[IceBreaker]

The left is worth nothing


The left is worth nothing
Dennis Prager

February 1, 2005

"Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is worth nothing." -- Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, Polish rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust, New York Times, Jan. 30, 2005

It took a Polish rescuer of Jews in the Holocaust, cited this week 60 years after the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration and death camp, to best describe those people who cannot or refuse to know the difference between good and evil. They are "worth nothing."

Since I was an adolescent, I have been preoccupied with evil: specifically, why people engage in it and why other people refuse to acknowledge its existence. As I have gotten older, I often find the latter group more infuriating. Somehow, as much as I don't want to, I can understand why a Muslim raised in a world permeated with hate-filled lies about America and Israel, and taught from childhood that God loves death, will blow himself up and joyfully maim and murder children. As evil as the Muslim terrorist is, given the Islamic world in which he was raised, he has some excuse.

But the non-Muslims who fail to acknowledge and confront the evil of Muslim terror and the evil of those monsters who cut innocent people's throats and murder those trying to make a democracy -- these people are truly worth nothing. Unlike the Muslims raised in a religious totalitarian society, they have no excuse. And in my lifetime, these people have overwhelmingly congregated on the political Left.

Since the 1960s, with few exceptions, on the greatest questions of good and evil, the Left has either been neutral toward or actively supported evil. The Left could not identify communism as evil; has been neutral toward or actually supported the anti-democratic pro-terrorist Palestinians against the liberal democracy called Israel; and has found it impossible to support the war for democracy and against an Arab/Muslim enemy in Iraq as evil as any fascist the Left ever claimed to hate.

There were intellectually and morally honest arguments against going to war in Iraq. But once the war began, a moral person could not oppose it. No moral person could hope for, let alone act on behalf of, a victory for the Arab/Islamic fascists. Just ask yourself but two questions: If America wins, will there be an increase or decrease in goodness in Iraq and in the world? And then ask what would happen if the Al Qaeda/Zarqawi/Baathists win.

It brings me no pleasure to describe opponents of the Iraqi war as "worth nothing." I know otherwise fine, decent people who oppose the war. So I sincerely apologize for the insult.

But to the Left in general, as opposed to individually good people who side with the Left, I have no apologies. It is the Left -- in America, in Europe and around the world -- that should do all the apologizing: to the men, women and children of Iraq and elsewhere for not coming to their support against those who would crush them.

That most Democratic Party leaders, union leaders, gay leaders, feminists, professors, editorial writers and news reporters have called for an American withdrawal and labeled this most moral of wars "immoral" is a permanent stain on their reputations.

About 60 percent of the Iraqi people went to vote despite the fact that every Iraqi voter risked his or her life and the lives of their children, whose throats the Islamic fascists threatened to slit. Yet, the Left continues to label the war for Iraqi democracy "immoral" while praising the tyrant of Cuba.

Leftists do so for the same reason they admired Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-tung and condemned American arms as the greatest threat to world peace during and after the Cold War. The Left "does not know the difference between good and evil." And that is why it is worth nothing.

©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/d...20050201.shtml

[Nicko]

I bet that Dennis Prager would get along well with Hitler.

[chris v]

Maybe us leftists should be rounded up and herded into camps. That'd teach us about Freedom and Liberty. Our lives are worth nothing, so why not just gas us?

[ebuddy]

Dennis Prager, a Jew would probably not have lasted long around Hitler. Why is it those who would've been quick to support and empathize with someone like Hitler, compare everyone to him??? This is very interesting. You've found your buzz-phrase to get attention unfortunately, it's a really old and tired one that holds little weight these days.

[OreoCookie]

You are worth nothing!








Just remember when you reply to this, ok?

[chris v]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Dennis Prager, a Jew would probably not have lasted long around Hitler. Why is it those who would've been quick to support and empathize with someone like Hitler, compare everyone to him??? This is very interesting. You've found your buzz-phrase to get attention unfortunately, it's a really old and tired one that holds little weight these days.

So how do you interpret the article?

This phrase-- "these people are truly worth nothing" sounds eerily familiar to me.

