In Russia, a Courageous Voice Is Silenced

Russia and the world have lost a great and courageous journalist. The killing of Anna Politkovskaya on October 7 is horrifying and shocking, but not unexpected. As Oleg Panfilov, who runs Moscow's Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations, said upon learning of her murder, "There are journalists who have this fate hanging over them. I always thought something would happen to Anya, first of all because of Chechnya." It was "a savage crime," said former Russian President --and the father of glasnost--Mikhail Gorbachev. "It is a blow to the entire democratic, independent press. It is a grave crime against the country, against all of us."

Politkovskaya was just 48 years old when she was found in her apartment building, shot in the head with a pistol. In the last decade, her unflinching reporting on the brutality and corruption of the Chechen war made her one of the bravest of Russia's journalists.

The numerous death threats she had received in these last few years never slowed her. In fact, when she was killed Politkovskaya was at work finishing an article--to have been published Monday--about torturers in the government of the pro-Kremlin Premier of Chechnya.

Politkavskaya was a fearless chronicler of the mass executions, the torture, the rape and kidnappings of Chechen civilians at the hands of Russian troops and security forces. She understood the cancer that was the war--and wrote and spoke of how the "Bush-Blair war on terror" had given Putin allowance to say he was fighting international terrorism. In fact, the Kremlin's policies and the brutal Russian occupation of Chechnya, she wrote in many dispatches, were instead engendering the terrorists they were supposed to eliminate.

Her raw and searing reports on the human catastrophe of the Chechen war appeared primarily in Novaya Gazeta, which has become in these last five years the main opposition newspaper in Russia. It is to Novaya's credit that her crusading investigative articles were published inside Russia. In the wake of her death, there is concern that the next victim may be her newspaper. That's why it's important that the international journalistic community defend the weekly newspaper's independent, dissenting voice. (In a little-noted development, last june Gorbachev became a minority partner/shareholder in Novaya. His role may provide some protection from any kremlin attempts to curb the paper's voice.)

I met Politkovskaya a few times--in Moscow and in New York, including at a Committee to Protect Journalist's dinner in New York where she received one of the many honors that came her way in these last years.. she spoke with fierce intensity about the horror of the war--and the injustice and corruption she believed was strangling Russia. There was a bluntness to her personal style--as there was to her investigative reporting. A mother of two, Politkovskaya spoke of her fear, and the risks she knew she faced in taking on the most powerful forces in Russia. But she never let that interfere with what she believed passionately was her duty as a journalist. In an interview two years ago with the BBC, Politkovskaya said "I am absolutely sure that risk is [a] usual part of my job; job of [a] Russian journalist, and I cannot stop because it's my duty. I think the duty of doctors is to give health to their patients, the duty of the singer is to sing. The duty of [the] journalist [is] to write what this journalist sees is the reality. It's my one duty."

Her latest book, Putin's Russia--an uncompromising indictment of her beloved country's corrupt politics--has just been published in the US. Read it. But it is her reporting on Russia's long-running brutal war --collected in a previous book, A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya,-- which best explains what her friend Panfilov said on Saturday: "Whenever the question arose whether there is honest journalism in Russia, the first name that came to mind was Politkovskaya." And may it be remembered that this brave and honest journalist never compromised on the fundamental ideals of free speech and a free press in the long battle for human rights in Russia.

Since 1992, forty-two journalists in Russia have been killed--most in unsolved contract executions. Journalists--and citizens of all countries who value the importance of a free press--should join in calling on the Russian government to conduct an immediate and thorough investigation in order to find, prosecute and bring to justice those responsible for Anna Politkovskaya's murder--and those of her colleagues.

Comments (85)

1. It is sad that when there are investigative journalist that seek to get the truth to the world, they are silenced. In America, they are just ignored by mainstream media. I don't know what is worse.

   Posted by LarryB at 10/08/2006 @ 8:48pm

2. For me, Ms. Vanden Heuvel's article highlights an interesting dilemma for the American left: does cultural relativism kill the case for international human rights? Cultural relativists abound on the left. The very common argument that we must be held to a different moral standard from our enemy is cultural relativism, and the mantra-like quality of the term "tolerance" is a symptom of it (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/). The idea that it is wrong to export democracy "just because we think it's better" is rooted in relativism. And whenever someone in some other culture does something that by our standards looks morally reprehensible, it's often those on the left who are the first to say "it's just their culture" and that this culture should be "tolerated." This article clearly makes a cross-cultural moral judgment. We, in America, are justified in saying that the Russians are doing something wrong to their people. Russians are clearly in a different culture. This is a sort of gut-check for a liberal. Does she embrace moral relativism or moral absolutism? If relativism, then she renders herself unable to judge even the harshest of historical figures like Hitler and Pol Pot. But if absolutism, then she opens herself up to arguments that exporting democracy is morally justified, that humanitarian wars are morally justified, and that maybe some people, groups, or even whole cultures are evil in an absolute sense. Experience shows me that liberals are very hesitant to judge things to be evil in an absolute sense.

   Posted by utcareful at 10/08/2006 @ 9:03pm

3. Wow,UTCAREFUL, well written and clearly stated...keep posting....

   Be fore warned...They will turn on you and degenerate into emotional name calling...if they understand what you have written at all...be prepared.

   Posted by john maasch at 10/08/2006 @ 9:52pm

4. UTCAREFUL - I'm not sure I'm getting the cultural relativism connection here. To begin with, I've heard the "moral relativism" critique of the left endlessly, but I've yet to speak with anyone who defends murder, rape, or even less extreme forms of repression in other societies as "just their culture." I think we all agree, absolutely, that these things are wrong. Violations of human dignity are always wrong, whether they occur in the US, Chechnya, Iran, or any other country. But this does not mean we agree on the best way to address the rampant injustice that abounds across the globe and within our own country.

   So on the moral justification of exporting democracy, this is a far more difficult question than you have presented it to be. The most obvious example is Iraq: if we all agree that the Hussein regime in Iraq was morally repugnant in absolute terms, that does not necessarily mean we agree on the means to correct this injustice. If we know anything for sure, it is that war itself is never moral -- so when considering humanitarian interventions, we must at the very least do our best to honestly predict the consequences of our actions. Will we save lives in the long term by taking lives today? These are extremely difficult questions, and they should be debated endlessly.

   I think Ms. vanden Heuvel's piece was a celebration of a journalist who did her best to expose the truth about war and conflict - and the corruption and injustice inherent in it. I'm not sure what your argument is -- are you suggesting that if we condemn Russia's actions, we must be willing to instigate WWIII to defend our moral beliefs? In absolute terms, would this be the most moral act to take for the future of humanity? It's certainly not outside the realm of discussion, but these issues need more thoughtful consideration than you have given them in your post.

   Posted by Evmonk at 10/08/2006 @ 9:58pm

5. Posted by FREIHEIT 10/08/2006 @ 10:01pm

   Oh no. UTCAREFUL is quite correct--we have no bearings when trying to intermix morals and cultures. Flapping in the breeze, smiling at evil, hoping for the best: this is our method for dealing with the complexities of other lands.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/08/2006 @ 10:35pm

6. Okay...not sure how any of these one sentence affirmations of a similarly vague post address any such "complexities." Also unclear how any of this relates to the post in question.

   Posted by Evmonk at 10/08/2006 @ 11:23pm

7. Posted by EVMONK 10/08/2006 @ 11:23pm

   Is the blog off topic again?

   (kicks blog, smacks it on the side three times).

   There...it jumps track sometimes....should be ok now.

   Eric

   Posted by Malcontent at 10/08/2006 @ 11:46pm

8. EVMONK:

   Good points. I need to clarify.

   You say: "I've yet to speak with anyone who defends murder, rape, or even less extreme forms of repression in other societies as "just their culture." I think we all agree, absolutely, that these things are wrong."

   You are correct. We agree that these things are wrong. But it's HOW wrong they are that I'm concerned about. That is where the relativism creeps in.

   Here is an example of what I'm trying to say. Both the beheadings of civilians contractors in Iraq and the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib were morally bad things. Everyone agreed on that. But I don't think anyone can, with a straight face, argue that the American and European left got as indignant about the beheadings of civilian contractors in Iraq as it did about the Abu Ghraib abuses. How can someone justify the difference in the responses to these two events? I've heard several liberals address this point by arging that Americans must be held to a different moral standard than those doing the beheadings. Making morals more strict for Americans than for people beheading Americans justifies the asymmetry in the left's responses to Abu Ghraib and to civilian beheadings. This is cultural relativism (or, to be precise, moral relativism stating that morals are relative to culture).

