind, I should have realized that the reason she didn't talk about the war on her site. Sue failed to mention the ongoing atrocity for the simple fact that her potential voting pool is mostly comprised of pro-war statist-right individuals.

Into the office I venture, the room is occupied by Sue and about 4 other persons. Introductions are made, in which I shake her hand after shifting the coffee cup out of my dominant hand. Short of stature but very commanding, that is how I would describe her presence. I mentioned how I read her website and even threw in the part about how I found it through antiwar. She took the opportunity to laud her web campaign and how it is an essential tool for getting to the young people. She said to me, "I have more facebook friends than Harry Reid". We all shared a laugh and I took the opportunity to poke more fun at Harry by saying that she probably has more friends in general than Senator Reid.

I told her that any vote against Reid is a good vote, her response was that she would prefer me to vote for her instead of against Reid. So she gave me the opening to pose a question, I seized the opportunity to ask about her stance on the war. Her opinion is: We are there now, we should make sure our boys and girls have what they need to win.

Obviously uncomfortable with her response, she asked me what I think we should do. I told her that I agree with Representative Paul from Texas, who said that "We marched right in there we can march right out". All she could do was repeat her mantra of "We are there now, we should make sure our boys and girls have what they need to win."

I nodded in agreement and left, so as to prevent any hard feelings over my obvious disagreement. Off color remarks at work could seriously interfere with future employment.

So I clocked out for lunch and typed this up. I also found a suitable image. Thanks to Carlos Latuff.

Now I sit here almost completely dumbfounded by the blood-lust of the sedentary. With the unborn being the only exception, the apparent disregard for all human life by those in the theocratic statist-right is appalling.

Voting just makes people like Sue think that the status-quo is OK.

Two of every three Massachusettsians either didn’t want what Brown, Coakley and Kennedy were offering, or weren’t asked.

If that happened in Iran or Venezuela, the US State Department would strain its public relations muscles pumping out press releases on the significance of the “massive election boycott” or the “general voter strike” and asserting that “the people” had spoken clearly in rejection of the the regimes which rule them.

Since it happened in America, we’re expected to go along with the pretense that a “majority” sent Scott Brown to Washington. But no such majority for Brown exists. He was the choice of fewer than one in five of his fellow citizens, and more than three in five appear to have either been disenfranchised or to have rejected the notion that they require representation in, or consider themselves in any way bound by the edicts of, the US Senate.

- Thomas Knapp at C4SS

I am part of the REAL silent majority. The non-voting, alienated persons who simply want to be left alone. These wars are predicated under the false assumptions of imperialists who cannot recognize that our situation is CIA blowback, manifest.

Share this

But no such majority for

But no such majority for Brown exists.

But why does this matter? Having a majority does not make something right, so it is not of any moral interest whether a majority for Brown exists. Maybe it matters in a practical sense, in the sense that without a majority a candidate can't win. But Brown did win. So it doesn't matter in a practical sense either. So it matters in neither a practical nor a moral sense that Brown does not have a majority.

The pro-voting crowd and

The pro-voting crowd and various other statists like to call a victory a mandate, because they had the majority.

Disregard for all human life?

"Now I sit here almost completely dumbfounded by the blood-lust of the sedentary. With the unborn being the only exception, the apparent disregard for all human life by those in the theocratic statist-right is appalling."

I'm dumbfounded by your post.

Are you aware that those Statist are using the US military to rescue the Haitians. Is that an apparent disregard for all human life. Are you aware that our military has taken a very expensive approach, both in money and US lives, to Iraq and Afghanistan problems that certainly does not show a total disregard for non-US human life, let alone all life.

That cartoon is extremely offensive. It has a quite apparent disregard for all human life. There were innocents of all nations in that building, and it was not a military target in any sense. That no one even bothered to pick up a phone to clear the building before the attack. So it seems you are guilty of the very thing you accuse the statist of, having a total disregard for all human life.

Of course there are consequences for defending oneself. That's part of what motivates liberals to be against self defense, and gun ownership. That doesn't mean that when you shoot a mugger and have to defend yourself in court that you brought it on yourself by having a gun. The mugger is still responsible.

