|
|
Saturday, April 06, 2002
|
|
| |
An Open Letter to Israel. Mac Frazier has written an open letter to Israel that I think is a great summary of the reasons for the disconnect between the BigCo media and most Americans, and details how his views changed over time:
"I still have issue with the nature and method of the creation of the modern state of Israel, as do many Americans. I have long wanted justice and self-determination for the Palestinian people living there with you, and I am not alone in this. But to stop thinking right there, declare Israel an unjust occupying force, and thus close the topic, is wrongheaded and lazy. A number of realizations have slowly turned me from a mild Palestinian sympathizer to, first, passively supporting the Israeli cause and later on, now, someone who outright sees the radical Palestinian movement as an enemy of civilization. It has been a journey of many steps."
Mac gets it. [Michael Bernstein's Weblog] [Counterpoint]
The letter is a really well-written piece by a former Palestinian supporter who has finally opened his eyes.
5:57:45 PM 
|
|
The Human Clone: What Gives?. An Italian scientist remarks off-handedly that he is essentially in the process of cloning a human. Whether it's true that his patient is carrying a cloned embryo is hard to track down. By Kristin Philipkoski. [Wired News]
The Doctor is being evasive about the specifics. This is wise of him. I wouldn't put it past many governments to seize the woman and forcibly remove the clone.
5:44:22 PM
|
|
Nobel Peace Prize for Shimon Peres a Mistake?. The Nobel Committee issued a statement that they regret awarding the peace prize to Shimon Peres, Israel's Foreign Minister. The Hindustan Times has an article [kuro5hin.org]
The Nobel Committee apparently doesn't have any regrets about awarding the prize to Arafat. The committee members are apparently Europeans, though, and the Europeans have made their feelings towards Jews plain over the last 2000 years.
5:37:23 PM
|
|
There was a comment posted a few days ago from someone who didn't know what "liberal" means, speculating that it means someone who wants more freedom. The answer to the question, "what does liberal mean," is actually rather complicated. The idea of "liberal" has changed dramatically over the last century, and somehow it has ended up meaning precisely the opposite of its original meaning.
One of the definitions of liberal is "favoring change." Together with this is the definition of conservative as "favoring the status quo." These definitions don't apply in modern political discussion. The philosophy identified as liberal has been the dominant one for around 70 years, making it the status quo.
Another definition of liberal is the nineteenth century political philosophy. This philosophy, which was the guiding principle behind the founding of the United States, advocated individual rights and economic freedom. This philosophy is very similar to modern libertarianism, although many libertarians take these ideas further than the Founding Fathers. By comparison, conservatives under this definition favor a return to the kind of autocratic, religion-dominated society that existed in Europe during the Middle Ages.
Finally we come to the modern American definition of liberal. This philosophy is thoroughly collectivist and promotes police-state policies whenever it can. This has led to liberalism's somewhat haphazard support for economic policies drawn sometimes from the Communist Manifesto, and at other times from the Nazi Party. Modern American Conservatives are theoretically in favor of individual freedom in most areas, except that they are also opposed to the concept of self ownership. In practice, however, Conservative politicians are just camouflaged liberals.
So when I refer to liberals ’n this weblog, I'm using the modern definition--supporters of the vile philosophy of collectivism which slaughtered tens of millions of innocent people.
4:51:14 PM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2006
Ken Hagler.
Last update:
2/14/2006; 6:49:35 PM.
|
|
Email
|