   To be fair, I guess someone could also argue that the link between one's anger and one's belief that something is wrong is not perfect (e.g., I may think that human rights abuses in Iran are terrible, but I may get more angry at my friend for drinking all of my beer). But I don't think this frees the left from the relativism issue altogether, because the Bush/Hitler Bush/Saddam comparisons, which are fairly common, can only be made with relativism in mind. Hitler slaughtered six million people. Saddam finished in the neighborhood of one million. Bush, while he's done some bad stuff, hasn't done anything that remotely approaches these things. So there must be some disparate treatment built into the moral assessment to make these comparisons -- i.e., morals are relative to culutre.

   Posted by utcareful at 10/09/2006 @ 12:16am

9. Whenever journalists in the United States refuse to criticize this or any Presidential Administration for crimes against it's citizens because they are afraid of losing "favor" with that Administration, then let them remember Anna Politkovskaya - A Russian investigative journalist known for her prize-winning coverage of atrocities during the war in Chechnya. She was found murdered in her Moscow apartment. Then let them ask themselves what of their Courage to report the Truth?

   My heart chokes on the tears of her Bravery --- her Courage for Truth. While so-call "journalists" in this country tow the lines of political propaganda that spews the Politics of Power --- Shame on you! And the President who could not see the Darkness in Putin's soul.

   Posted by bohdan yuri at 10/09/2006 @ 12:22am

10. EVMONK, I think a lot of people on the left genuinely believe that encouraging the spread of democracy is intolerant of others' views and therefore shouldn't be done. This may just be a reflex reaction to the fact that spreading democracy is part of the "Bush Doctrine." You don't see it that way, but I think many do. Also, EVMONK, you're right that I'm arguing something almost totally irrelevant to the article. It's just that every time I read a liberal making moral judgments regarding another culture, I wonder about these things. Also, in your second paragraph, you indicate that you're a pacifist. Check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ for an interesting discussion of different positions on the moral justification for war.

    Posted by utcareful at 10/09/2006 @ 12:30am

11. UT,

    Its comming and I warned you.....

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2006 @ 12:34am

12. A BRAVE, COURAGEOUS WOMAN DIED --- HONOR HER COURAGE!!!

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 10/09/2006 @ 12:39am

13. EVMONK, I think a lot of people on the left genuinely believe that encouraging the spread of democracy is intolerant of others' views and therefore shouldn't be done.

    Posted by UTCAREFUL 10/09/2006 @ 12:30am

    the great liberal center is all for encouraging the spread of democracy.

    What the bush administration is doing in Iraq is a far cry from simple encouragement. Is our opposition to his methods the foundation for your thesis or do you have other support for your "belief"?

    or did you just make it up?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/09/2006 @ 12:49am

14. Posted by UTCAREFUL 10/09/2006 @ 12:16am

    " But I don't think anyone can, with a straight face, argue that the American and European left got as indignant about the beheadings of civilian contractors in Iraq as it did about the Abu Ghraib abuses. How can someone justify the difference in the responses to these two events?"

    Perhaps it is the knowledge they were done by our culture...in our names. When you say some barbarian in a far away land murdered an American journalist, you are saddened and reminded how dangerous the world can be.

    When someone, in your name, with your tax dollars, does something reprehensible, you are angered.

    Remember, WE are the ones who invaded a country, that DID NOT attack us.(Ignoring the lies about WMD's etc), we are now claiming to be helping spread our superior way of life' i.e. democracy. If we do not think our actions "morally superior", then what the hell are we doing there?

    If you beat your wife, I would hope she'd have you arrested. But, I'd not be all up in arms about it. If I beat my wife, I would be disgusted, every time I looked in the mirror.

    It's not holding yourself to a different standard. It's holding yourself to a higher standard. It's not "relative".(ok,ok, everything is relative.) It's personal.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/09/2006 @ 12:53am

15. "I think a lot of people on the left genuinely believe that encouraging the spread of democracy is intolerant of others' views and therefore shouldn't be done."

    "encouraging the spread" is different from "cramming down your throat (with extreme hypocracy and military force)"

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/09/2006 @ 12:57am

16. UT does not understand they have exited the plane of logic, reason, and intelligent discourse into the "pathological zone" of the left!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/09/2006 @ 12:51am

    the conservative crack up is a wonderful thing to behold

    Posted by Will C. at 10/09/2006 @ 01:05am

17. Yuri: Am I dishonoring her? Clearly, she was courageous, and her death was tragic. I was just off on a tangent.

    Posted by utcareful at 10/09/2006 @ 01:05am

18. While I'm still not sure how this relates to vanden Heuvel's post, I think you raise some valid criticisms of the left. This is a tough debate to be sure. I don't speak for the them here, but my own opinion is that the disproportionate attention put on Abu Gharib vs. the even more morally offensive beheadings is a reflection not of holding different cultures to different moral standards, but of holding ourselves accountable for actions that were shocking to the world. I don't see what we gain by focusing endlessly on atrocities committed by insurgents – beheadings have been reported quite prominently in the American and international press, and everyone finds them morally reprehensible. We could play these over endlessly, and use the images to justify the American use of torture, but I don't see how this would help us transcend the "eye for an eye" mentality that so consistently lures societies into indiscriminate and self-defeating violence. But that's the leftist in me speaking…

    In more matter-of-fact terms, Abu Gharib was simply a far more significant NEWS story than the beheadings, and was covered as such. We know that tactics of both terrorists and insurgents are gruesome and glorify the sacrifice of innocent life. What the world did not know, until Abu Gharib, was that the American military was actually emboldening and radicalizing not only its foes, but also its friends in Iraq. You don't need to go much further than Tom Ricks' "Fiasco" – which draws almost exclusively from interviews with military personnel and commanders on the ground in Iraq – to see that in the first years of the occupation, our military was doing a lot more harm than good in securing peace in that country. Abu Ghraib became a lightning rod for criticism of the broader US effort, and for good reason. And the civilian casualties we're responsible for in Iraq far outnumber the beheadings but get much less attention; is that because they are of less moral concern?

    So all this is to say that I think that, as Americans and human beings, we should hold ourselves to the highest possible standards of truth and morality – and do our very best to honestly evaluate the causes and consequences of our actions. And while I think that, ultimately, we should have universal standards that apply to all people, in the interim we're going to have to make hard decisions and realize that we have neither the power nor the legitimacy to enforce our worldview on other people.

    And to indulge in one more tangent, in my opinion the best way to lessen the urge towards culturally relativism is to create stronger international institutions which can collectively define and enforce universal standards of justice. Many voices from the right in this country are vehemently opposed to such a process of international consensus building, viewing it as a check on America's "exceptional" position in the world. This is a position that should be reevaluated.

    And by the way, I don't think it's fair to compare Bush to Saddam or Hitler - though I understand why the world views Bush's negative impact on the world as greater than Saddam's. That's another discussion though.

    Posted by Evmonk at 10/09/2006 @ 01:13am

19. I got a little behind here while typing, but that last post was in response to UTCAREFUL's response to my first post.

    Also, UT, in response to your comment on my pacifism: I tried (unsuccessfully) to make a distinction between the actions in war and the outcomes of war -- I think that there are cases where the human suffering and misery prevented in the long-term through war outweigh the short-term violations of human dignity inherent in war. But that is always tough to evaluate from the present. Ultimately, I think we need to be ever aware of how terrible war is not just for soldiers, but for civilians, and realize that we often exacerbate problems by trying to solve them through violence. I would not discount outright the possibility that a war could have long-term benefits (WWII is an oft-cited example), though I am admittedly skeptical. Sometimes, it's not our choice to make (again, see WWII) -- and once war has begun, we no longer have the luxery of contemplating the value of conflict.

    Thanks for the link though UT, I will read that in the morning. I'm off to bed now, adios all.

    Posted by Evmonk at 10/09/2006 @ 01:24am

20. EVMONK: Great points, and I wish I had time to keep this going. MALCONTENT and WILL C.: I agree that war is not a good way to spread democracy. My point is about ANY spread of democracy. I think some people regard ANY spread of democracy, even by peaceful means, as intolerant of others' views and therefore wrong (saying things like "who are WE to decide that democracy is best?"). And MALCONTENT, I address your point about the link between anger and morality in one of my posts above.

    Posted by utcareful at 10/09/2006 @ 01:34am

21. I think some people regard ANY spread of democracy, even by peaceful means, as intolerant of others' views and therefore wrong (saying things like "who are WE to decide that democracy is best?").

    Posted by UTCAREFUL 10/09/2006 @ 01:34am

    That's a interesting idea, but you have yet to back it up with any substance.

    and you're really in the wrong place to make faith based assertions

    Posted by Will C. at 10/09/2006 @ 01:41am

22. WILL C.: Just for you, I'll be sure to carry a tape recorder next time I argue this with someone.

    Posted by utcareful at 10/09/2006 @ 01:45am

23. WILL C.: Just for you, I'll be sure to carry a tape recorder next time I argue this with someone.

    Posted by UTCAREFUL 10/09/2006 @ 01:45am

    so what you're saying is that you had a couple converstions and from that alone you created this broad characterization of the "left"?

    yet without a transcript of those converstions, we have know way of determining that you even drew coherent conclusions from them.