BTW, you don't just get to be left alone. Nor can any country just disengage from other countries, even the evil ones, as you imagine. There is a long history of the non-western countries invading the west. Our cultures didn't evolve in a vacuum. It's always been a war of all against all, and to start searching history at the point of the last intrusion in one direction or the other is ridiculous.

Why do they get to blame their actions on us but not vice versa in your mind? Why do you equate clear cases of different kinds of behavior to each other?

I think this article is crazy. The only part I agree with is that we should not be nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan, but even on that I may be wrong. I certainly don't think that Americans have been proceeding with a "blood-lust", and total disregard for all human life.

Are you aware that those

Are you aware that those Statist are using the US military to rescue the Haitians. Is that an apparent disregard for all human life. Are you aware that our military has taken a very expensive approach, both in money and US lives, to Iraq and Afghanistan problems that certainly does not show a total disregard for non-US human life, let alone all life.

Spending stolen loot to help the poor of the world. Such a ageat defense of imperialism you got there. An even better stand you have is the one about our caring approach to destruction. Tell that to all the dead civlians. I am glad you can justify it from your air-conditioned home with thousands of miles between you and the bloodshed. I sit in the same comfort, but I do not justify the mass murder of the state in my free time.

That cartoon is extremely offensive. It has a quite apparent disregard for all human life. There were innocents of all nations in that building, and it was not a military target in any sense. That no one even bothered to pick up a phone to clear the building before the attack. So it seems you are guilty of the very thing you accuse the statist of, having a total disregard for all human life.

I fail to see how posting a cartoon shows the same blatant disregard for human life that is whon when you bomb a wedding. If I am guilty of anything by posting that cartoon, it is merely a blatant disregard for the sacred cows that militaristic jingoists cling to so dearly.

Of course there are consequences for defending oneself. That's part of what motivates liberals to be against self defense, and gun ownership. That doesn't mean that when you shoot a mugger and have to defend yourself in court that you brought it on yourself by having a gun. The mugger is still responsible.

Whoa there. If Al-CIAda was the mugger, then we not only went to court and got the mugger convicted... we went to his home and burned it down then proceeded down the road and did the same thing to his neighbor. Like I told the would-be Senator, our response and reaction was disproportionate to what actually occurred that day.

BTW, you don't just get to be left alone. Nor can any country just disengage from other countries, even the evil ones, as you imagine. There is a long history of the non-western countries invading the west. Our cultures didn't evolve in a vacuum. It's always been a war of all against all, and to start searching history at the point of the last intrusion in one direction or the other is ridiculous.

BTW, worst attack on isolationism ever. The actions of September 11th were not an invasion despite what Rush says, the last invasion CONUS suffered had been repulsed. 9/11 was the action of a diiffuse threat, which can only be repulsed with diffuse resistance, an armed populace. Somethin' about the price of liberty being eternal vigilance?

You are right, we didn't evolve in a vacuum, but the history of CONUS is not the same as that of Europe. Unless you want to ignore geography and other portions of reality.

Why do they get to blame their actions on us but not vice versa in your mind? Why do you equate clear cases of different kinds of behavior to each other?

Terrorism is non-state violence. CIA interventionism is sanctioned state violence. If the CIA couldn't hide behind "we the people", they would be the ones getting attacked directly. In my estimation anyway. We may never find out for sure.

The only part I agree with is that we should not be nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan, but even on that I may be wrong.

By your remarks I am surprised you do not defend military action and presence all around the world.

I certainly don't think that Americans have been proceeding with a "blood-lust", and total disregard for all human life.

You are entitle to your opinion, but that doesn't change reality. Remember not to notice the sticky red stuff on your hands as you wring them.

Nonsense

Scalping Elmo,

You made an unsupportable claim, and blamed the "sedentary". You assign guilt based on inaction and yet advocate isolationism, which is inaction. Your post was infested with hypocritical positions like this.

"I fail to see how posting a cartoon shows the same blatant disregard for human life that is whon when you bomb a wedding. If I am guilty of anything by posting that cartoon, it is merely a blatant disregard for the sacred cows that militaristic jingoists cling to so dearly."

The "sedentary" haven't bombed any weddings. Understanding that the victims in the WTC were innocent has nothing to do with militaristic jingoism.

