Actually, lying can be compulsory in some cases. This is from a 12th century book on Muslim law (Reliance of the Traveller, al-Misri)
PERMISSIBLE LYING
r8.2 The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,
``He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.''
This much is related by both Bukhari and Muslim, with Muslim's version recording that Umm Kulthum added,
``I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements and a man talking with his wife or she with him (A:in smoothing over differences),''
This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest, scholars having established criteria defining what types of it are lawful. The best analysis of it I have seen is by Imam Ghazali. If something is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. When for example one is concealing a muslim from an oppressor who asks where he is, it is obligatory to lie about his being hidden. Or when a person deposits an article with one for safekeeping and an oppressor wanting to appropriate it inquires about it, it is obligatory to lie about having concealed it, for if one informs him about the article and he then siezes it, one is financially liable(A:to the owner)to cover the article's cost. Whether the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate against one so that he will forbear to do so; it is not unlawful to ;lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying. But is religiously more precautionary (def:c6.5) in all such cases to employ words that give misleadng impression, meaning to intend by one's words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying (def:r10.2) white the outward purport of the words deceives the hearer, though even if one does not have such an intention and merely lies without intending anything else, it is not unlawful in the above circumstances.
`This is true of every expression connected with a legitimating desired end, whether one's own or another's. An example of a legitimating end of one's own is when an oppressor intending to appropriate one's property inquires about it, in which case one may deny it. Or if a ruler asks one about a wicked act one has committed that is solely between oneself and Allah Most High (N: i.e. it does not concern the rights of another), in which case one is entitled to disclaim it, such as by saying, 'I did not commit fornication,'or'I did not drink.' There are many well known hadiths in which those who admitted they deserved punishment were given prompting (A: by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)) to retract their confessions. An example of a legitimating desired end of another is when one is asked about another's secret and one disacknowledges it. And so on. One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, on is entitled to lie, though if the reverse is true or if one does not know which entails more damage, them lying is unlawful. Whenever lying is permissible, if the factor which permits it is desired end of one's own, it is recommended not to lie, but when the factor that permits it is the desired end of another, it is not lawful to infringe upon his rights. Strictness (A: as opposed to the above dispensations (rukhsa, def:c6.2)) is to forgo lying in every case where it is not legally obligatory."
r8.3 The position of Ahl al-Sunna is that lying means to inform another that something is otherwise than it really is, whether intentionally or out of ignorance. One is not culpable if ignorant of it, but only if one lies intentionally, the evidence for which is that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made intentionality a condition when he said,
``Whoever lies about me intentionally shall take a place for himself in hell.'' (al-Adhkar (y102), 510-12)
Jeremiah Wright is not exactly peripheral to Barack Obama's life. He married the Obamas and baptized their children. Those of us who made the mistake of buying the senator's latest book, "The Audacity Of Hope," and assumed the title was an ingeniously parodic distillation of the great sonorous banality of an entire genre of blandly uplifting political writing discovered circa page 127 that in fact the phrase comes from one of the Rev. Wright's sermons. Jeremiah Wright has been Barack Obama's pastor for 20 years in other words, pretty much the senator's entire adult life. Did Obama consider "God Damn America" as a title for his book but it didn't focus-group so well?
Ah, well, no, the senator told ABC News. The Rev. Wright is like "an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with." So did he agree with goofy old Uncle Jeremiah on Sept. 16, 2001? That Sunday morning, Uncle told his congregation that the United States brought the death and destruction of 9/11 on itself. "We nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," said the Rev. Wright. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards."
Is that one of those "things I don't always agree with"? Well, Sen. Obama isn't saying, responding merely that he wasn't in church that morning. OK, fair enough, but what would he have done had he happened to have shown up on Sept. 16? Cried "Shame on you!" and stormed out? Or, if that's a little dramatic, whispered to Michelle that he didn't want their daughters hearing this kind of drivel while rescue workers were still sifting through the rubble and risen from his pew in a dignified manner and led his family to the exit? Or would he have just sat there with an inscrutable look on his face as those around him nodded?
All Sen. Obama will say is that "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial."