    I'll tell you what, just for me, the next time you want to group me into something that hasn't risen to a level beyond figment of your imagination... bring your imagination along.

    That way maybe I can glean some perspective on at least one half of the conversation.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/09/2006 @ 01:59am

24. WILL C.: It looks from what everyone is posting here that I may be wrong on that point. I say that because not only do the people on this thread not think that, they seem to not think that the position even really exists. And you guys are certainly in a better position to gauge liberal opinion than I am. I know I've heard it in casual conversation, but apparently those people I heard it from are aberrant. If you guys think that liberals generally agree that democracy is the best form of government, and that we should encourage non-democracies to become democracies, then I'm probably wrong to disagree with you.

    Posted by utcareful at 10/09/2006 @ 02:23am

25. Will C and UT: Not sure this is going in a productive direction (though I enjoyed the tape recorder comment!). But I think it's fair to say (even without written proof) that there are those on the left (and the right...and the center...and everywhere) who at least entertain the possibility that democracy MAY not be the ideal form of government for everyone in the world. While I think democracy is clearly the best form of government we've encountered, an even more widespread and interesting argument is that some societies are not "ready" for democracy. While this can be used in a disparaging way, I think those who argue it from an intellectually honest perspective point to a number of institutional preconditions for democracy. More to the point, a functioning democracy is about far more than just elections -- you need institutions that protect freedom of the press and the ability to voice dissent, open channels to create and disseminate information, basic services (water, food, health), and all of these sorts of things – without them the outcomes of elections are skewed in ways that can be counterproductive to long-term democratization.

    In many ways, America is not a well-functioning democracy – just look at our voting participation rates and the ridiculousness of television "news." But we're still a lot further along than, say, Palestine. Again, this isn't to say that democracy in Palestine is invalid; only that there are complex issues at play when you talk about exporting democracy. Public opinion from around the world demonstrates overwhelmingly that the people in countries with authoritarian rule believe in and want democracy; this is not in question. What does need much more thought are the ways in which we help to align people's desires with their political systems

    Posted by Evmonk at 10/09/2006 @ 02:36am

26. You're right; we strayed a bit. Here, as I see it, is how this discussion has proceeded (along with my thoughts at the end):

    The original discussion was about relativism. I gave a few examples of what I thought were relativist ideas on the left. One was that we should "tolerate" other countries' governments by not exporting democracy to them. Criticism then came to the effect that "export" was the wrong term to describe forcing democracy on people with force. I clarified, saying that the objection was to ANY spreading of democracy. WILL C. then said liberals don't believe this, and I conceded that I may not know enough to really judge liberal opinion. EVMONK's last post pointed to the complex nature of democracy and the potential difficulties in implementing it around the world.

    I agree with EVMONK, and I think that this points to a very important issue regarding the original idea of the discussion. Forms of government must be tailored to specific situations, and while spreading democracy is generally good, governments are still specific to times, places, and cultures in a way that any prudent person must acknowledge. This places limits on the expansion of democracy because some cultures can't handle full-fledged democracy right now. And the kinds of democracies implemented must be tailored to specific circumstances. Therefore, there MUST BE a middle ground between total relativism and the position that every country should be a full-fledged democracy right now. Likewise, I think that with respect to ethics more generally, there IS a middle ground between being 100% moral relativist and 100% moral absolutist (one that my previous posts failed to acknowledge). For example, rape is morally wrong in every culture, but gluttony, while morally repugnant to some cultures, is embraced by others. "Virtue ethicists" are doing work in this field right now, trying to separate the moral universals from the idiosyncracies of culture, and seeking natural (often evolutionary) explanations for the universals.

    It's late. I'm delirious. Thanks to all of you for a good discussion.

    Posted by utcareful at 10/09/2006 @ 04:19am

27. By all accounts Anna Politkovskaya was a courageous journalist who uncompromisingly reported the truth at the risk of her own life. In other words, she was everything that spineless cowardly media geishas like The Nation is not.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 10/09/2006 @ 09:39am

28. Posted by ALANSMITHEE 10/09/2006 @ 09:39am

    Correct me if I'm wrong, ALAN...but you're NOT a conservative/right-winger, right?

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2006 @ 09:45am

29. UT,

    If you read the blog here long enough you will see your points of positon come into SOLID existance. It is now being soflty thrown in your face with "What? Not me..prove it first, and what do you know about the left, or we are not left, we are the great middle..." arguements, but you will see the position you so clearly layed out begin to appear as the structure of thought here...

    To see your place here, if you are a conservative(I don't know what you are) you must first know where you are sitting, and a few, ah, premise must be understood..

    1. Will, Zero, and most others believe, with a straight face, that they represent the "great liberal middle" of American spectrum..despite the obvious, the great middle view them as the far left, indeed, even this blog site is cited as the kook left. This will become evident in a short time should you continue read here.

    2. After a while you will note all life centers arounds the hatred of Bush, which evolves into anything conservative is flawed....kind of a Michael Savage is reverse.

    3. This hatred and the absolute desperation regarding the world and America will come down to America is bad and it is Bush fault..if only Bush were not president then we could be at peace and Iraq would be happy once again with Saddam.

    4. Castro has done nothing wrong and the Cubans have great health care.

    5. God is dead.

    6.Both 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. None will support Hillary when she is their nominee.

    7. If Repubs win 06 and/or 08 elections, they too, will have been stolen.

    8. The economy has never been worse, despite the number and proof they demand everywhere empirically, state otherwise.

    9. Captalism is a death sentence for the worlds poor and Walmart is Satan.

    10. If you want to keep what you earn, you are then part of the problem in America. The government should be providing everything to you, from needs to luxurys..free. If you are rich, you stole it from the rest of "us".

    11. The economic pie is static,a zero sum game, does not grow, just inflates, and if you work hard and receive a bigger slice(regardless of your efforts) than those who can't, won't or do not want to, then you stole some else piece of pie and you are greedy. The pie is only so big it inflates but does not grow. The economy is only good if dems in power

    UT, this should be your starting point to understand the responses you will be receiving if your wander(and wonder) through this site.

    Oh, yeah, one more...Bush lied...this is accepted as fact here and all else, every thread, no matter what is posted or written here will circle around back to this premise....this is the focal point of orbit here.

    If you anger many here, then you will be on ignore list and your spelling will be attacked.

    You will also find some solid, well thought out and reasonalbe positions here from many(see Johannes, ILP,Mask,New Dawnat times, and others,hman), but many fall into the other side..emotional rants.

    Good luck. And watch the shells come my way now....

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2006 @ 10:05am

30. When I first heard about Anna Politkovskaya, I thought: No way she's a Russian, who is defending the Chechens. After all, most Russians, from ordinary citizens all the way to the top leadership, hate Chechens and the other peoples of the Caucasus whom they call "black asses" and worse. So I was hardly surprised to learn that Anna was Ukrainian and her maiden name was Mazepa.

    Posted by Marta Olynyk at 10/09/2006 @ 10:12am

31. Ahh, John, just make up what you want us to believe and let us know.

    I guess you did.

    Can you say with a straight face that you have ANY respect for any lefty program that has lifted people up? Can you with a straight face say that the repubes in congress care more about the country as a whole than retaining power and getting their experiments online?

    I find your assumptions to be off base, shallow, wrong and myopic.

    consider yourself shelled, albeit lightly.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/09/2006 @ 10:50am

32. Oh, yeah, one more...Bush lied...this is accepted as fact here and all else, --MAASCH the Libertariana that uses airports, roads, publicly funded wi-fi sites, publicly funded airport security )

    as you brought it up, are you saying that Chimpy NEVER EVER EVER lied? Ever?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/09/2006 @ 10:55am

33. SLAVA UKRAINA!

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 10/09/2006 @ 10:57am

34. I don't recall ever having met a lib that thought the spread of democracy was inherently wrong. Ever. We may argue techinique, stategery, or method. But never have i heard the claim that you make, UT. Just my experience.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/09/2006 @ 11:05am

35. Crab,

    yes I can name programs the leftys have set up that are good and I also think the current batch of repubs have lost their conservative ways...and I have posted this here ad nauseum.

    And yes the repubs care about holding power, as did the dems for 40 years...or did you miss this?

    They ALL want to hold power forever..why do you think the dems worry and promise the american blacks everything around election time, but never deliver? Are you blind to the dems grope for power or do you only have repub glasses on? TRY to see both sides...

    At any rate, my warning to UT stands and that is the point of the post...as you are beginning to fulfill the prophecy..

    Haven't you ever read this from me before(this is a test)?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2006 @ 11:13am

36. MAASCH:

    This is my first experience commenting on this site (or any site really), so I have no idea whether your representation of the people here is valid. However, I do know that if you caricature people's beliefs, you'll often incite a caricatured response. Your post exhibited almost no desire to learn more about what people who think differently from you believe, and why – so my guess is that you may be shutting down debate when you think you are provoking it.