The wedding party wasn't targeted, the WTC was. There is a difference and I understand you don't get it. The reason we have rules of war like the Geneva Conventions is to reduce civilian deaths. When terrorists and other belligerents hide within civilian populations they are in fact taking them hostage and are responsible for their deaths during fighting, not the side targeting them. If we were infallible beings then maybe we could get the terrorists without any chance of unintended causalities. Unfortunately we are not infallible. We are not however targeting innocents directly. Nor do we blame them directly. You do.

You are the one arguing that the innocents in the WTC deserved what they got. It's implicit in the cartoon and your belief that "the sedentary" in this country amount to mass murderers.

No one is arguing that innocent civilians that get accidentally killed by us as we pursue justice are guilty of anything except being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

CONUS? Your use of a special code words and language is pretty scary. You a member of a cult?

Now that you've identified me as a guilty party are you planning on coming over an killing me? Will you mock my death with a cartoon if some Islamic extremist murders me?

I think you've crossed the line over into evil. You have by faulty reasoning labeled hundreds of millions of innocent individuals guilty of things they were not involved in and are now sanctioning their deaths.

Our response to the terrorist acts has not been disproportionate. The government of Afghanistan was sheltering Al Queda, we gave them a chance to give him up, and we proceeded with a minimum of deaths caused by our side. Yes, the Islamic extremists are "civilians" in name when they are killed and yes they have killing thousands of innocent civilians but we are not morally responsible for either. Nor for the deaths of those they shelter with.

These actors had gotten much government support (and no the CIA did NOT fund Osama) from Saddam and the Taliban. Terrorists are being funded, and allowed sanctuary in many of these Islamic countries.

In fact, we are so concerned with human life that we are rebuilding their countries when we have absolutely no responsibility to do so. If anything reparations should be running the other direction.

There is a much more apt cartoon to describe the actual situation. It shows a US soldier standing in front of innocents with his gun pointed at a terrorist while the terrorist hides behind an innocent.

The wedding party wasn't

The wedding party wasn't targeted, the WTC was. There is a difference and I understand you don't get it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Regardless what was intended, the results speak for themselves.

No one is arguing that innocent civilians that get accidentally killed by us as we pursue justice are guilty of anything except being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It was not made the wrong place or the wrong time by act of God. Paperwork was filed, buttons pressed, bombs dropped and people died.

CONUS? Your use of a special code words and language is pretty scary. You a member of a cult?

I figured a militarist like you might have some previous experience actually doing the wetwork. CONUS is slang for contiguous United States. I know you are scared, that is why people like you want us all to feel like we did on 9/12. Those feelings of seething hatred that would lead us to nuking any islamic stronghold.

Now that you've identified me as a guilty party are you planning on coming over an killing me?

You have committed no wrongs against me, you simply defend the murder of innocents. Calling it collateral.

Will you mock my death with a cartoon if some Islamic extremist murders me?

After the heated way in which you defend the warfare-state. Yeah.

I think you've crossed the line over into evil. You have by faulty reasoning labeled hundreds of millions of innocent individuals guilty of things they were not involved in and are now sanctioning their deaths.

If you supply the funding, vote for the politicians, and defend the murderous actions of the regime du-jour... you are complicit. I fail to see how that is faulty logic. Am I evil?

Our response to the terrorist acts has not been disproportionate.

Unfortunately you do very little to advance that opinion.

In fact, we are so concerned with human life that we are rebuilding their countries when we have absolutely no responsibility to do so. If anything reparations should be running the other direction.

The statists actually believe this. True story.

There is a much more apt cartoon to describe the actual situation. It shows a US soldier standing in front of innocents with his gun pointed at a terrorist while the terrorist hides behind an innocent.

A more appropriate cartoon would be one in which a man sits in front of his teevee watching Glen Beck while waving a little American flag, that was made in China.

Who has blood on their hands?

"..., you simply defend the murder of innocents. Calling it collateral. "

You just got done defending the murder of innocents who were in the WTC. You did so by absolving the murderers and blaming it on other innocents.

The innocents I was talking about were murdered in the same sense that an innocent bystander accidentally shot by a cop during a bank robbery was murdered, and the murderer is the bank robber not the cop who killed the civilian. Common law says the bank robber takes responsibility for the consequences of his crime. His actions lead to the death of the innocent civilian. There is no expectation that the cop must be infallible or make no attempt to protect himself in such a situation.