[Sherwin]

Hmmm... Very interesting. The lefties try to invoke Godwin's Law very early on so as to avoid actually having to address the statement.

To the lefties out there, please explain what you stand for without referencing "the right" in a negative fashion. Go on, I dare you.

[saab95]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
The left is worth nothing


The left is worth nothing
Dennis Prager

February 1, 2005

"Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is worth nothing." -- Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, Polish rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust, New York Times, Jan. 30, 2005

.......... Leftists do so for the same reason they admired Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-tung and condemned American arms as the greatest threat to world peace during and after the Cold War. The Left "does not know the difference between good and evil." And that is why it is worth nothing.

©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/d...20050201.shtml

Dennis Prager is all that is wrong with conservatism.

His article fails to grasp the root cause of evil, that is, the lack of respect for the rights of individuals to live their lives in freedom. The Right's concept of Evil is that if you do not serve under the moral code of God, that is, you do not behave like a good self-sacrificing human being, then you are evil, and therefore worthless. Understanding that code, which is bankrupt, then how is it any better than the nihilist code of the Left that the Right so despises?

The quote in his opening statement is profound! Too bad Dennis Prager doesn't understand what it means. When the Jews were rescued by Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, they were set free. Freed from the force that oppressed them. Evil requires force to be implemented.

It's not OK for America to sacrifice our young men for the sake of freeing other nations from their oppression. That has no relation to America's self-interest.

The only ones who truly understand good and evil are those individuals who live their lives in freedom, and are willing to defend their freedom against those who use force to try to enslave them.

Prager's devout conservatism clouds his moral judgment.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Hmmm... Very interesting. The lefties try to invoke Godwin's Law very early on so as to avoid actually having to address the statement.

To the lefties out there, please explain what you stand for without referencing "the right" in a negative fashion. Go on, I dare you.

I stand for reasoned debate without de-humanizing those with whom I do not agree, for starters. I don't view the lives of conservatives as "worth nothing." I might view their political ideology as worth nothing, but certainly not their lives.

As far as what I do believe, try reading the constitution of the United States of America-- all of it. With emphasis on the preamble. The Declaration of Independence, despite long tracts of it being a screed against the King of England, also gives voice to my political beliefs: Especially this part--"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (...)"

The bill or rights furthers this notion that while we have a of government of the people, which means a majority through voting, we still have obligations to the minority, as far as protecting their rights from the tyranny of a majority. This is important. It needs to remain foremost in our thoughts as we pursue the will of the majority.

A thing I think about a lot also, is what is the point of a government of the people if it is not truly FOR the people I.E. the common good? Why do we band together into political units if not for the common good? That common good to me includes things like public health, education and mutual prosperity.

There's a start.

[badidea]

Someone should explain this guy the difference between

and

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by chris v:
I stand for reasoned debate without de-humanizing those with whom I do not agree,

I've never noticed that.

[chris v]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I've never noticed that.

Well, I do enjoy a good poke of the stick now and again, too.

It's all in good, clean fun-- try not to get too worked up over it.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by chris v:
As far as what I do believe, try reading the constitution of the United States of America-- all of it.

I'm not American, so there would be little point in my doing this.
Neither is this a particularly American subject.

Originally posted by chris v:
With emphasis on the preamble. The Declaration of Independence, despite long tracts of it being a screed against the King of England, also gives voice to my political beliefs: Especially this part--"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (...)"

And how does this belief fit into the general leftist view of the Iraq war? Does the term "all men" stop at your borders?

Originally posted by chris v:
The bill or rights furthers this notion that while we have a of government of the people, which means a majority through voting, we still have obligations to the minority, as far as protecting their rights from the tyranny of a majority. This is important. It needs to remain foremost in our thoughts as we pursue the will of the majority.

A thing I think about a lot also, is what is the point of a government of the people if it is not truly FOR the people I.E. the common good? Why do we band together into political units if not for the common good? That common good to me includes things like public health, education and mutual prosperity.