    If you want a more nuanced discussion of, for instance, capitalism and zero-sum games – you're going to have to start it. You can't just say, "all leftists love Castro, hate God, and believe capitalism is the scourge of the world." (By the way, you should check out Bob Wrights "Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny" – a book which directly contradicts nearly all of your points from a deeply progressive point of view.)

    While I'd love to go into each of your points in more detail, I must be off to work – but I am interested if you think there is any room for debate here? Or all we all stuck in our ways? I think you'd be fascinated by the depth of thought that goes into the issues you raise by people who want to discover the (ever-shifting) truth, whether it falls in the left, center, right, or somewhere else altogether. Many of them, I'm sure, read The Nation - even if they don't consider themselves from the left.

    As I said, I'm not sure if any of them comment on this site, but I did very much appreciate UT's willingness to engage in a discussion that clearly went beyond the stereotypical dialogue you seem to expect in left vs. right.

    Posted by Evmonk at 10/09/2006 @ 11:18am

37. UT,

    Frankly Maasch is being too diplomatic. We're much worse than he suggests.

    Generally, we are extremely enraged. We are enraged because the country that we deeply care about has been sent in the wrong and a decidedly disastourous direction by George W. Bush.

    Most importantly to some of us here is that GWB has shown a very weak hand to the terrorists. That is, he has shown them that if they attack us, we will dispose of 220 years of Constitutional Law. Our President has shown the terrorists that their attacks and the continued threat of their attacks is enough for the President to blatantly and without apology break the law (repeatedly).

    We want terrorists hunted and killed. There are laws that can and have been changed in order to more effectively reach that goal. There is no need to lose sight of our own constitution and there is no excuse for not being "bothered" about Osama Bin Laden.

    So, yes, as Maasch says we're "fringe" and we obviously want something he doesn't.

    Full Disclosure: I hate GW Bush.

    Posted by freedomplease at 10/09/2006 @ 11:22am

38. KVH and the rest of you lunatic liberals could learn a lot from this unfortunate situation, because if you morons had your way, we'd be living under a communist dictatorship and the entire liberal MSM would be living in fear constantly! Once again, you fools just don't get it!

    Posted by barry25 at 10/09/2006 @ 11:27am

39. "Your post exhibited almost no desire to learn more about what people who think differently from you believe, and why – so my guess is that you may be shutting down debate when you think you are provoking it. '

    If I was a new comer to this site you would be correct...however, I have come to my conclusion from experience here...you may or may not find a similar experience..

    Freedom has shown you his hand...Iraq is the the center of all measures and terrorism is a law enforement issue for him(with all th joy lawyers bring to the debate while billing YOU for the hours) and for me it is a military issue..another point of contention..as they cut off your head he wants you to follow rules of questioning..for a non American killer...who uses your rights against you...as a case in point.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2006 @ 11:33am

40. And he hates Bush...#2 fulfilled

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2006 @ 11:34am

41. Newsflash! We have not lost sight of our constitution! The left has lost sight of reality, though! Which is typical and expected every time they lose power! If they aren't in power, they will eat their own ( America ) in order to get it back, and that, my friends, is despicable!

    Posted by barry25 at 10/09/2006 @ 11:34am

42. BARRY25: Are you a real person? I'm being serious. Why even post if that is all you are going to add?

    MAASCH: I fear you are correct about the level of debate here, but the stereotypes and disregard for any attempt at empathy seems to come from both sides (see Barry25 :)).

    Posted by Evmonk at 10/09/2006 @ 11:37am

43. EV,

    "You can't just say, "all leftists love Castro, hate God, and believe capitalism is the scourge of the world.""

    I did say all, I said all HER on this blog ....read carefully and watch was comes next.

    "capitalism and zero-sum games – you're going to have to start it. '

    Many of have and it spins off into working classes, stuggles and all the montras from the 40's....

    Give it time....wait.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2006 @ 11:37am

44. EV,,

    I am a terrible typist...

    should read

    "I didn't say all. I said all HERE..."

    sorry

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2006 @ 11:39am

45. EV,

    You don't know it yet, but you will soon find you are a hamster.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2006 @ 11:40am

46. or not.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2006 @ 11:42am

47. As a nation (especially as THE hegemonic nation) we will always have enemies. Sometimes our enemies will be well organized, well funded, well militarized and perhaps even have an alliance of like minded enemies allied in their desire to end the hegemony or even the existance of the United States of America.

    Today our enemy is a rag tag, underfunded, under resourced, and incredibly marginalized bunch of nutcases.

    To short circuit our own Constitutional principles because of this "threat" is cowardly and an insult to those generations who steadfastly stood by the principles of the Constitution when the nation faced much bigger threats.

    Posted by freedomplease at 10/09/2006 @ 11:47am

48. MAASCH: Haha...not sure I understand the hamster reference (is that something about their running perpetually in the same place on that silly wheel?). Anyway, if you are correct, then that is indeed a sad state of (internet) affairs.

    But even if you are right, I think your posts descend down to the level of those you criticize rather than attempting to raise us all up. Perhaps a futile, hamster-like exercise.

    I fear the debates going on in the halls of government aren't much better, either. Where must one go for real discussion and problem-solving? Cuba? Hahaha (joke).

    Posted by Evmonk at 10/09/2006 @ 11:52am

49. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/09/2006 @ 10:05am

    John, I think some of your points could have been condensed.

    1. Bush hatred...it's also the impetus to all the "stolen elections" stuff. Obviously a "idiot babbling faux cowboy moron" couldn't LEGITIMATELY win an election or inspire defeat in the 2002 Congressionals...so it had to be 'stolen' (even the 3 million + popular he had over Kerry).

    2. The "God is dead" thing I slightly disagree with. Actually the Left and Dems are kind of in a trap. The Hard Atheistic/Agnostic Left is afraid or dubious of anything that had "God" or "Christianity" in it because of the Religious Right's co-opting of it. The Christian Left tries not to be hypocritical, but like the Right, can't reconcile both the pacifism/socialistic aspects of Christianity AND the moral absolutes.

    3. The dishonesty of many on the Left about their socialist tendencies (and honoring of the last "workers' paradise" Cuba and its Glorious Leader) is a source of much consternation to me. I'd rather debate an honest socialist than these crypto-socialists who say "I'm not a socialist, I'm a progressive, and HEY what's wrong with socialism anyway?!?!" (thereby both denying and DEFENDING the ideology....Can you imagine some "neo-con" saying "I'm not a radical laissez-fairist, I'm a neo-conservative and HEY what's wrong with radical laissez-faire anyway?!?!?" and ANYBODY accepting that kind of silliness?)

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2006 @ 12:02pm

50. Mask,

    OK I can be corrected..But I am willing to confess 1 error in thre list

    God is dead is incorrect...the left does believe in a god, and it is the GOD of Social Engeneeing...so God is the government and their bible is Socialism, if only it were tried the right way.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2006 @ 12:24pm

51. Gotta go exploite the waitress class and eat lunch.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2006 @ 12:24pm

52. Posted by MASK 10/09/2006 @ 09:45am | ignore this person

    Actually, I'm a paid operative of Karl Rove. My assignment is to disrupt the terribly important writing on The Nation blog which, of course, it so terribly influential within the democratic party and read by practically everyone, it's so terribly important and influential. I thought you knew that.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 10/09/2006 @ 12:26pm

53. Posted by ALANSMITHEE 10/09/2006 @ 12:26am

    Dang it, Karl told me I was the only one working this beat!

    Here I go, sounding all "moderate-conservative Dem" pushing these Lefties to their extreme by posting things they don't like hearing like how Pelosi isn't going to impeach Bush...or they're still a minority within a minority...and I'm undercut on the job!!!

    I even think we have some OTHER competition here...like the real looney-tunes (obviously Rove plants) who post the C&Ps from "Wayne Madsen" (GOP Operative #34) on various "Jesuit/Jewish bankers/Israel Conspiracies" so that the Dems split their pro- and anti-Israel and Catholic voters.

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2006 @ 12:58pm

54. The dishonesty of many on the Left about their socialist tendencies (and honoring of the last "workers' paradise" Cuba and its Glorious Leader) is a source of much consternation to me. I'd rather debate an honest socialist than these crypto-socialists who say "I'm not a socialist, I'm a progressive, and HEY what's wrong with socialism anyway?!?!" (thereby both denying and DEFENDING the ideology . .

    Posted by MASK 10/09/2006 @ 12:02am

    MASK, if a "Leftist" honors Cuba as the last "workers' paradise" how are they being "dishonest"? Do you mean that they're really anti-Cuba or anti-Castro? Or, WTF do you mean?

    Also, where in the socialist or communist "ideology" that you refer to- lets say the "leftist" spectrum from Karl Marx to the British Labor Party- is a "Glorius Leader" specified?