By supporting terrorist murder of innocents the way you do, in both cases, you are a greater candidate for having blood on your hands than me. You sanction the tactics of terrorism in both cases. a) Targeting innocent civilians. b) Hiding within civilian populations.

"Unfortunately you do very little to advance that opinion."
Says someone who just made a bald assertion.
I don't even think a proportionate response is the proper moral reaction in this case. What do you want us to do specifically target and kill several thousand innocent, what Saudis, what Afghanis?

What we did do is depose the government in Afghan that was harboring Bin Laden. A perfectly rational response. We did not go on some wild killing spree against civilians. After we deposed the Taliban we began rebuilding their country at great cost, while attempting to protect civilians against Taliban attacks. Attacks like blowing up girls schools, and the like, on purpose. Things you apparently think are reasonable.

"Regardless what was intended, the results speak for themselves."

I see, the statists (meaning anyone who disagrees with you) are responsible for their actions but nobody else is, meaning you.

Your beliefs are not moral because they lack reciprocity and fail to properly attribute blame. All killing is not murder, and the actual killer is not necessarily the murderer. Your moral attribution is too simplistic.

The innocents I was talking

The innocents I was talking about were murdered in the same sense that an innocent bystander accidentally shot by a cop during a bank robbery was murdered, and the murderer is the bank robber not the cop who killed the civilian. Common law says the bank robber takes responsibility for the consequences of his crime. His actions lead to the death of the innocent civilian.

Problem is, the cop in question would first have had to be corrupt, and known for killing bystanders.

You sanction the tactics of terrorism in both cases. a) Targeting innocent civilians. b) Hiding within civilian populations.

I am not justifying terrorism, never did in any of my discourse. As a matter of fact I accused the CIA of committing terrorism and hiding amongst civilians. You keep trying to apply labels and opinion to me without really giving a damn what I had to say, you dismissed my article out of hand as being crazy.

Are these the rantings of an individual upset over a little cartoon?

I don't even think a proportionate response is the proper moral reaction in this case.

I find your morals to be distasteful anyway. You advocate war and imperialism, I would hate to be confused of having the same morals as you.

Attacks like blowing up girls schools, and the like, on purpose. Things you apparently think are reasonable.

Nice ad hominem attack. Got any evidence to support your claim that I rationalize terrorism? I said that I can understand terrorism, I understand why the Government commits it too. After all, in my opinion war is the terrorism of the rich, terrorism is the war of the poor.

I have been repeatedly saying that initiation of violence leads to more violence. Neither is more moral or justified than the other IMNSHO.

Osama wants the war that we are giving him. When instead we could simply issue letters of mark and reprisal. Out dated international treaties be damned. The Feds owe it to every party involved to resolve the issue rapidly and with minimal economic impact, war on diffuse non-national threats meets neither criteria. If it did, the game would already have been settled.

Discrete, directed action against the responsible parties.

I see, the statists (meaning anyone who disagrees with you) are responsible for their actions but nobody else is, meaning you.

Apparently you do not see. The people who comprise the government and those who vote are responsible for the actions of the government. Since I am neither, I am not responsible for what they do. I am responsible only for me. You defend war, so you are culpable for all puppy killing.

That last statement about puppy killing was tongue in cheek. I think I know why I really got under your skin, I will elaborate shortly.

Your beliefs are not moral because they lack reciprocity and fail to properly attribute blame. All killing is not murder, and the actual killer is not necessarily the murderer. Your moral attribution is too simplistic.

I guess it is about time you find out that you are arguing with someone who is amoral. Not immoral, amoral. No compromise.

All killing is not murder

True.

and the actual killer is not necessarily the murderer.

Unequivocally false. This is called personal responsibility. I have not met a single veteran that loves to talk about the people he has slain in the line of duty. At the end of the day, whether under orders or not, he pulled the trigger and must live with the burden of being a killer.

I confess, I do have a personal investment in this war. My brother is 0300 (Marine Infantry, to avoid any further cult accusations) and is shipping out soon. I would hate for my little brother to become a killer, or worse, the occupant of a flag draped coffin.

Sue had no real response when I told her about my brother. That is something I cannot overlook.