"When the votes are counted on Tuesday, and the election results are announced, will we have the strength and the will to work together to solve these problems? Or will the fires of partisan politics simply be fanned by the results, and the looming presidential election in 2012."

No to the first, yes to the second. There's been a sea change in this country, and not for the better.

And when a TV personality refers to a candidate as a "bitch" and is not called out by feminists. And when a candidate uses words from a talk and makes it sound like the speaker was saying the opposite of what he said and still might be reelected. And when something silly someone did in high school is part of a campaign against him or her. And when public personalities like Oliver Stone can question the Holocaust and still be lauded at "liberal" sites like Salon. And when ordinary Americans who have different political opinions that simply ask for less taxes and worry about a loss of individual freedom are characterized as Nazis. And when people who worry about Islamic terror (which, I say for the millionth time usually targets other Muslims first) are called racists. And so on.

And when white people who've always had and still have things all their way walk around with a giant persecution complex on their back, motivated as much by selfishness and hate as anything else, and when a large segment of the electorate is so gullible and ignorant they rush to vote against their own interests because they buy a campaign of lies and propaganda and fear mongering spoonfed them by corporate interests, and when...well you get the point. Nothing is quite as offensive as wilfull ignorance, unless it's the hypocrisy of people who cheered for 8 years as the Bush administration drove our nation into the ditch yet after the election of Obama are fired up all of a sudden because they're concerned about the direction our country is going.

BJ, while I agree with most of what you say, I think the slipping in of "when ordinary Americans who have different political opinions that simply ask for less taxes and worry about a loss of individual freedom are characterized as Nazis" strikes me as disingenuous. A loving society can't keep cutting taxes, as a lot of people seem to think. A loving society taxes so that it can, and does, take care of its people. (See Scandinavian countries, others ... including mine, Canada, with a tax-paid universal health system.) Security provides a lot of freedom. This business of "loss of individual freedom" puzzles me...what individual freedoms are being lost?

That one always puzzles me too Myriad, this whole "loss of individual freedoms" thing. It's a great catchphrase, but when you try to parse it for logical content, it's hollow.

Barbara,

Thanks for your comments... I appreciate the discussion. I was curious about one comment though:

"And when people who worry about Islamic terror (which, I say for the millionth time usually targets other Muslims first) are called racists. And so on."

I'm not sure I follow this point. First, I believe ANY type of terror IS worth worrying about. I don't believe I said we shouldn't be concerned about terror. It's when a certain group is characterized as terrorists that I think we have a problem.

Yes, we were attacked by Islamic extremists. We've also been attacked by Christian extremists. The VAST majority of both religions are peaceful... and would reject ALL acts of terrorism.

Racism rears its head when we generalize a negative to an entire population.

Does that make more sense?

Myriad

You wrote, "BJ, while I agree with most of what you say, I think the slipping in of 'when ordinary Americans who have different political opinions that simply ask for less taxes and worry about a loss of individual freedom are characterized as Nazis' strikes me as disingenuous. A loving society can't keep cutting taxes, as a lot of people seem to think. A loving society taxes so that it can, and does, take care of its people. (See Scandinavian countries, others ... including mine, Canada, with a tax-paid universal health system.) Security provides a lot of freedom. This business of "loss of individual freedom" puzzles me...what individual freedoms are being lost?"

I disagree about cutting taxes, but it is not my point here. It is not disingenuous, as you put it, to point out that ordinary people who oppose, for example, more taxes or "Obamacare" or more national debt have been compared to Nazis. It is simply stating a fact.

And, by the way, comparing Leftists to Nazis is absurd too.

But, other than that, thanks for your comments.

BTW, many of the "cradle-to-grave welfare" states are having a second thoughts and people such as JFK said, and it can be proven, that lower taxes mean more revenues for the state. I'd also point out that many government programs to help those in need are less effective than private, charitable efforts.