    Last of all, are you able to provide the slightest evidence of a "Leftist" on this blog "honoring" Fidel Castro?

    Are you enunciating things you don't really believe or are you really ignorant and confused? It has to be one or the other.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/09/2006 @ 1:03pm

55. Off Topic:

    Does everyone remember Paul Wolfowitz saying that the Iraq reconstruction will cost American taxpayers $1.7B.

    Now, does everyone (except Congress) remember that Paul Bremmer "lost" $8B.

    If we only needed $1.7B how the hell can you lose $8B????

    Posted by freedomplease at 10/09/2006 @ 1:20pm

56. Off Topic:

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 10/09/2006 @ 1:20pm

    Off topic? What's the topic anyway. EV and UT arrived and determined it was moral relativism, a topic that I thought was beaten to death long ago. MAASCH apparently (he's invisible to me except when Norton does its cleaning of my system and removes people from my ignore pen) decided to restate his well-researched facts about liberals. And MASK is being MASK.

    And the topic? It was already a thread in The Notion. So what are we to do here. Okay, I'll repost my post from the other thread:

    "I feel so naive sometimes. Why is it so hard for people to do the right thing? Why do people develop such corrupt systems that it reaches the point where the only defense against those who report what you do is murder? Just unimaginable, as if the response, "you're right--we can and should stop what we're doing and start doing better", is an impossibility. Across the board so much of what we are seeing is incompetence enmeshed with self-interest and cruelty, without a scintilla of respect for humanity. Fight them and die or buckle under their idiotic torture and survive to watch them grow fat and happy.

    "Sickening. I don't care what country we're talking about, democracy is clearly not the end-all as a system to ensure what is best for the citizenry, too easily is it manipulated. We need to make certain that campaign slogans are monitored for accuracy. Toss out any garbage referring to Freedom, Values, Justice, etc. and start telling it like it is: "If you're not Christian, you'll have no say in my government", "If you're gay, keep 'it' to yourself", "If you're poor, suck it up and stop wasting our tax dollars", "If you've got a problem, I've got a one-way ticket to Syria for you", "If you fight me, I'll shoot you down"."

    Mind you, the response I received for this post--made when I had yet to taste a drop of coffee--was that I was, indeed, naive. So perhaps my naivety can be the next topic...

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/09/2006 @ 1:33pm

57. This wonderful lady spoke volumes for her country, a country she certainly loved even in death. Our mainstream media in the US has no such hero.

    Posted by Pats at 10/09/2006 @ 1:41pm

58. Well, I guess it is good to not be a part of MAASCH's feared left. As I look at the list I see many things that do not apply to me in particular, and most of the lefties at this site:

    4. Castro has done nothing wrong and the Cubans have great health care.- I certainly have never ascribed to any idea that Castro is good. maybe in his regard for the enviroment of Cuba the island. Thats about it. I find it very amusing that MAASCh, LUVDESPOTS etc will deride Castro, but defend and do business with China. compared to china, Castro is a flea. We have a trade embargo against Cuba, and give China Most Favored Nation status. Both are communist. both jail and kill dissenters. China is a nuclear power that gives support to N. Korea. The difference is China has a massive cheap labor pool. I would call that a liitle "moral relativism"

    5. God is dead= this assumes there is a God. Prove the existence and we can talk about Her influence on guvt policy. Or even more realistic, give me ONE coherent, cohesive religious philosophy that we can follow as a nation. As Christians can't agree with Christians, jews with jews and Muslims with Muslims, why should we let them dictate our policy?

    6.Both 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. None will support Hillary when she is their nominee.- So?

    8. The economy has never been worse, despite the number and proof they demand everywhere empirically, state otherwise.- Again, I know of nobody here that posits that the economy has never been worse. I can think of many that think the pie should be split more efficiently and equitably, that we are seeing a rise in the split btween those that have more than they need, and those that are not making it. A rise that had been static for a while.

    9. Captalism is a death sentence for the worlds poor and Walmart is Satan.- I myself will defend capitalism, I am a capitalist. As in most of the dribble you print, it is not an "either or" situation. Capitalism is not inherently bad. Capitalism run amock is. That would be Mal-Wart, where 3 of the richest Americans pay the lowest wages, depend on social services to care for their employees and drive down factory wages worldwide. Without some form of capitalism the poor will not rise out of poverty. Can governments help? you bet. Are they the sole solution? Nope.

    just some of your grand, all encompassing views of "The Left" that are just incorrect, or do not apply to what I read here.

    Now, if you wish to discuss "moral relativism" we can talk more about your support for "the good business practices" of the Chinese guvt. Including zero politcal freedoms, rampant corruption, willingnees to poison its populace and ability to ovelook the vast pirating of US goods. And you do happy fun business with them.

    or the coddling of Saddam hussein during the Iran/Iraq war. The ability to overlook his gassing of the Kurds for 20 years. Or the flacid respone to ongoing genocide in Sudan, while we are bogged down in Iraq, a non-threat, were the genocide practiced by Saddam had been brought to a near halt.

    Or the covering up the icky emails of Foley for political gain, while railing against the moral relativism of the left.

    Does the left have all the answers? NO way. Are there people on the left that are wacky and weird? you bet. Will the dems do much different if they gain power again. I doubt it. And I will be there to poke them in the eye. But right now, the rightwing of the repube party hold all the strings. They have made the bed.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/09/2006 @ 4:03pm

59. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/09/2006 @ 1:03pm

    You're right, FRB....there isn't a person here who would say ANYTHING nice about Castro and Cuba...and I couldn't find a single one who did.

    We ALL agree Castro is a petty thug of a dictator and Cuba is a crap-hole because of its socialist ideology.

    Now....NOBODY better disagree with that statement...and prove me wrong!

    (BTW, they're dishonest about being socialists. OF COURSE a "out-of-the-closet" leftist can honestly support Castro's Cuba. Too bad, AS YOU SAID, there are none that do that!)

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2006 @ 4:08pm

60. As to the original idea that the Abu Graib/cooked mercenaries situation points to such a "cultural relativism": I was outraged, disgusted and mortified by what i saw hanging from that bridge. it showed a barabrian society that has no place in the 21st century. Was there someone i should have written to to complain? Could I call up the representative to the insurgent group to express my absolute condemnation of the acts? Would they listen?

    The response from the US government was to flatten Falujah, driving hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes. That city still has not recovered.

    The Abu Graib debacle was done by US citiizens, with American flags on their uniforms, with US taxpayer money. It violated our laws, the international laws put in place after WW2 and was disgusting. Had the photos never become public, nothing would have been done about it. Once they were public knowledge it is totally within my right, and I would say my responsibility, to write congress, call the pres and write letters to the editors of papers telling them that that kind of behavior is unacceptable. if we as Americans allow atrocities to be committed in our name, then we are the same as The Enemy. We have a system set up to deal with such abuses, the Enemy does not.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/09/2006 @ 4:17pm

61. This story really does get at what a "hero" is. Our culture has cheapened this word so much that when an honest-to-goodness hero is given the headlines she deserves, our guys and gals who are fighting for lord-knows-what are put into perspective. It also puts into perspective our current crop of reporters and journalists who barely maintain a straddle across the line separating the investigation of news stories from preening as entertainment personalities.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/09/2006 @ 4:53pm

62. B. Yuri,

    Thank you for your posts and trying to keep this thread on it's original topic.

    There are few investigative journalists in the US and Ms Politskovskaya, like the many journalist who have died doing similar good, should be praised for what she did. Praise of this type of journalism would encourage more journalists in this country to do the same. Anna got 15 seconds on CBS last night, while Jon Benet's suspected killer(now totally cleared of all charges) reaped his 426th minute of fame.

    This is the real problem. In America, the mainstream media is in the business of making money through sensationalism, not reporting news.

    I've read in today's news that Fareed Zacharia of Newsweek was summoned to the White house prior to the Iraq war to help the White house with their coverage. Embedding news reporters and bombing Al Jazeera stations in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't exactly encourage independent reporting.

    What touched me most about Ms Politskovskaya was that she was threatened and was very afraid of being killed - yet she persisted. This is courage.

    Thank you again Ms Politskovskaya.

    Posted by LarryB at 10/09/2006 @ 5:33pm

63. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/09/2006 @ 10:05am

    If you read the blog here long enough you will see your points of positon come into SOLID existance. It is now being soflty thrown in your face with "What? Not me..prove it first, and what do you know about the left, or we are not left, we are the great middle..." arguements, but you will see the position you so clearly layed out begin to appear as the structure of thought here...

    To see your place here, if you are a conservative(I don't know what you are) you must first know where you are sitting, and a few, ah, premise must be understood..

    Now John, I was going to stay out of this since UTCareful and EVMonk were going along very nicely, but then you had to go throwing around random generalizations of our little band of left-progressives again. So here come the rounds (imagine a heartly yell of "INCOMING!" at this point.)