Yet since his early twenties he's sat week after week, listening to the ravings of just another cookie-cutter race-huckster.
The song the Rev. Wright won't sing is by Irving Berlin, a contemporary of Cole Porter, Ira Gershwin and Lorenz Hart, all the sophisticated rhymesters. But only Berlin could have written without embarrassment "God Bless America." He said it directly, unaffectedly, unashamedly in seven words:
"God Bless America
Land that I love."
Berlin was a Jew, and he suffered slights: He grew up in the poverty of New York's Lower East Side. When he made his name and fortune, his marriage to a Park Avenue heiress resulted in her expulsion from the Social Register. In the Thirties, her sister moved in with a Nazi diplomat and proudly flaunted her diamond swastika to Irving. But Berlin spent his infancy in Temun, Siberia (until the Cossacks rode in and razed his village), and he understood the great gift he'd been given:
"God Bless America
Land that I love."
The Rev. Wright can't say those words. His shtick is:
#1
I knew it was Steyn without checking - on the mark as usual
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/16/2008 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It is just possible that the Wright controversy will make Senator Obama a better person.
He probably believes in his own 'not black America, not white America but the United States of America' narrative (or at least he believes so with part of his mind).
If so, he will have to confront himself with the Wright sermons and decide why and how sermons like this produce hallelujahs and why and how people should put a stop to them.
#3
We nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,
Of course we did because those people were the same ones who devalued the lives of Chinese in Nanking and Filipinos [then still a territory of the United States] in the bloodbath of Manila. The same evil leadership that orders its own citizens to commit suicide rather than experience American occupation at Saipan and Okinawa and were just a willing to send same civilians in human wave attacks barely armed with nothing more than knife at the end of a pole if we step foot upon the Home Islands. Those bombs saved far more Japanese than hate mongers could even comprehend.
The Soviet Union collapsed, but Marxists did not disappear. For example, the Castro brothers still run Cuba, Daniel Ortega is back in charge of Nicaragua and African Marxists are vying for power in their homelands. Unsurprisingly, Marxists from Africa to the Americas are lauding young Barack Obama as their "agent of change."
In Kenya, Raila Odinga, Barack's cousin, just secured the prime ministership after violent protests of the re-election of his rival, President Kibaki, in a disputed race with Odinga that suggest that Virginia Governor and current Richmond, Virginia Mayor Doug Wilder's warning of rioting if Democrat superdelegates don't rubberstamp Barack should be taken seriously.
The New York Times: "Rono Kibet, an [Odinga] supporter who less than two months ago was burning down the houses of members of Mr. Kibakis ethnic group, said: 'We will now stop the fighting. The agreement is very good.'"
"Good" from the perspective of that reported arsonist!
A source familiar with Kenyan politics warns Americans to look into Barack's Kenyan connections before they leap:
"--Raila Odinga is of the Luo tribe to which Obama's late African-Arab Muslim father belonged. Obama's older brother still lives there; Abongo 'Roy' Obama is a Luo activist and militant Muslim who argues that the black man must liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture. He urges his younger brother, Barack, to embrace his African heritage. Barack Obama has a Kenyan grandmother [my note: according to Kenyan usage, not a biological grandmother] and several African brothers and sisters as well.
"--Raila Odinga is Barack Obama's cousin.... Listen to Odinga interview with BBC reporter.
"--Obama interrupted his New Hampshire campaigning to speak by phone with Odinga, and he did not speak with Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki. Would Obama put African tribal or family interests ahead of U.S. interests? (Investors Business Daily).
"--Odinga explained to another reporter that Obama would call him up to three times a day to check on the election in Kenya. It was controversial, you see. Raila Odinga is a Marxist, and he wants to make a majority Christian Kenya embrace Islamic customs: he wants Sharia law, and he made a pact with an Islamic hard-line group (their terrorist group name is on the Internet) to enforce this law as they see fit. Odinga wants to establish Sharia courts throughout the country; vows to ban booze, pork, and impose Muslim dress codes on women--moves highly favored by Barack Obama's older brother, Abongo 'Roy.'
