He's very good, I think, in both roles.
Bit polymorphous perverse, as one might say.
That might offend someone.
As for this particular gay, Barrowman, the sites you find if you look up Arrow are burying the guy.
This realist says the state cannot rely on government by good men but must be so organized as to provide no temptation to bad faith or evil-doing.
That is impossible.
But one needs to make the state, at least to some extent, assuming one can, proof against both.
And, as we know especially in our age, proof against fanaticism.
Though in our own country the greater danger is sinister interest, not so much individual as class, meaning the interest of the plutocracy.
This is more harmful to everyone outside the plutocracy, usually, than mere individual corruption.
But less so than fanaticism.
And as to that, though perhaps only because of historic technological limits, religious fanaticism has been less horrific than secular.
I am not convinced that is possible, either.
To make the state proof against fanaticism, I mean.
And in any case the price might be too high.
Perhaps it was always more about sinister interest, in Bentham's sense, than anything else like disinterested suppression of error or divine service.
Much less preservation of comfort, consolation, or encouragement for the sorely tried.
That would be a liberal's motive.
Or pretended motive.
Kinds of fanaticism.
It is unbelief.
In one phase, it rejects the myths of traditional religion but retains belief in at least one god, human immortality, and objective morality.
In its radical phase it is frankly atheist and rejects both the objectivity of morals and human existence before or after this, the only life we know.
Per se, it is not and does not entail a political, economic, or social program.
But historic periods during which unbelief has won express tolerance affording a measure of freedom of belief, of speech, and of written or other expression, usually accompanied by the suppression or end of forms of religious savagery, have been called by that name.
This is your brain infected with liberal survivor guilt.
Or at least your prose debased to propaganda to inculcate same.
Still, he over-plays his hand by a good ways.
And many others.
Not everyone condemned flees to religion, suicide, or self-destructive intoxication.
"It's a Wonderful Life" is communist propaganda according to Ayn Rand and J. Edgar for the same reason public schools and Social Security are socialism, Medicare is (per Ronald Reagan in 1965) communism, and Barack Obama (per Joe Lieberman and John McCain in 2008) is a Marxist.
All favor or are favored by progressives and progressive values.
And that's enough for them.
Joe Lieberman sold out the Democrats, Barack Obama, the ordinary folk of America, and his own career for Israel, Zionism, and the neocon wars.
No doubt he will die in his bed, a happy warrior well satisfied with his choices and his achievements.
A loyal Jew whose first priority was for America to be Israel's cat's paw, at whatever cost to America in American blood and American treasure.
And at whatever cost in damage to America's politics.
Would McCain have freed Pollard by now?
Oh, I think so.
A collaborative work of faculty and upperclassmen, the program that year included small group discussions led by students of three books we of the entering class had been instructed to read over the preceding summer.
The books were The Wretched of the Earth, Poverty in America, and The Plague.
That was not a reading list chosen by the Vatican or the American Legion.
Who did choose it?
I never knew.
All three were hits with the left of the period, though not entirely with the same factions of the left, and not for the same reasons.
I did not know it at the time, but both Camus and Harrington were anti-communists and Camus could never bring himself to betray his countrymen, the pieds-noirs.
However guilty his liberal conscience, he could never have brought himself, as Sartre did, to endorse Fanon's bloodcurdling project of global race hate.
All the same, remarkable testimony to the power of the left at that time at that school, I think.
Although with great effort I was able to later, that summer I couldn't finish Fanon.
The hate was too much for me.
Unsaid, even by the Guardian trying to be bravely un-PC.
Nearly all the persecution is by Muslims.
First time for me.
The music is great.
The story takes liberties with the truth, but then that's what "based on fact" means, is it not?
Sid Rothman, for example, is a wholly made-up character and Bugsy was a crazy trigger-man for Meyer Lansky and later for Lucky Luciano.
Robert Knepper, who plays Rothman, has been a seriously under-rated portrayer of bad guys for many years, now.
I wish him greater success in the future.
Much more of a surprise is the also excellent Neal McDonough playing a good guy.
I keep expecting his William Parker to turn out to be the secret boss of all the mobsters in the city.