    1. Will, Zero, and most others believe, with a straight face, that they represent the "great liberal middle" of American spectrum..despite the obvious, the great middle view them as the far left, indeed, even this blog site is cited as the kook left. This will become evident in a short time should you continue read here.

    Some of us do, and some don't, nor can you rightly claim that a real centrist like Zero isn't any different from a radical like me. There are plenty of both here on the left, just as there are on the right (it's not like I lump you in with Barry or Lvlibety, given that you can generally have a discussion without resorting to rant and name calling.) This sounds more like you think we're all just shy of Plunger (and a quick warning to UTCareful and EVMonk may be in order; avoid both Plunger and Rese as they really are left-wing kooks of the random conspiracy theory kind.) You know better John, so why even write this?

    2. After a while you will note all life centers arounds the hatred of Bush, which evolves into anything conservative is flawed....kind of a Michael Savage is reverse.

    Sorry John, but I hardly see the point in this one either. I, for one, don't hate G.W. personally (he's probably a nice enough guy in that frat-boy kind of way) but rather his administration's policies. This is, in case you've forgotten, essentially a political blog and policy matters relating to the current administration are a rather inevitable topic of discussion. Given that most of us think them a dismal failure and have given our reasons and evidence for thinking so (at extreme length, in my case) this hardly can be faulted as "blind hatred" (which is what you imply by the "Michael Savage in reverse" comment.) It is very specific and reasoned hatred of policies and ideas we find harmful and dangerous.

    3. This hatred and the absolute desperation regarding the world and America will come down to America is bad and it is Bush fault..if only Bush were not president then we could be at peace and Iraq would be happy once again with Saddam.

    Ahh, I was surprised that you waited this long to drag out this old canard, especially since we've all spent endless hours demolishing it for you. I think I can speak for every left-leaning poster here (and you all know I don't generally speak for others, so bear with me) when I say that the reason we post here and are such critics of BushCo policy is that we love this country dearly and would not see it harmed or degraded. And the Saddam line is beneath you. You already know well that I, at least, felt we should have dealt with Saddam back in 1991 when we had justification and support that would stand up under international law, but not later when both were gone. You really must learn that what you think you know of the left is not reality, but only what you want to believe of us.

    4. Castro has done nothing wrong and the Cubans have great health care.

    Once again, you've ventured into territory where your fantasies have overtaken your perception of reality. I have yet to see anyone here defend Castro as having "done nothing wrong", nor are any of us ever likely to. My position at least (and here I definately speak only for my self) is that while he (like many revolutionaries-become-leaders) has done some good for those he sees as his people (always meaning the group in whose name the revolution was waged) he has also done much harm. This is the typical course of revolutions, our own fortunately excepted (take a look at Joseph Ellis's Founding Brothers for an interesting take on why.) And yes, the Cubans do have great healthcare for an impovrished thrid-world country, and it's a pretty amazing testiment to the resiliance and industry of the Cuban people. Does that make everything Castro has ever done alright? Of course not, despite the implication that we support that view. You are wandering down the path of false equation of dissimilar ideas, John, a path we've warned you off of before.

    5. God is dead.

    So we're all Nietzscheites now? I'll give you that you amended this below, and you are right enough that religion is a problem for many on the left, even here. However, as usual, I'll go ahead and reveal my radicalism by saying I am an atheist and have been most of my life (thus no dead gods running around my world-view.) Does it affect my politics? You better believe it, since I take a purely naturalistic, evidence-based view of everything as a result. Is it typical of left-leaning posters here? I rather doubt it, since true atheists like me are still a small minority everywhere.

    6.Both 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. None will support Hillary when she is their nominee.

    Both mostly true for me, and we have debated the evidence for the first contention on this forum endlessly. We disagree on this point as always, but that does not make your current point any firmer. I and many others have offered evidence here, but you have never refuted it with anything like a convincing argument. As I have also made plain before, I wouldn't accept these elections as legitimate no matter who won, not being either a Democrat or a Republican but holding all parties up to the clear light of scrutiny. As far as Hillary goes, I'll oppose her adamantly right up to the point when I have to make a choice between her and someone I will probably like even less (because the chances of the Republicans nominating someone I like more are pretty slim) and then holding my nose and voting for her as the lesser of two mediocrities.

    7. If Repubs win 06 and/or 08 elections, they too, will have been stolen.

    That would depend on the evidence. You insist on attributing to ideology what is actually based on observed evidence, and thus can make statements like this with no evidence whatsoever (because if you can attribute our positions strictly to ideology that means you can base yours on it too.) When I actually make a statement like that without evidence to back it up, then you can shout it from the mountaintops. Until then, you might want to take an old aphorism from Lincoln to heart: "The hen is the wisest of birds, because she never cackles until the egg is laid."

    8. The economy has never been worse, despite the number and proof they demand everywhere empirically, state otherwise.

    Again, hyperbole in the service of usupportable canards (we keep warning you away from these John, but you just can't resist can you?) As more than one of us has pointed out, the economy is both good and bad depending upon where in it you stand. We know the numbers, but the carefully selected ones you and others have cited before and favor so much do not tell the whole story (the current "low" unemployment rate being a case in point, since it may appear low by the offical count but is not reflected in overall payroll numbers, thus makig it plain that the unemployment figure is not actually counting all the unemployed.) This is often your method John, and why so many of us come after your arguments, because you are too selective in the evidence you cite and refuse to see anything that doesn't agree with your position.

    9. Captalism is a death sentence for the worlds poor and Walmart is Satan.

    And of course you had to throw in the "the left hates capitalism" canard too. This is another of those points that we've disproved repeatedly, but you cling to it because you can't conceive of any economic model beyond absolute laisse-faire capitalism as being anything othe than the dreaded "socialism". It only points up your dichotomous view of the world and the points that EVMonk has been making to UTCareful that the real world is more complicated than that and requires a certain subtlety and nuance to come to real solutions rather than an obstinant refusal to compromise and seek practical and effective answers.

    10. If you want to keep what you earn, you are then part of the problem in America. The government should be providing everything to you, from needs to luxurys..free. If you are rich, you stole it from the rest of "us".

    The "the left hates you if you're rich" argument. Once again, a dichotomy that assumes all kinds of underlying ideology that most of us don't actually espouse. You take the extreme libertarian view that everyone earns what they have entirely by their own efforts, a demonstrably false assumption, as we've shown you before. Given that assumption you believe that all of us who advocate for some more equitable system of distributing wealth and benefit in society must be "socialists" or "communists" and hate those who have wealth, and obviously want everything for free. The problem is that that does not represent even a shadow of the economic ideas many of us have laid out here, from the very moderate proposals to raise the minimum wage to my own much more radical proposals for a UBI. It falls back on the simplistic once again, in a situation that requires far more nuance than you have ever shown on economic questions of any kind.

    11. The economic pie is static,a zero sum game, does not grow, just inflates, and if you work hard and receive a bigger slice(regardless of your efforts) than those who can't, won't or do not want to, then you stole some else piece of pie and you are greedy. The pie is only so big it inflates but does not grow. The economy is only good if dems in power

    This is just an extension of you point 10 above, and no better argued. Once again you try to attribute to "the left" a blanket ideology that does not represent most of our ideas on a complex and nuanced situation. Some elements of the economy are governed zero-sum games and can be shown to be by evidence (many kinds of physial resources fall into this catagory since they are demonstrably finite) while other elements can clearly be shown not to be so (again based on evidence.) But once again, you let ideology trump evidence in every economic argument I've ever seen you make here, despite the attempts by many of us to get you to look at something outside of your libertarian bubble.

    UT, this should be your starting point to understand the responses you will be receiving if your wander(and wonder) through this site.

    Well, at least our responses to John will give you an idea that, just maybe, he's not quite as correct as he likes to think about opinion and ideology on "the left". But, as John will prove to you over time, that's generally true of him in every other case as well. It is John who substitutes ideology for evidence and won't give it up no matter what.

    Oh, yeah, one more...Bush lied...this is accepted as fact here and all else, every thread, no matter what is posted or written here will circle around back to this premise....this is the focal point of orbit here.

    A case in point. We've shown John the evidence (at length) for BushCo duplicity, but he just can't admit when he's wrong. His world view cannot accept that the current administration has lied to him (since he likes many of their policies) so he simply does not accept any evidence that would lead to that conclusion. Because his own world-view is absolutely governed by ideology he must attribute the same to the rest of us.

    If you anger many here, then you will be on ignore list and your spelling will be attacked.

    Speak for yourself, John. I only have the absolute nut-cases on ignore (Rese, Plunger, Loonylefties, and until recently Barry25) and have never attacked someone's spelling (on the "those who live in glass houses" principle.)

    You will also find some solid, well thought out and reasonalbe positions here from many(see Johannes, ILP,Mask,New Dawnat times, and others,hman), but many fall into the other side..emotional rants.