The individual freedom being lost? Well, the freedom to keep the money we earn. The freedom to decide whether to overeat, smoke, eat junk food, exercise or no,t implied in the bills that will come, have already come, to "control the cost" of health care. The freedom to decide what medical care we choose or don't choose.

I could go on.

Well, if you don't think "anti-smoking" laws, inspired to care for "our" health, impact on freedom, don't know what to tell ya. This applies also to taxes on sugar, "bad" food", helmet laws, seat belt laws for adults and so on. This stuff comes from the Left, for the most part. It is the Left that wants to, for our own good mind you, impose laws that will help us, as part of some group, be "healthier". It is the Left that is, for the most part, against nearly any effort to free children of the poor from poor government schools. It is the Left that is in love with speech codes. It is the Left that outlawed fireplaces in new buildings in CA. It is the Left that, except for abortion, betting and marijuana, wants to pass the majority of the laws that force businesses to not allow smoking, to not be able to say "no" to a cross-dressing job candidate, to not be able to say, "No" to health insurance they can't afford, to not be able to say "No" to a tax that will kill their business. It is not the right.

These are just a few individual freedoms some of us are concerned about.

Brian, The only large group that declares it is at war with the West and carries out large-scale terrorist attacks is one of Muslim extremists. It happens to be a fact.

Name a comparable Christian or Jewish or Buddhist group to Al-Quida

You can't.

And, by the way, Timothy McVeigh was NOT acting, nor did he say he was, in the NAME of Christianity.

Bin Laden's group is. It is an insult to Muslims to pretend this is not the greatest terror threat in the world today. It patronizes them, it lies to them, and it implies that they, usually the first victims, don't somehow count.

No Brian, it doesn't make sense. There is no racism involved in facing up to the threat from Islamic extremists. (I'd argue that there is racism , benignly held, in pretending there is no threat. It is also patronizing to Muslims.)

And, Brian, to accuse someone who made a point of, well pointing out, that Muslims are usually the first victims of Muslim or Islamic terror of "generalizing" (seeing as h ow by pointing this out I am splitting a group into at least TWO) is pretty rich. (Although generalizing per se is pretty much necessary to talk of anything, I didn't do it in this case.)

I think bigotry is not meant by those on your side when they say that those who worry about Islamic terror are bigots. It is, however, what results. We think it is a problem. We must be racists. Now that is very bigoted on the part of the Left.

BTW, please note that Muslims, Muslims, Muslims are helping many of those who fight this war, FIGHT this war. (For which they are saints.) Guess they are racists against themselves.

Error alert (code PINK of course). I was so worried about the Christians who are at war with us that I didn't spell Al-Qa'ida as, well, "Al-Qa'ida". But since they are not much of a threat compared to the red 'n' green crowd, it is probably of no matter.

The author asked, "When the votes are counted on Tuesday, and the election results are announced, will we have the strength and the will to work together to solve these problems? Or will the fires of partisan politics simply be fanned by the results, and the looming presidential election in 2012."

My answer, no. Those on the Left and those on the Right, or those like me who are classical liberals, want, I believe, vastly different ends. So working together on most things is not something that would, well, work.

Barbara,

I'm not sure where to start.

First... in regard to racism against Muslims. I don't believe you could find a Muslim anywhere who would say it's an insult to deny that Muslims are the greatest terror threat in the world today.

Yes, Bin Ladin is evil. Yes, Al-Quida is a threat. Your definition of "large group" is subjective. There are many assessments that say Al-Quida is splintered and diminished. Their numbers are not in the millions... more like thousands. And there are more than a billion Muslims in the world. It's fair to call out that these terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists. It's not fair to say Muslims are terrorists.

As for comparable Christian groups? I would say that the groups that have committed acts of violence against doctors and abortion clinics are terrorists.

There has been a huge increase in Militia groups in the United States over the last two years. Most of these groups claim to be Christian based. Some have pledged to overthrow the government. (Hutaree?)

According to the Global Terror Database, (via the U.S. Department of Homeland Security), far more acts of terror in the United States are committed by right-wing extremists and left wing animal rights extremists than by Islamic groups.

