For instance, I worked on the San Diego Union which has an editorial page vilified (to this day) by many progressives. But it also has some writers who are NOT in that cookie cutter mode. And every piece done by the more conservative ones cannot be dismissed as a diatribe.

I also think those who suggest Swaraaj is “anti-American” are falling into the trap of defining someone. I lived in India for two years. I knew Swaraaj then when he was a reporter on one of India’s greatest newspapers. He was highly regarded by his colleagues, Americans who knew him and a political science professor who is highly prominent. If you know anything about India, there is a different perception of the United States than Americans have of their own country. I have emailed Swaraaj recently and told him how much I enjoyed his articles which have been ranked very highly on Google News. This comment is not aimed at anyone in particular but I am saying people can and should be able to discuss something without an angry or berating tone creeping into it, and without implying that someone is anti this or that.

I have defended cobloggers repeatedly on this site and I’m doing the same for Swaraaj…not because he is a coblogger but he is one of the FEW people writing on an American blog to offer topics that go beyond the more typical and offer a perspective that is worth considering. The entire world is not Rush Limbaugh and Randhi Rhodes … or Joe Gandelman for that matter.

However, I have noted columns bordering on anti-semitic over at Counterpunch, which I why I don’t often visit it.

domajot Says:
“Eerily, commenters like Yonason have reminded me of a young man I knew who fell prey to a religious cult.”

Those who fall victim to cults are those who will uncritically believe whatever they are told by their handlers. If you believe Saddam was a nicer guy than Americans, or at least “no worse,” then your handlers have done their job well.

“What a ridiculous display of rational discourse.” — jdledell Says: April 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Oh, come on, jdledell, it’s good exercise. You should try it sometime.

“Evil is not as black and white as yonason and MVDG portray.”

Well, actually yes . . . and no.

“Evil exists on a continuum.”

And why did you think I said it didn’t?

I clearly said it appeared that S.C. didn’t think it did. Sure it’s “relative” (just not to a human scale) in that some things are worse than others, and others are worse than those. HOWEVER, when one mixes up the order as S.C. did (note that order IS part and parcel of a “continuum”), then you have chaos and you loose your moral bearings completely.

I was also pointing out how absurdly illogical it would for someone to make arbitrary moral pronouncements.

You are right, most people don’t think that rationally, at least not all the time. BUT by thinking through the matter logically it becomes obvious that someone who calls bad worse and worse better might just have an agenda. And so I gave an example of a scenario that could arise from a likely agenda, i.e., one in which someone might derive benefit by deliberately confusing right and wrong. Then I added parenthetically that it could just be that the person may have had no agenda at all, but merely be confused. Nevertheless, whichever it is, I don’t want to have my thinking guided by either.

Is that any clearer?

I posted on that yesterday. Check it out . . .
yonason Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:14 am
. . . especially the part about how Carter and Brzezinski tried to stage a coup in Iran to help Iraq. It seems those who want to bash Reagan and Bush have conveniently forgotten about that little Causus Belli.

The US supported them with equipment (dual-use helicoptors) at a level of 0.6%, that’s 6 parts in a 1000. NOT very much. … some intel, and other odds and ends. The Soviets came in first at 61%, followed by the French at 18% and by some others with the US WAY down at the bottom.

And if you are talking about Bio stuff, whatever they got was through their universities and was at that time available to just about any academic or medical research facility anywhere. It was NOT directed to go to them by Washington.

And I’m not getting “hysterical.” I was only giving multiple examples to illustrate to you (and others) that Counterpunch has a strong anti-Semitic bias, in case that is important to you. After all, you did say you weren’t that familiar with them. I thought I would help you out with a little of the research I’ve done, and which you and others may not have been able to do yet.

There is no question that Saddam did many evil things. He aslo did many good things, including enhancing education and the status of women. Our early American Presidents did many good things and many evil things. For example, under the administration of a number of American Presidents we carried on a genuine genocide against the native Americans in order to use the land. I think under most definitions that would be considered “evil”. Yet none of our history books speak negatively of that activity at all. Was supplying Saddam with intellegence and weapons to be used against Iran, good or evil? Was firebombing Tokyo and Dresden civilians, good or evil? Were the actions of the Irgun and Stern Gang, good or evil? Was killing 400,000 Philipinos who objected to our occupation, good or evil? I could list thousands of such questions and the answers would be complex and agonizing. So get off your high horses and admit some humility in the complexity such questions require.

He might not be manipulative at all, just confused.

But if that’s the case, then don’t wake me until he gets his act together.

If “evil” is relative, how is it that S.C. is so “Alarmed?” …about anything?

I mean, if Saddam can kill all those people because he subjectively believes it is in “self-defense,” why does S.C. pretend moral outrage over America’s actions, which can also be called “self-defense?” [Remember, if everything is subjective, America's perceptions are as valid as anyone elses].

It is a completely arbitrary choice (not even relative, despite what he says). Therefore it is a pretense because he has no moral benchmark against which to show how good or evil anything is, let alone in this case.

He gives the impression that he knows exactly what evil is being committed, but when pressed he can’t define it in any meaningful way; and how could he, when it’s parameters have to be flexible enough to change to suit his whims?

…so…

If good and bad are not even relative but arbitrary, he has not only no moral but no logical basis for calling anything evil. If nothing is really evil, than why is he even bothering to try to convince us that anyone is wrong about anything?

The only reason he could possibly have for taking any side would be because he’s got some personal stake in the outcome. If so, it’s completely self-serving, and all he cares about is what he himself will get out of it. The only reason to communicate his ideas to others then, would be to con enough of them into believing it is in their interrest as well, whether it is or isn’t. To do that one has to appeal to THEIR sense of outrage, which can only be triggered if they think a wrong has been done.

What we are witnessing is human interaction at it’s lowest level. It doesn’t lead to order, but to chaos. It doesn’t lead to solutions to but to problems. It is a manipulative appeal to our basest instincts and as such it is not ennobling, but debasing.

This has been one of the most enlightening experiences I’ve had in a while, to see such a transparent example of what we refer to as “the Left” in action. Thanks!

Also: evil – I find the definition in the dictionary to be quite clear and concise.

So I leave the field to…and retire…

This is definitely my final comment in this post. Thank you.