    Why John, no mention of lttle ol' me? Tired of having your arguments torn to shreds by the application of evidence and reasoned debate? I'm crushed (and if you believe that, I've got this little piece of land about a mile south of Key West I'd like to interest you in...)

    Good luck. And watch the shells come my way now....

    And so they have. You do make yourself such a target though, how can I refuse?

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/09/2006 @ 7:42pm

64. Sorry to all for the long (even for me) post on John's little exercise in stereotyping, but I couldn't just let him walk on that without challenge. It required answer point by point, I think, given that it represented exactly none of us.

    As for the original purpose of the thread, Anya Politskovskaya represented the best of what we can become as humans. True courage in speaking truth to power is rare these days, but she reminded us all that it is not extinct, nor will be even with her death. Fortunately, her work is now a part of the fabric of our history, a testimate to the good that was done in our time and the good that we may yet do.

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/09/2006 @ 7:51pm

65. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/09/2006 @ 1:03pm

    You're right, FRB....there isn't a person here who would say ANYTHING nice about Castro and Cuba...and I couldn't find a single one who did.

    We ALL agree Castro is a petty thug of a dictator and Cuba is a crap-hole because of its socialist ideology.

    Now....NOBODY better disagree with that statement...and prove me wrong!

    (BTW, they're dishonest about being socialists. OF COURSE a "out-of-the-closet" leftist can honestly support Castro's Cuba. Too bad, AS YOU SAID, there are none that do that!)

    Posted by MASK 10/09/2006 @ 4:08pm

    MASK, are trying to make your original comments seem less dumb by posting dumber comments?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/09/2006 @ 7:52pm

66. One more little aside, but a somewhat funnier one...

    Barry, I'm still waiting for your study on homosexuality and pedophilia. Did I scare you off by predicting that it would be Reisman's work? You promised me a "spanking" but you still haven't delivered, even though I took you off ignore to see if you could actually make a real argument for once. Come on man, give it a try, it won't hurt...much.

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/09/2006 @ 7:55pm

67. Posted by STWRILEY 10/09/2006 @ 7:55pm

    I heard the INS raided Barrys Burger Hut, leaving his mngr short staffed, He has been pulling extra shifts. give him time to get in touch with Msr's Perkins and Dobson so he knows what to recite. But really, expecting BARRY to come up with a reasoned response is like waiting for the Easter Bunny eggs to produce more bunnies.

    But a spanking and a nap sound good right about now.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/09/2006 @ 8:12pm

68. Posted by STWRILEY 10/09/2006 @ 7:42pm

    Excellent post.(As usual).

    (Fine. Leave me with nothing substansive to add.) ;)

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/09/2006 @ 9:16pm

69. .."but then you had to go throwing around random generalizations of our little band of left-progressives again."

    The prophecies have all come true in the middle of denials...

    see..Posted by CRABWALK 10/09/2006 @ 4:03pm

    Striwley,

    Thanks for the response, while I disagree whole heartedly and feel you also proved my point , you did spell correctly...and quite honestly, I do and will welcome you into the latter group of those who are not sterotypical of the describtion generalize by me in the above post.

    But if you exclude yourself and read the posts around me..you will see that my "predicted response" have come true...Crab alone verified my point....

    I will admit most here have me on ignore list, so some of the more colorful retorts may be missed. I expect ridicule here but you,stwriley were gentle.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2006 @ 9:48pm

70. BTW,

    "Tired of having your arguments torn to shreds by the application of evidence and reasoned debate? "

    It is always those who make points that they alone believe in that declare victory against those who simplely say, ah, no...I disagree...so, I say, n ot, I disagree and am still waiting for the "tearing to shreds"....

    And,... " think, given that it represented exactly none of us. .."

    ..this is true..from YOUR ,....point of view, but from many others...it epitomizes the left for years..and years to come.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2006 @ 9:52pm

71. "Tired of having your arguments torn to shreds by the application of evidence and reasoned debate? "

    "It is always those who make points that they alone believe in that declare victory against those who simplely say, ah, no...I disagree...so, I say, n ot, I disagree and am still waiting for the "tearing to shreds"...."

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/09/2006 @ 9:52pm

    Uh, should we take that as a yes?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/09/2006 @ 10:27pm

72. Posted by MALCONTENT 10/09/2006 @ 10:27pm

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 10/09/2006 @ 10:29pm

73. "You already know well that I, at least, felt we should have dealt with Saddam back in 1991 when we had justification and support that would stand up under international law, but not later when both were gone."

    WT I think one could go through and pick out the doubtful claims in a few of your responses but here is one for starters. This is what GH "says" about "when we had.......support" :

    "I don't believe in mission creep," he continued. "Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours -- and then what?

    "Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world?

    "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho?" he asked. "We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

    So much for "support" aka "no allies at our side". (Ditto for "International Law on our side..")

    Why do we partisans all have to be "liars" when the truth doesn't suit our polemical purposes? (Or do you know better than the advice GH had?) You contribute with more authority and panache than anyone else on this forum but why can't you be fairdinkum? Is your cause so weak you need to play around with the facts? Or is the whole thing a political game just to be enjoyed at that level? If so spare us the crocodile tears for "my poor nation".

    Some of you anti-Bush blokes make GW look like that worthy pilgrim, Mr. Valiant for Truth.

    http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/a19990303bush.htm

    Posted by lrjones4 at 10/09/2006 @ 10:56pm

74. That is business as usual in Russia. Russia has a rich history of executions. As long as Russian society does nothing or very little in reply to such actions then this behavior persists. Any society that does not offer much of an indignant reply to cold-blooded executions of the most conscientious amongst them will become infested with criminal networks - a society of criminals and slaves (slavs).

    Posted by John_A at 10/09/2006 @ 10:59pm

75. Posted by LRJONES4 10/09/2006 @ 10:56pm

    Huh?

    The only thing I can discern from this post is that you have a lot of people whom you refer to only by initials swimming around in your head. I think they might be doing damage to your brain. Try holding your nose and blowing them out your ears.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/09/2006 @ 11:17pm

76. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/09/2006 @ 9:48pm

    Well john, help out the intelectually challenged then, please explain how I fulfilled your prophecy. While I may not have the savvy of STWRILEY, I just don't see where i made any of your points. You made gross generalizations that don't apply to many, if any, here. I really think you are still fighting the fight of the 50's and 60's, against a left, that if it still exists, includes a very small number of people.

    so, if my response is not up to par please answer:

    1: Who here coddles Castro?

    2: Who here hates capitalism?

    3: Please show positive benefit from Chimpies reign, something that has panned out good and can be shown to have been a direct effect of a bush policy. And remember , for every economist you can produce that says economic stimulus has been because of tax cuts, I can produce one that says yours is wrong. Something solid, like peace in Iraq.

    4: With all the evidence available, do you truly believe that elections have been conducted in a fair and open manner the last four years? Do you not find it strange that in two battle ground states the Sec of States were both heads of republican election committees? Or that paper trails are no longer a requirement of polling sites? Or that the manufacturers of voting machines cannot guarantee their security?

    5: Do you find moral clarity in Reagan's support for Hussein?

    6: Supply an instance were someone has "stolen" your income. Do you have taxation without representation?

    7: As I understand it you are quite the real estate magnate. Where do your buildings get sewer and water services? Private or public? Same with fire and police. Are you able to get a CO on a building without an inspection by a government agency? Or insurance without a CO or secure funding?

    8: Please explain why a CEO of a healthcare corp deserves to earn $100,000,000 a year while so many go without coverage. Do you really think the only reason people find that disgusting is jealousy?

    9: please explain to me what separates China from Cuba, other than an ocean, and why they deserve MFN status.

    10: you make broad statements, I can point to specific people in todays guvt that have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and down pants of kids, I can point to specific laws that have been broken, I can list the lies. Please, just this once, offer up some people that actually espouse the thoughts you ascribe to us.

    And finally, please list those on MY ignore list.

    Posted by CRABWALK 10/10/2006 @ 12:33am | ignore this person

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 12:38am

77. Thanks for your efforts, as usual, bloggers/posters. Ms Politskovskaya was a martyred hero. As Bono and numerous others have paeaned "One more in the name of love!"

    Somewhat ironic is the fact she was murdered a mere five days before October 12th, the original Columbus Day with its blatant acceptance of cultural hegemony and almost unremitting exploitation/oppression of indigenous peoples.

    Just FYI: I did a small "field study" report for Dr. Rod McDavis' "counseling ethnic minorities," (now multicultural counseling) class with photographs and interviews gained with a group of young Native American males at the largest Miccusukee Indian reservation off of the "Alligator Alley" back in the early 1980's. My most memorable finding was that the issue of intergenerational misunderstanding, then commonly known as "generation gap," existed there as much, and maybe more, than in the "dominant" culture of which I'm a member by virtue of being a Caucasian male.