"--Odinga claimed the election was rigged when he lost, then there were riots and a sort of civil war, but it was the Christians who were getting killed by the Muslims. Christians were burned alive in churches and they were macheted in the streets. It is reported that 1,000 people were killed when all was said and done. Right now, Odinga is claiming the presidency and fighting to be sole president, and in a diplomatic effort, the powers that be allowed him to be co-president until the election is figured out.
"--Odinga also had an interesting political strategist help with his campaign, an American, who used to be a campaign employee of Bill Clinton's. It is the first time that an American poitical strategist has worked on any Kenyan campaign. Recommended by Barack Obama? [Note: That strategist is Dick Morris. Ask him!]
"--Raila Odinga's official presidential website is similar to Barack Obama's, and Odinga's main campaign message and slogan is: CHANGE. Vote for Change. Agent of Change. Look at his website.
"Furthermore, Raila Odinga has close ties to an oil big shot: Sheik Abdullahi Abdi (oil $) chairs NAMLEF (National Muslim Leaders Forum) which Odinga signed a then secret pact with. (The document is actually available online.) This man has connections to Libyan socialist leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, who financially backed and supported Raila Odinga's campaign.
"--Also, Raila Odinga was educated in communist E. Germany, and his father Oginga Odinga led the communist opposition during the Cold War.
"--With al-Qaida strengthening its beachheads in Africa--from Algeria to Sudan to Somalia--the last thing the West needs is for pro-Western Kenya to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists."
The Castro brothers aren't the only Marxists in the Americas rooting for Barack.
This year International Herald Tribune celebrated Valentine's Day by published an AP article reporting the delight of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega with the Obama campaign.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/16/2008 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Barack is a liberal Democrat -- that alone is Marxist enough for me to make a decision. I hope he and Hillary sling mud at each other right up until their convention. And I hope as much of it as possible sticks through election day.
I am NOT responsible for whatever my cousins think or do, and in turn they're NOT responsible for me, this is trying to slam Obama by association, and it's just plain false.
I'd look very hard at the accuser here.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/16/2008 19:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I agree, Redneck Jim. It's an unwarranted stretch.
Michelle Obama is probably farther left and harder Africanist than Barack. It's his lack of clear convictions that worries me about him more than any secret communist ties.
Yesterday's combined J.P. Morgan-Federal Reserve rescue of Bear Stearns is one of those judgment calls that are easier to second guess than they are to make in the heat of a financial panic. Regulators have to balance the risks to the larger financial system of letting a big investment bank fail against the discipline of seeing bad risk management punished by the marketplace.
These columns prefer the discipline of the market, but then we don't know all of the facts that regulators confronted as they looked at Bear's troubles. Specifically, we don't know if letting Bear collapse might have had a domino effect on others in the debt and derivative markets.
The Fed and J.P. Morgan are acting in concert to give Bear short-term access to the Fed's discount lending window that Bear couldn't access on its own. A big plunger in the debt markets but not a standard commercial bank, Bear's private sources of funds had dried up. The overriding public interest at the current moment is to maintain a functioning financial system, and regulators clearly felt this was at risk from a Bear failure. Just once we'd like to see what would happen if a big bank did fail, but the current general market panic arguably isn't the best time to have that experiment. Presumably Bear will now be shopped to private buyers.
On the other hand, the financial system also can't function properly if every institution believes it is "too big to fail." That's an invitation for everyone to behave the way Bear Stearns did in the mortgage securities market. This means that if taxpayer funds are going to be used to rescue Bear, then Bear's private actors need to accept their own form of discipline.
This includes Bear's equity owners, who deserve to endure major losses, if not lose their entire stake, in any sale. The discipline should also apply to Bear managers who got the bank into this mess. They should be fired, without bonuses and golden parachutes to the extent that is contractually possible. If bankers believe they can make bad investments and still emerge with enough cash to buy another beach house, the financial system will never have enough discipline.
Looking ahead, regulators need to anticipate these liquidity bank runs, not merely react to them. The larger danger is that even this temporary Bear rescue could set a precedent that the Fed will find hard to resist. Wall Street is already demanding that the Fed do more in this crisis than its traditional duty as a lender of last resort, and start buying up mortgage-backed securities and other troubled paper as a way to entice more buyers into frozen credit markets. This means the banks would be able to dump their worst paper on the Fed, which ultimately means the taxpayer.