Again, so why are "the left" against bringing "the common good" to the people of Iraq (or indeed, the World)?


On a different point, you mention that all men are endowed with Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. You also state that you have obligations to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

What if, in the pursuit of happiness, the minority member wants to smoke in a public place, bear arms and drive a 10 mpg SUV? Are "the left" protecting these people or ragging on them? At what point does the protection of the individual's rights become less important than the "common good"?
What if not paying tax for social security purposes makes me happy? Would "the left" deny me my happiness for the sake of the common good?

It seems obvious to me that you can't have both ideals. Can't have your cake and eat it, etc..
So again, what do "the left" stand for if not referencing "the right" negatively? Protecting the individual or protecting the common good?

Seriously - explain it to me because I really don't understand "the left" if you take them out of the context of simply "opposing the right".

[chris v]

So basically, you asked me to utterly waste my time. you asked me to explain my political beliefs, I say they're encapsulated in this particular document, which you then refuse to read. Then you broad-brush me as "the left." I'm not The Left, I'm merely a citizen.

I'm out.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by saab95:
It's not OK for America to sacrifice our young men for the sake of freeing other nations from their oppression. That has no relation to America's self-interest.

That's an odd statement. Such cold-hearted Kissingerian Realism has traditionally been the position of the right. Since when did the formerly internationalist left embrace it?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by chris v:
So basically, you asked me to utterly waste my time. you asked me to explain my political beliefs, I say they're encapsulated in this particular document, which you then refuse to read.

Well, I've only touched on the well-known bits that you mention but already we hit a logic problem. Can you not explain yourself without referring to country-specific documents? Or can you not answer my questions?

Telling me that your political beliefs are those enshrined in the USA's defining documents is a cop-out, as I could find no-end of conservatives/Republicans/righties who will tell me the same thing about their beliefs. What makes you different from them? You are different from them, right?

Originally posted by chris v:
Then you broad-brush me as "the left." I'm not The Left, I'm merely a citizen.

I didn't "broad-brush" anyone. I asked what "the left" stands for. You chose to identify yourself as a member of said group by answering in the manner that you did - telling me your beliefs when I asked for "the left's".


(edit: incorporated answer to Chris V's edit)

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's an odd statement. Such cold-hearted Kissingerian Realism has traditionally been the position of the right. Since when did the formerly internationalist left embrace it?

This, Simey, is exactly why I'm asking what "the left" is about. I can't for the life of me figure it out without the answer being related to their hatred of "the right".

[dcmacdaddy]

Any logical arugment based on the stark opposition of binary choices, particularly choices as plastic as good and evil, can never be logically argued. It merely provides a stage for the iniator of the "argument" to publicly bludgeon some perceived opponent, all under the guise of a logical "debate".

You want to talk about evil, read some Paul Ricoeur, say either Fallible Man or The Symbolism of Evil. Now that is an interesting high-level discussion of representations of evil in a culture and the how's and why's of its manifestation in a religious culture.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
To the lefties out there, please explain what you stand for without referencing "the right" in a negative fashion. Go on, I dare you.

Sorry, guess I've got a reading comprehension problem. I thought I did exactly that-- I posted my reference to the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, as a means of outlining my political beliefs, then expanded on that as a manner of explaining what I stand for. After which, you attacked me as "the left."

Excuse me if I misconstrued your intentions.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
And how does this belief fit into the general leftist view of the Iraq war? Does the term "all men" stop at your borders?

Ouch. Damn good question. One I somehow doubt you'll get a damned good answer to.

I'm not singling anyone out, but I've never known “the left” in general to be the major champions of the idea of Creator-endowed unalienable Rights. In fact I've had a few leftists argue with me the exact opposite- that rights are actually granted to men by other men in the form of government. That viewpoint more readily allows one to be content with the status quo of Saddam Hussein types doing whatever they want to "their" citizens so long as they keep the slaughter on the correct side of an imaginary line. After all, Saddam granted the ‘rights’, and had ‘sovereignty’ to do what he damned well pleased, and no one has any authority to stop him.