People familiar with his work in the past will understand what I mean.
This isn't 'feminism'. It's Islamophobia | Laurie Penny
And they're not only right about Islam being a girl's worst enemy in the world, today.
Think about gays and novelists.
Islamophobia is like the visceral anti-communism Brezhnev's thugs used to wag their fingers about.
They earned it.
CIA 'helped Colombia Farc attacks,' says BBC.
The FARC are smoldering remnants of a global wildfire that could still flare up again, though for now they pose a threat to America that is hard to rank, say, against al-Qaeda.
And yet they could in the end be more annoying as a legal opposition.
Difficult to say, just as it is difficult to say whether they are more threat than hopeful sign for the people of Columbia.
They will certainly shift the political center of gravity of that country to the left.
More and better medical care for all?
A slide toward party dictatorship and ruthless repression of opposition?
Pocahontas for president.
Freedom as freedom from coercive constraint or interference is one thing, called "negative freedom."
Freedom as political self-rule is another, called "positive freedom."
Berlin does not seem to see that the first is a property of either individuals - liberty as ordinarily understood - or of nations, the object of wars of national liberation against colonial or other foreign domination.
But the second, understood as political self-rule, is never a property of individuals, absolute monarchs and dictators apart, but only of peoples, and realized only imperfectly through the institutions of democracy.
Also, Berlin opposes to the monism of liberals who insist there is only one political good (liberty) - nowadays we know them as libertarians or classical liberals - the view that there are many legitimate and not necessarily wholly reconcilable or even compatible political goods perhaps including, for example, equality and justice.
He does not even consider the more radical pluralism inherent in the recognition that the good of each person is unique to himself and there is no truly common good in which conflicts among those of individuals disappear, nor any just manner of adjudicating those conflicts.
Acute and astute though he is, Berlin from first to last sees the issues of politics as moral issues.
For him as for nearly the whole of the Western tradition, politics is a branch of morals and political philosophy - aka political theory - is a branch of moral philosophy.
He can no more think outside that box than can the Ayatollahs of Iran think of politics in purely secular terms.
And with that advertisement for the sovereign importance of his own trade, that of the intellectual, Isaiah Berlin begins his inaugural lecture, Two Concepts of Liberty.
But while ideas have consequences in the logical sense they are wholly without efficient causality.
It is what men do with ideas, it is human action that makes, or rather is, history.
A point worth remembering, since more than a few of those who uncritically accept the intellectuals' assessment of their own importance draw the obvious practical lesson that it is prudent to police ideas - meaning, of course, to police speech, the press, and thought and so to police men.
But then the reputation of liberals as defenders of freedom of thought and expression was built by their centuries-long fight for their own freedom.
Most contemporary liberals, admittedly or not, favor and often actively seek punishment of speech and belief they disapprove, in Europe by law and in America by orchestrated loss of employment.
And in both, as well, by campaigns of public harassment and opprobrium often intentionally involving the threat of violence.
Blessed few agree, and many loudly deny, that freedom of thought and expression, more central to liberty than democracy and as crucial to democracy as the franchise, require at least as much protection from private coercion as we provide the vote by the device of the secret ballot.
But ensuring people can believe and express their beliefs in complete security and confidence is not at all what liberals want.
Of this you can be sure.
Liberals would nowadays oppose any construal of the Constitution protecting speech and belief from punishment by employers, though the shoe was quite on the other foot during the era of the Hollywood Blacklist, loyalty oaths, McCarthyism, and the Red Scare.
Local Christians as mad as the maddest of Muslims are behind this.
Wikipedia blames colonialism, white people, and Christianity for what black natives have done with their religion 50 years after independence.
[Who do they blame when it's Muslims? Colonialism, white people, and Christianity.]
Interesting question, why some peoples at some times are so exceptionally receptive to a religion or a politics so drenched in such extreme malevolence, such naked and joyful hatred.
So often we displace agency and responsibility with it from people to the doctrines they embrace, for the horrors these people - but we say "these doctrines" - insist upon.
As when we blame Christian beliefs for Hitler's pursuit of a "final solution to the Jewish Question in Europe," as well as for the German people's support for him and his projects.