    Perhaps a question for all of us to reflect upon, including Mister/Chief Billy who'll be speaking at the University of Florida on Thursday, 10/12, is the all too common, perhaps universal phenomenon of age-based intra-cultural "rift." Ms Politskovskaya was forty-eight and of an earlier generation. Perhaps this eased the killer's conscience, if the likely HE even has a conscience; enabling him to more easily objectify/dehumanize Ms. Politskovskaya.

    Thank you, as always, KVH, for YOUR efforts for social justice.

    Respectfully,

    lew welge (lower case first letters to imitate the great bell hooks)

    Posted by lewwelge at 10/10/2006 @ 06:50am

78. 2: Who here hates capitalism?

    Posted by CRABWALK 10/10/2006 @ 12:38am

    Well, DARLA for one....but, come on, CRAB. You know the ones who do never SAY they do. They say "Oh, I don't hate capitalism...I just want it to be totally changed".

    Although if they're generous...they'll let the kids keep their lemonade stands....as long as the FDA has an agent standing by to inspect the lemonade and the kids meet "targets and goals" for affirmative action.....oh and it's made from "Fair Trade" lemons!....and the cups are recycled paper.

    Oh and there are subsidies for the kids who qualify for a 3 cent cup, over the 5 cent cup.

    Oh, yeah, and "Big Lemonade" can't donate to political campaigns!

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2006 @ 09:53am

79. Posted by MASK 10/10/2006 @ 09:53am

    Sounds like a good system you've planned for the lemonade stand. What would this be if not capitalism?

    More to the point, if someone planned a lemonade stand that is considered a model of "pure" capitalism ca. 2006, what would it look like? Watery, foul tasting, potentially dangerous ade produced from lemons harvested on formerly federal lands that the growers use in a sweetheart deal, insulated by layers of pesticides, picked by illegal immigrants who make the Joads look like fat cats, and sold on the cheap thanks to generous corporate subsidies to wealthy children of well-connected mommies and daddies.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/10/2006 @ 10:01am

80. Posted by MASK 10/10/2006 @ 09:53am

    Classic mask, including the qoutated quote that never was. DARLA is the only person here that even remotely resembles what john wants the left to be. And I have never read one word from her supporting Castro.

    His comments remain gross over-generalizations, even with STWRILEYS destruction he refuses to admit it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 10:24am

81. EVMONK, don't read Msr. Maasch too seriously. He is a pretty smart feller, but he seems blinded by a stuck-in-the-past mentality that holds the left is still connected to communism at the hip, while he does business with the commies. There are quite varied opinions here, many are well reasoned and insightful, some not so much. Ain't that what makes America grand? You appear to be a thoughtful person, keep with it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 10:29am

82. The day this courageous woman was gunned down also happened to be Putins birthday. coink-a-dink?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 10:56am

83. Crab,..maybe these do not all apply to you individually, but they do to the left in general, and we are talking general here, not individuallly...

    1. Coddle Castro...Darla, Zero, Red and all those who think he is the defination of "revolutionary', and if you are honest, you never see the left ANYWHERE protest his actions or behaviors...he is praised for his health care, despite no electicity. Remember the Angola adventure? His buddy Chavez? Another hero, watch the news down there lately?

    2.Most here who do not partake in it..read the posts on "classes". Liza?

    3.Bush tax cuts have fired up the economy..and I agree we can trade economists..whom I don't need to tell me how the economy is doing...it is doing well enough to be the envy of the world and when Bush enterted we were sliding into recession...despite 9/11, war,katrinas/ oil prices/ we are doing well as a whole...unemployment rate, home ownership, interest rates..tax cuts work every time they are tried...there will always be some who do not benifit, but majority will...I already know you disagree..congress spending is the problem not Tax cuts..any time individuals have control over their own money is better than government hacks...

    4. I find it strange that all the problems with voting occur in dem controled districts...and some voters can't vote for the candidate of their preference with out a manuel ...I am on record as to how I would fix voting..Kindergarden pencil, candiates on a single page with large boxes next to name, Photo ID(eliminates democratic graveyards voting), finger print ballot, and count by people who don't vote and don't care.

    5. Reagan/Hussein...the enemy of my enemy is my friend..until...that is the nature of things,,it is not repub or dem..it is human reality and very elementary to understand.

    6. I am represented, yes, and I consent to taxation, just not the hidden fees, taxes and the percentages some dream up(progresive rates)..taking half one ones ANYTHING is a form of stealing...greedy government?

    7.I have a small intetest in a building...and the sewer, water, and other lines had to be PAID FOR IN ADVANCE by the group in order to start the project..none of the services you describe are free...we pay for each and every one..and they are built, engineered, designed, and financed by the PRIVATE sector prior to and regardless of occupancy..city runs them and charges for the services...nothing free..try building an out house on YOUR own property and you will get a fast dose of regulations...then talk to me. Ambulance service was TAKEN from private to public..cost TRIPLED here..and operates at a LOSS....

    8. The heath company is private, if the board wants to pay him that salary it is their business, if you, the consumer don't like it, take your business elsewhere...if the health care was governement provided you would be screwed, as there would be no alternative...you think companys are corrupt becuase they make a profit and want to keep it and spend it as they see fit while you might prefer gov controled... its "unfairness" is locked in its in efficiencys, which will kill people...ie waitng months for kidney operations..see Canada.

    9. China has 1 + billion people in the world and are trying to modernize their country and join the community,. They are communists. They also are a natural merchant people as they have been for centurys, however, they are communists...the goods and services they produce for us and the world are providing an improved life andlife style for their populations, private business are popping up everywhere,,the genie is out of the bottlew ther and willl not go back in. Castro has never seen a bottle and has no idea what the genie can do.he has given his people bikes, tho, from China....while I would prefer China to be open and free, I feel they may end up on that road as they are more and more exposed to the world..Cuba? afer 50 years of an iron dicator on an Island next to the most successful large economy and society the planet has ever seen and all he can come up with is sporatic electricty and rice cooker for all is a joke...oh, everyone has health care...all monies for their economy is earned by outside hard cuurencys...and as a result of the revolutionary visionist and example for the Latin soul..they get to watch westerners stay in hotels while the Cubans are forbidden to stay, by their own government..and what does Cuba export? Revolutionary slogans..not one thing the world demands or needs...except beaches and sun shine...they contribute nothing. If you can't see differnces between the 2 nations, how can you see the similaritys?

    10.People will always have their hands in govt cookie jar..it is bigger, bulkier, slower, more inefficient, cumbersome, more difficult to control and dangerous than any corporation. And it occurs on everyones watch..

    The fact, when pushed you can't come up with ONE thing the repubs or anything consevatives have done labels you a hack on the left, given your history here and hatred for all things Bush...and your ever support of govt programs and wealth re-distribution schemes.

    The ultimate battle here is who controls the resources..which party or power base...it is power to make descisions that are craved...I simply am not a conservative hack, as I distrust all govt and I believe the decisions are best made by individuals, not a large govt commitee with millions of laws or a corporation with their rules on how you are going to operate...law breakers? At the rate we create new laws we will all be law breakers by just simpley living...try have an apartment and grill on your deck...see how many laws you break with that simple act...you will be amazed.

    TOO long here and too boring...sorry, but Crab wanted it...

    Posted by john maasch at 10/10/2006 @ 12:04pm

84. "Gunned down" equals "murder incorporated" equals unregulated capitalism, IMHO.

    Posted by lewwelge at 10/10/2006 @ 3:37pm

85. " The heath company is private, if the board wants to pay him that salary it is their business, if you, the consumer don't like it, take your business elsewhere...if the health care was governement provided you would be screwed, as there would be no alternative...you think companys are corrupt becuase they make a profit and want to keep it and spend it as they see fit while you might prefer gov controled... its "unfairness" is locked in its in efficiencys, which will kill people...ie waitng months for kidney operations..see Canada."

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/10/2006 @ 12:04am

    Too lazy to argue all of your "points", so I will pick just one.

    " the consumer don't like it, take your business elsewhere" is fine on the surface. But where? To another company who's "board wants to pay him that salary"?

    "if the health care was governement provided you would be screwed, as there would be no alternative" Exactly what alternatives are there for people whos medical needs exceed their income? Not all can aquire the funds to adequately care for themselves. Can you not conceive of illness or injury that could wipe you out financially? Do you not understand, that the more your insurance company owns the government, the less they will be required to stand behind you?

    I know a few people, who's conditions exceed their capabilities. And my ability to help them adequately. Did they create their condition? Do we write them off? Should we not share our ability to survive, with those who were born less healthy (or suffered tragedy, or abuse)?

    At first brush, it sounds rational to say single payer health care will be "locked in its in efficiencys, which will kill people...ie waitng months for kidney operations"...Until you think more...and wonder, how long will those without several years salary in the bank, or affordable health insurance wait? Will they wait until their deaths?

    There is so much more your train of thought has, apparently, failed to address. But, let's keep it simple.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/10/2006 @ 8:47pm