I do disagree with the original article dismissing the left as ‘worth nothing’. That sort of blatant hyperbole is counter to a reasonable debate, and itself sounds akin to the worst sort of hyperbole the left itself sometimes delves into when referring to the right. The author makes good points about people refusing to recognize the concept of good vs. evil, but his entire argument is too easily dismissed after dropping the ‘worth nothing’ bomb on his political opponents who’ll then refuse to consider anything he has to say from that point on.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by chris v:
Sorry, guess I've got a reading comprehension problem. I thought I did exactly that-- I posted my reference to the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, as a means of outlining my political beliefs, then expanded on that as a manner of explaining what I stand for. After which, you attacked me as "the left."

Excuse me if I misconstrued your intentions.

The original question was directed at people who class themselves in the category of "the left". You answered the post, so defined yourself as part of said category.

If you give me your political opinion in response to a question about the left's political standpoint, how on earth do you then manage to moan at someone classing you as a lefite?




(edit: tag typo)

[chris v]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Ouch. Damn good question. One I somehow doubt you'll get a damned good answer to.

I'm not singling anyone out, but I've never known “the left” in general to be the major champions of the idea of Creator-endowed unalienable Rights. In fact I've had a few leftists argue with me the exact opposite- that rights are actually granted to men by other men in the form of government. That viewpoint more readily allows one to be content with the status quo of Saddam Hussein types doing whatever they want to "their" citizens so long as they keep the slaughter on the correct side of an imaginary line. After all, Saddam granted the ‘rights’, and had ‘sovereignty’ to do what he damned well pleased, and no one has any authority to stop him.

There's a wide spectrum of beliefs on "the left." I for one, don't think that the inalienable rights spelled out in the Declaration can be conferred or removed by men in power in a "just" government. To remove rights from citizenry arbitrarily is the definition of injustice to me. I'm actually a very strong constitutionalist believe it or not, despite my reading into it of the obligations of government to its citizens in the form of a certain mutual egalitarinaism that a good number of conservatives don't read. (It does say provide for the common welfare, though I'm not talking about the dole.)

I do disagree with the original article dismissing the left as ‘worth nothing’. That sort of blatant hyperbole is counter to a reasonable debate, and itself sounds akin to the worst sort of hyperbole the left itself sometimes delves into when referring to the right. The author makes good points about people refusing to recognize the concept of good vs. evil, but his entire argument is too easily dismissed after dropping the ‘worth nothing’ bomb on his political opponents who’ll then refuse to consider anything he has to say from that point on.

Thank you for attempting to bring some sanity to the thread. That was pretty much my point in my first post. De-humanization is part one of subjugation. It's a bad thing.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Sherwin:

If you give me your political opinion in response to a question about the left's political standpoint...

Let's try this again.

Originally posted by Sherwin:

To the lefties out there, please explain what you stand for without referencing "the right" in a negative fashion. Go on, I dare you.

(note emphasis)

Again, it was probably reading comprehension on my part. I could never pretend to speak for the entire "left" population of the entire globe. I spoke for myself, as that is what I thought you were requesting. Please allow me to apologise, and kindly get off my back.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by chris v:
Again, it was probably reading comprehension on my part. I could never pretend to speak for the entire "left" population of the entire globe. I spoke for myself, as that is what I thought you were requesting.

My apologies for not wording the question better - the "you" in this instance was plural.

Originally posted by chris v:
Please allow me to apologise, and kindly get off my back.

I'm not on your back. I simply want answers.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
My apologies for not wording the question better - the "you" in this instance was plural.



I'm not on your back. I simply want answers.

I have no problem with Iraqi self-determination. I do have a problem by which the Bush administration misrepresented its reasons for going to war, and its inept bungling of the occupation of Iraq. I would like to see people held accountable for mistakes made, and I would like especially to see people held accountable for the "grave and gathering threat" and WMD deception that took place in the run-up to war.

This DOES NOT MEAN that I believe the notion of Iraqi popular self-determination is invalid. For you to conflate the two in disingenuous. And for the writer of the article to see this as a failure of half the planet to understand the difference between good and evil is beyond absurd, if you ask me-- which I think you did. The piece is sheer and simple demagoguery of the basest and most vile sort.