It's not fair to characterize Muslims, Christians, Militia members, or animal rights activists as terrorists, but there are terrorists who claim to be acting in the name of each of these groups.

As for your claims that taxes diminish freedom. I don't see it. You are still free to drink, smoke, overeat, etc. You can still choose your health care provider. How has any of this changed??

First... unless you are in the top five percent of income in this country, your taxes went down under Obama. That's a fact.

Second... we live in an interconnected society. The decisions you make do, like it or not, impact others. Placing a tax on cigarettes to help offset health care costs that you are choosing to place on the system is not diminishing your freedom. You can still choose to smoke. You just have to decide if its worth a few extra cents per pack. Is your freedom diminished by inflation? Is your freedom diminished because some brands cost more than others? No. You can make your own choices... you just can't inflict your bad decisions on others without consequences. (second hand smoke, added health care costs, etc.)

In many ways taxes increase our freedom... roads, police, fire, military, infrastructure, communications, etc. Taxes are a price we pay to live in a great country... not something to be scorned.

You wrote:
"First... in regard to racism against Muslims. I don't believe you could find a Muslim anywhere who would say it's an insult to deny that Muslims are the greatest terror threat in the world today."

I was saying TOO that Muslims, MANY Muslims think terror is a great threat. What I am pointing out, however, is that IF that is so, and I think it is, that THEY TOO see it as a threat, how is saying it is a threat racist? You don't answer.

You wrote: "Yes, Bin Ladin is evil. Yes, Al-Quida is a threat. Your definition of "large group" is subjective. There are many assessments that say Al-Quida is splintered and diminished. Their numbers are not in the millions... more like thousands. And there are more than a billion Muslims in the world. It's fair to call out that these terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists. It's not fair to say Muslims are terrorists."

I never said that most Muslims are terrorists, nor, as you appear to imply, did I say anything that means that. I said, that the Left doesn't seem willing to see Islamic terror as a significant threat. And, although I am not foolish enough to not realize that "large group" is not subjective, there is not one terrorist group in the world that is equal in size and scope and ambition, funding and orgainization to Al-Qa'ida. I don't care if it is splintered and such.

I still contend that implying that it is racist to state what EVEN YOU STATE Muslims can deal with, the reality of Islamic terror, is patronizing to Muslims. It implies they are too weak to face reality. Those terrific Muslims who are helping us fight this war are strong enough to deal with talking about it I suspect.

And, by the way, you, you, you are the one that brought up my discussing this as racist. YOU need to prove your point. You haven't.

"As for comparable Christian groups? I would say that the groups that have committed acts of violence against doctors and abortion clinics are terrorists."

And I wrote also, that those who do are arrested, tried and convicted for doing so, which, by the way, the vast majority of Christians support - the arresting, trying, etc. But even if they got away with this, we are dealing with a very few people who do evil. We are not talking about perhaps millions of Christians doing evil in the name of their religion. Nor are we talking about millions more supporting them. (Tragically, with radical Islam, we are talking about millions in the former case and millions in the latter.) And, when a lone evil person does do this, he is nearly always condemned by mainstream Christians. Do you honestly think that the pope, for example, wouldn't be leading masses (pun intended ) of protests if 19 Christians IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY took over planes and flew them into buildings?



You wrote:" There has been a huge increase in Militia groups in the United States over the last two years. Most of these groups claim to be Christian based. Some have pledged to overthrow the government. (Hutaree?)"

Fine, but these are wackos who HAVE NOT taken over a large, even a small, swath of Christianity. The Islamofascists have taken over a large swath of the Muslim religion. It is a tragedy for that religion and for the wonderful people who observe it who do NOT think like that. When I can walk into an average church and hear the call to behead Jews, to put planes into buildings and to take over the USA, I'll panic.

"You wrote: "According to the Global Terror Database, (via the U.S. Department of Homeland Security), far more acts of terror in the United States are committed by right-wing extremists and left wing animal rights extremists than by Islamic groups."