We'll have more to say about that idea at a later date, but we trust the Fed understands the risks to its credibility that such a decision would pose. Does the Federal Reserve want to become a buyer of first resort?
#3
You won't be seeing this stock much longer. Fed will support the buyout so that the assuming entity is not saddled with enormous losses. The taxpayers will absorb these losses, just as in savings and loan mess. Those responsible walk away untouched. They have to get new management in charge of the mess, that's the bottom line.
#5
Bear Stearns has already failed. It's dead, Jim, its name may live on, but no one in their right mind would want that company handling their money. Its living remains will be transferred to others, and the taxpayers will be on the hook for the rest.
It should have gone without saying that Bear's equity owners deserve to lose their entire stake, they had their chance to change months & years ago & did nothing but make matters worse. Any contracts Bear has with its "employees" better known as "overlords" to provide gold parachutes & millions in looted equity should be voided by whatever means necessary. The worst perps, in addition to losing their ill-gotten riches, should be doing hard time, but I anticipate that will work about as well as the retribution meted out to Ken Lay for his Enron caper (i.e., none at all besides his time spent in a courtroom).
The Fed's only success in covering Bare Sterns is that a total credit collapse has been avoided, one more time. We may not know if Bear's collapse would have had a domino effect, but Ben Bernanke didn't want to run an uncontrolled experiment on the world. I for one like to have running water & electric power, to see my neighbors employed, and food for sale at the grocery store.
Confidence in the Fed and ultimately in the full faith & credit of the USA is the next factor at risk.
#6
Actually, I am not so pessimistic. BSC has a huge amount of paper that the government will want to have carried for quite a while. And if there is a market recovery, that paper could propel BSC right back up the ladder.
So as I said, tomorrow will be the big day. By the end of the day, if it loses another 50%, it will be one thing; but if it regains much of its Friday losses, it may be back on its feet again for quite a while.
There can be plenty change of command at the board and executive level that will be pretty invisible to investors, but will do much to restore insider confidence.
#7
...Well, let's see - FoxNews is reporting that JPM will make an offer tomorrow for Bear - AND it's being reported that the Feds may have withheld and/or doctored evidence in the Enron trials. The Chinese curse, once again...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
03/16/2008 16:43 Comments ||
Top||
#8
That's right, Mike. Fastow's conviction will be overturned and maybe Lay's, too. Another Nifong/Spitzer style cf. I used to assume that if someone was being prosecuted chances wer 99.99% guilty. Never again.
#11
Just coming across the newswires tonight...JPM buying BSC for $2 a share...that is not a mis-print! Wow...I think investors in the financials are going to get creamed tomorrow. Wish I had bought some BSC puts...
#12
This is why they get to keep their parachutes. This is a Fed forced cram down. There is no way JPM has had time to do sufficient due dil to justify this one way or the other. Likewise, the fairness opinion probably comes with a drum set for do it yourself rim shots. So everybody lives for another day, at least in their dreams tonight, and the Fed hopes the dominoes stop here. Good luck Benny. You're on your way to the G. William Miller Award.
Big problem is that the taxpayer will be eating the sh1t-sandwiches so the big banks are OK. IMHO Socialism for banks is just as bad as socialism for people.
Text, photos, drawings. Never forget. Never forgive.
Posted by: ||
03/16/2008 01:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Baath Party
#1
Remember when Chinese troops made an incursion into Vietnam in the late seventies to "teach Vietnam a lesson"? Communist killing communist left me cold then; muslim killing muslim leaves me even colder now.