Once again, I do not pretend to speak for the entire left, as it is too wide of a spectrum. The leftist demagogues would surely disagree.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
This, Simey, is exactly why I'm asking what "the left" is about. I can't for the life of me figure it out without the answer being related to their hatred of "the right".

Bear in mind there are honorable, consistent, human rights-advocating people on the left who don't cozy up to, or apologize for, dictators just because they are anti-Western. Christopher Hitchens is a good example.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by chris v:
Maybe us leftists should be rounded up and herded into camps. That'd teach us about Freedom and Liberty. Our lives are worth nothing, so why not just gas us?

It's that type of reactionary attitude that scares me about liberals.

Nobody here spoke of herding liberals into camps... just that their views are so out of whack that they're worthless.

It's quite telling that you jump all over this with such fervor, yet conveniently ignore DNC-chair finalist Howard Dean's hate-filled comments about Republicans...

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for"

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by chris v:
I have no problem with Iraqi self-determination. I do have a problem by which the Bush administration misrepresented its reasons for going to war, and its inept bungling of the occupation of Iraq. I would like to see people held accountable for mistakes made, and I would like especially to see people held accountable for the "grave and gathering threat" and WMD deception that took place in the run-up to war.

Understood.
But Iraq wasn't my question. It was: What do "the left" stand for?. You've answered it only by mentioning a generic document (equally applicable to conservatives so largely useless) or by telling me what you stand against (the WMD "deception").

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Bear in mind there are honorable, consistent, human rights-advocating people on the left who don't cozy up to, or apologize for, dictators just because they are anti-Western. Christopher Hitchens is a good example.

I realise that.

I prefer Peter Hitchens' work, mind.

[SimpleLife]

It is so easy to put people in little boxes and put a tag on them.

But in the end, we remain people and no one can tell what they would when facing a specific situation.

The problem with categorization is that once you start, you can't stop categorizing and rationalizing your choices and you end up with people wanting to fit and be coherent with what they said rather then being coherent with themselves.

If they were asked the same questions outside of the context of having some kind of allegeance to one ideology, we would be surprised as to how incoherent that seems to be ideaologically-wise, yet so appropriate in terms of action.

Because I would be identified as a "leftists", I would have to have all the paraphernalia that should come with the model. Nonsensical.

Also, asking people how they fit in the model is liking exposing the model for its incoherence. As Siemy put it, thewre are leftist who don't correspond to the stereotype. I bet the same applies to many Right Wingers.


Divide and conquer remains the best strategy of gaining Power. In my opinion, this is a virus in our cultures that we perpetuate to no end and is leading us to disassociate ourselves and keep from working together.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by chris v:
I stand for reasoned debate without de-humanizing those with whom I do not agree, for starters. I don't view the lives of conservatives as "worth nothing." I might view their political ideology as worth nothing, but certainly not their lives.

As far as what I do believe, try reading the constitution of the United States of America-- all of it. With emphasis on the preamble. The Declaration of Independence, despite long tracts of it being a screed against the King of England, also gives voice to my political beliefs: Especially this part--"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (...)"

The bill or rights furthers this notion that while we have a of government of the people, which means a majority through voting, we still have obligations to the minority, as far as protecting their rights from the tyranny of a majority. This is important. It needs to remain foremost in our thoughts as we pursue the will of the majority.

A thing I think about a lot also, is what is the point of a government of the people if it is not truly FOR the people I.E. the common good? Why do we band together into political units if not for the common good? That common good to me includes things like public health, education and mutual prosperity.

There's a start.

I disagree with you on many things I think but I did enjoy reading this post and agree.
Very well said.

[saab95]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's an odd statement. Such cold-hearted Kissingerian Realism has traditionally been the position of the right. Since when did the formerly internationalist left embrace it?

They never did, as far as I could tell.

My statement echoes that of a capitalist, not a collectivist leftist or an altruist rightist.