I'd need to know years and definitions. I doubt the US Dept. of Homeland Security believes this for the world.

You wrote: "It's not fair to characterize Muslims, Christians, Militia members, or animal rights activists as terrorists, but there are terrorists who claim to be acting in the name of each of these groups."

Sorry, pal, I didn't characterize any of them this way. You need to learn to read more carefully.

"As for your claims that taxes diminish freedom. I don't see it. You are still free to drink, smoke, overeat, etc. You can still choose your health care provider. How has any of this changed??"

I also didn't say this. Read more slowly. I wrote about the "attack" on individual freedom posed by laws supported by the Left. Laws that try to "help" us and invade our individual liberty. I didn't connect this to TAXES except to say that taxes are one avenue of this control.

BTW, I also didn't write about choosing my own health care provider. I did say that the health care bill will ensure, I feel, that we have less choice in health care matters. I suspect that will prove to be true. And now I'll add something else. Since I feel - it is not a fact, it is subjective - that the average Leftist is obsessed with control and money, all of the new little "fascist-light" laws for our own good, will come from the Left in regards to our "improving" "our" (collective) health. In fact, they are already here in many ways.

You wrote"First... unless you are in the top five percent of income in this country, your taxes went down under Obama. That's a fact."

I don't care only about MY taxes. I don't like anyone, including the rich, being penalized by 33.3 percent in taxes and I don't like that taxes inhibit my freedoms by, hum, I'll really think here, TAKING more of my money which limits what I (me, not you, not the il-liberal Left) can do with it. I don't like having the government tell me who to hire, fire, how much to pay, what I can do with my money, in general.

You wrote:" Second... we live in an interconnected society. The decisions you make do, like it or not, impact others. Placing a tax on cigarettes to help offset health care costs that you are choosing to place on the system is not diminishing your freedom. You can still choose to smoke. You just have to decide if its worth a few extra cents per pack. Is your freedom diminished by inflation? Is your freedom diminished because some brands cost more than others? No. You can make your own choices... you just can't inflict your bad decisions on others without consequences. (second hand smoke, added health care costs, etc.)"

(Frankly, anyone who believes in the second-hand smoke bs is a little beneath my dealing with, but I'll take pity on you. Sorry, stay out of MY bar, MY restaurant, MY home, MY etc., You don't have to come in and be "exposed" to that smoke. Go start your own bar, find another restaurant, etc . )

No, pal, I don't live in your interconnected fascistic society. I live in the USA where I am free to smoke, drink, eat badly etc., and you are free to not pay for me. Which, by the way, I don't want you to do. Leave me the hell alone. My personal health decisions are mine. I am not part of your group. Unless, maybe, you want people raiding gay bathhouses, trying to control those who spread STDs maybe, or telling you to not ski? Leave me alone and I promise to not bother you. My body doesn't belong to the US or, no offense, to you. I am not part of your "group". And, sooner or later, not me, but some people may meet you all with rifles. I hope it never comes to that, but frankly, you're "friendly" fascists who want to control me. It ain't gonna be pretty.

You wrote: "In many ways taxes increase our freedom... roads, police, fire, military, infrastructure, communications, etc. Taxes are a price we pay to live in a great country... not something to be scorned."

Yes, those things designated by the constitution to be covered by taxes, I support. But, sorry to blow your dream, they don't entail taxing to control who people sleep with, how they tan, what they wear on their heads when they cycle, whether they smoke, what they eat, etc.

Bye now.

"You wrote: "According to the Global Terror Database, (via the You wrote: U.S. Department of Homeland Security), far more acts of terror in the United States are committed by right-wing extremists and left wing animal rights extremists than by Islamic groups."

I'd need to know years and definitions. I doubt the US Dept. of Homeland Security believes this for the world.

I'll also add, that if the Dept. of HS has become this PC it scares the hell out of me.

BTW, check out Jacob Sullum, Reason Mag. Smokers SAVE the "society" health-care costs. Yep, that's right.