#2
No, absolutely not. Halabja was Saddam using poison gas on civilians. Not the same at all as M v M killing. This was genocide, pure and simple, and all the reason a just world would need to remove and kill Saddam.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/16/2008 3:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
SW:
I can't think of Middle East problems in human terms. We are no longer liberating anyone in Iraq; we are indulging Iranian armament of Shiites while we arm the As-Sahwah Sunni groups and pay former terrorists $250 a month to keep Wahabis out of Iraq. We can't solve that 1400 year old sectarian war, so we are working at a balance of power, while we leverage both sides to sanction US bases situated outside of the cities, and that exists with the sole purpose of ensuring that the Ayatollahs do not control Iraqi oil. The President will secure permanent basing treaties before the end of his term. Iraqis won't have even a semblance of peace until a status quo ante is reached. And that status quo means: Sunnis have been ethnically cleansed out of over a dozen Baghdad neighborhoods. Again, it was in US strategic interests to indulge that otherwise inhumanitarian act. According to the Koran, at the "end of days" Muslims will slaughter Muslims. We can't stop it. Islam is a mutual genocide scheme. US soldiers aren't bodyguards for wannabe murderers.
Call me a cynic, but here's my guess about how Senator Obama came to join Pastor Wright's church and stay for 20 years. Obama, as we all know, was brought up by his free-spirit, actively atheistic mom, and her two Muslim husbands. He got to Harvard on his intellect and his prescient abilities to navigate the system. He got to head the law review because he managed to convince all sides in the ideological conflict there that he was, if not sympathetic, at least fair. In part he did this by advocating no real views of his own. Nothing in his education would have made a conversion to Christianity a particularly natural evolution.
Then Obama became a community organizer in the black slums of South Chicago. A minister he met through work pointed out that, if he wanted to be an influence for good among the denizens of the neighborhood he should be seen at church every now and then. So he picked the biggest church, with the most famous, most locally influential pastor and the largest congregation he could find. That is what anyone contemplating elective office, with no tie to a particular stripe of faith would do. Bright and ambitious as he is, I bet he realized that Wright's church was a good place to learn how to be what his future constituents would want him to be. How to 'talk the talk' in ways he might not have learned in Hawaii, at Harvard or at Sidley Austin.
For that matter, he must have come to understand that, to succeed in politics, it would help to acquire the trappings of being a good Christian regardless of what he may or may not have personally believed. It is generally beyond the pale to question a public figure's personal religious commitment (Democrat's, anyway) and I don't personally care whether he is a genuine Christian (whatever that may be) or not. But, if he was there to absorb the spiritual stuff, he can't have missed the political message, since they were pretty closely intertwined. Only if he didn't care about the substance, but wanted face-time in the community is his ongoing attendance explicable. For that matter, all of the crude anti-American stuff spewed in that church is far-left boilerplate and therefore would have been pretty comfortable. You could hear something like it any day on Pacifica radio, though not in the same thundering cadences.
As for his relationship with the hate-mongering Reverend Wright? That a fatherless young man would feel both close and grateful to a charismatic minister who behaved sympathetically to him, and encouraged his ambitions, seems natural. For a politician, having a constituency that regards itself as particularly victimized as Wright tells his congregants they have been in a way he is uniquely able to fix, is a boon.
The great irony here is that, if Obama believed any of Wright's anti-American, anti-white venom, his tremendous success among white voters as the "post racial" candidate must have knocked him for a loop. And only the fact that those white voters so badly want him to be this mythological creature makes his membership in the racist, victim-mongering church a problem.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/16/2008 08:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
For years it was a given in many parts of America, especially the South: If you have something to sell to the community - cars, hardware, insurance, whatever - you'd damn well better be seen going to church...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/16/2008 8:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Lets put it in proper perspective. A caucasian polititian joins a church in which they preach that the "children of Ham" are lazy, shiftless, and a bunch of natural born criminals. When this becomes public, the candidate explains that, in 20 years, he never noticed.
Vietnam is getting rich. For Tom Hayden and other 1960s-era Marxists, that's bad news
Why aren't the Vietnamese more grateful to Tom Hayden? Recently, he returned for the first time in 36 years to the country that he and his then-wife Jane Fonda tried to save from American domination in the Vietnam war. The trip disappointed him. As he writes in the March 10 issue of The Nation, Vietnam has turned capitalist. Was that what he fought for? Absolutely not. He remains capitalism's enemy, still the same lefty who helped found 1960s student radicalism.
This week, another celebrated American liberal, playwright David Mamet, declared that he's abandoned the ideology he shared with Hayden. Mamet, never gentle, broke this news where it would hurt most --in the pages of New York's Village Voice, a weekly that hasn't carried a right-wing article since it was founded in the 1950s.