Let us know what you personally do that is not healthy. Maybe someone can work on a tax to punish you.

Your description on your page talks about fine food and beer.

Can we please run those choices past the Left? I mean, as part of your "interconnected" society, some might not like your choices. And if "we're" gonna have to pay for any BAD choices, well, sorry, but "we're" gonna have to tax you for that food and beer that is "bad".

But me, I don't wanna do that. I wanna leave you alone and for you to leave me alone. But then, I'm a liberal.

And, by the way, the arrogance behind declaring that "we" are an interconnected society, translation, "Sorry, you all gotta do it our way" is really rich.

No, you see in American, except for following common laws and very carefully restricted government actions, we get to pretty much do it our way and decide with whom we will be "interconnected". I leave you all alone and you return the favour. That is how it works for those of us who don't wanna control you fellows.

Good luck with pulling us into your "club". Ain't gonna happen.

Barbara,

Unfortunately our exchange is evolving into exactly the kind of debate that my original post was lamenting. If you notice, each of our postings has moved toward a more extreme position, and has shown less and less respect for other points of view.

I apologize if you think I’m mischaracterizing your views or am reading between the lines to conclusions that you did not intend.

I would say we should agree to disagree, but in a way that’s not constructive either, it just leaves us each on our own island.

I am trying to resist the urge to counterpoint your last posts, but there are still a few assertions I feel the need to comment on:

1. First, one thing we agree on. You are right. It’s not racist to point out that Islamic terrorism is a threat. We can agree on that. The extent of that threat… the scope, funding and organization… is something that probably neither of us are qualified to come to a definitive conclusion on… so we can agree to disagree there.
2. We agree that that there are Muslims in America who love this country and are willing to die to protect it.
3. I don’t think either of us should be called racist. I don’t know you well enough to make a judgment about you and vice versa. I apologize for the implication.
4. I’m not sure what your point is about Christian fundamentalists being tried and convicted. That doesn’t mean they didn’t commit terrorist acts. It doesn’t mean there aren’t organized groups of people supporting these acts.

Also… the vast majority of Muslims (I think you will agree) support the arrest, trial and conviction of Islamic terrorists. So there’s really no difference there.

I don’t know where you get your figures that there are millions of Muslims committing acts of terror… and millions of Muslims who support those actions. Most estimates have Al Quida membership at less than 10,000. I think your claim of millions is simply not true.

Also… the attacks on 911 were STRONGLY condemned by Muslim leaders. Just like most Christian leaders condemn the bombing of abortion clinics.


5. Again, we will have to agree to disagree about the extent to which radical Islam has taken over the Muslim faith. And while you probably won’t find a lot of Christian leaders openly advocating violence against Jews these days… there is at least a small swath of Christianity that feels it is OK to incite people against Muslims (Quran burning) or to incite people against homosexuals.
6. We agree that it’s not fair to characterize Muslims, Christians, Militia members or animal rights activists as terrorist. We have common ground!

7. We could not be more different in how we view taxes… and I guess how we view the role of government in legislating for the common good.

You claim that you didn’t cite taxes as something that diminishes freedom… but then say taxes are one avenue of control. Despite reading it slowly, as you thoughtfully suggested, I’m missing the nuance, sorry.

Suffice to say, I don’t think taxes are a bad thing. Yes, I enjoy a beer now and then… but no, I don’t think placing a tax on alcohol would be an unfair restriction to my freedom. I don’t see taxes as punishment, they are a price we pay to live in America… and I think it’s worth the price.

In the same way… seat belt laws, helmet laws, speed limits, consumer protection laws, laws against discrimination, etc. I don’t see these as government intrusion, I see them as ways we can promote health, safety, and opportunity for all citizens.


I hope you will not take my words as a personal attack. I do respect your point of view and think we have at least some common ground. Hopefully as a country we can find ways for that common ground to grow, and we can move forward with at least a semblance of greater purpose and vision for what we want our country to be.