Under the heading "Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal,'" Mamet denounced every one of the principles that give American liberals their sense of righteousness.
He's abandoned his hatred for corporations, which he now considers merely "the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live." This comes as a surprise from the author of Glengarry Glen Ross, the play and movie depicting a repulsive business atmosphere. And the role of government? He once considered it fundamentally good but now he's "hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow."
He's decided that America is not a schoolroom teaching values but a market-place. He now puts John F. Kennedy on the same moral plane as George W. Bush. And when he listens to the standard liberalism of National Public Radio he mutters that its initials actually stand for National Palestinian Radio (he defended Israel in his last book, The Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-hatred, and the Jews).
Mamet has decided that free-market thinking meshes better with his experience than liberalism. He even reads conservative thinkers. He names Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson and Shelby Steele, and confers the title "our greatest contemporary philosopher" on Thomas Sowell, an economist always ignored by liberals. (Black skin makes Sowell hard to attack, particularly when he brings severe logic to racial questions, so the left prefers to pretend he doesn't exist.)
It may seem odd that a much-admired writer makes such a noise about the banal fact that he thinks the society he's always lived in is grounded in sound principles and operates reasonably well. But in his milieu, that opinion remains big news.
Successful artists favour capitalism in practice but not in theory. For this they have their own special approach to reality. They accept capitalism's money and buy its products, but prefer not to be reminded that it's essential to the richness of their lives. They pretend, in fact, that they oppose it. Readers of a typical leftist newspaper (such as Now, the Toronto giveaway weekly for the young and the cool) appear to believe they've hooked up with capitalism only until something better comes along.
An article such as Mamet's probably won't shake the faith of many liberals. Tom Hayden, for instance, stands firmly by his prejudices. Not even Vietnam can shake him. Its economy grows swiftly and so does its per capita GDP. It's a single-party state, still using the name Communist Party, and it has economic freedom without the other kinds of liberty. During his trip, a leading Vietnamese novelist told him, "Some Americans may sympathize with communism, but I lived under it and couldn't stand it." The novelist has a son making millions travelling for a high-tech corporation.
Is it possible, Hayden asks himself, that Marxism and nationalism won the war but capitalism and nationalism won the peace? Are "the supposedly scientific models of history long embraced by the left being replaced with a kind of chaos theory of unpredictability? Is this all that was ever possible?"
A few Marxist senior citizens share his unease. "We are better off materially, but not mentally, ethically," one octogenarian veteran says. But the Vietnam resident most upset by the new way of life turned out to be an American expatriate, Gerry Herman, once an anti-war activist, now a film distributor.
"Far be it from me," says Hayden. "to question the desire of the Vietnamese to share our globalized consumer culture like everyone else." But of course that's precisely what he wants to do, and does. He made his trip, he writes, because "I wanted to understand the long-term lessons." Considered in that light, his journey was a failure.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/16/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"What happened to the revolution?"
Not much, Mr. Hayden & others of your ilk - you're still revolting.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/16/2008 0:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wonder if Hayden stopped off in Cambodia. I'm sure his nostalgic views of Marxism would have been a big hit with the locals.
#3
Ex leftists - like me - come to a realization that corporations are inherently vulnerable. Schumpeter viewed them as prey in the: "creative destruction" process. Capitalism is the best engine of progress. Its the malevolence-benevolence thing that befuddles people's minds.
#7
To turn a quote (I believe from Churchill)..."If you are not a liberal in your twenties, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative in your forties, you have no mind"... IMHO that kiinda' sorta' says it all.
#8
Successful artists favour capitalism in practice but not in theory. For this they have their own special approach to reality. They accept capitalism's money and buy its products, but prefer not to be reminded that it's essential to the richness of their lives. They pretend, in fact, that they oppose it.
Doesn't this define hypocrisy? The dishonesty of the affluent and elite left.
The definition of craziness comes to mind with regards to Hayden, i.e. doing the same old things and expecting a different result. Why doesn't Hayden move to Cuba, Venezuela or some other leftish utopia. Please take your traitor ex wife with you.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