The saw goes, "Religion is a good thing for good people and a bad thing for bad people."
But perhaps the truth is that religion, though always a delusion or a deception and generally an imposition, is relatively benign in the hands of good people and sometimes spectacularly malignant in the hands of bad people.
Not that it's good or bad for people, but that it's in some ways good or horrifically bad in their hands.
Not that we couldn't say the same for purely secular ideologies or beliefs like Marxism or socialism.
Or even beliefs as apparently remote from politics as materialism.
See Dostoyevsky or Turgenev.
Which side of the culture war in Uganda would Pat Buchanan want to be on?
I ask because his anti-interventionism lately seems to be trimmed to fit his basic political sympathies.
And these in turn?
He doesn't care for Jews, non-eurowhites, or indeed people who are not conservative Christians in faith and morals.
Does that explain all of his politics?
Or only most of it?
Accordingly to the Wikipedia piece to which I link, above, a theme of the infamous conference of Christian leaders in Uganda was that "'the gay movement is an evil institution' whose goal is 'to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.'"
To which one is very tempted to say, at least in foro interno, "Well, what of it? What's it to you?"
I was distressed, depressed, and annoyed to see from this piece how far the march of the pointy-headed liberals through the institutions has progressed.
Gramsci would be smiling.
Unimportant as it may seem to the many, America's philosophy departments have a great influence on American elite opinion.
But I am old.
The harm will fall, I hope, principally on later generations.
People much younger than I are doing these cruel and dreadful things.
When I was an undergraduate at Holy Cross, I was gratified that philosophy departments served as a refuge from the political pressures both of the Cold War and of the rebellions against it.
The department at HC was a sheltered place where in utter privacy and security one could reveal and discuss one's inmost thoughts in complete candor, with no fear of the stupid and vicious mob or the demagogues who led it.
What a priceless freedom that was!
Is it lost?
Will it be destroyed by these wretched fanatics?
Do they really think the freedom insisted on by the 18th century was only freedom from their enemies, but not from themselves, these modern liberals unworthy of the name?
The popularity of royalty and aristocracy tells you how much people cherish republicanism and democracy.
And of films, plays, and stories of kings and knights and the like.
What does the popularity of dictators tell you?
Mussoloni had a real following, both at home and internationally.
I had an affair with a woman many years ago who was quite proud of an uncle who had been a firm supporter of Il Duce, right through the war.
On the other hand, "my country, right or wrong" does not express commitment to any particular form of government.
Stalin, like Alexander I, appealed to patriotism, with ultimate success.
As did the Emperor of Japan in the losing war against America and the allies in the Pacific.
Political reality is not much like what the partisans and blabber-mouths say it is.
Political loyalties and even antipathies often have little to do with political theories or more than - and often less than - the most rudimentary ideas of justice.
In this they are much like human affections in general - love, hate, friendship, enmity, and the like.
That is to say, often a triumph of sentiment over intelligence and interest.
If I recall correctly, Napoleon abolished serfdom and cut the privileges of aristocracy in all his conquered countries.
Think of all those Russian serfs proudly fighting against him for Holy Russia and the Tsar.
Think of that patriotic nitwit, Tolstoy.
Though he was certainly one of the most acute.
No surprise then that the pope says he is not a Marxist, but defends his criticism of capitalism.
Doesn't really sound like he's going to be much of a reformer.
Chile and Colombia join Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Argentina as states in which politicians fundamentally hostile to capitalism, or at any rate far from enamored of it, have rejected or are abandoning violence to assume positions of leadership by winning elections.
(And Uruguay. I forgot.)
Of course, one could say that of the United States, California, and New York City.
That can lead to good things, but it can also lead to stupid things and even just plain bad things.
More good than bad, one hopes, though.
Still, the American right wing noise machine is apt to exaggerate both the stupidity and the badness while ignoring the goodness.
Consider Venezuelan price controls.
Heck, Nixon tried price controls.
It was evidence neither of impending red revolution nor of impending economic chaos.
And habitual animosities die hard.
In Colombia, they might even queer the deal to bring the FARC in from the cold.
No doubt, just as some wish.
While they are out in the boonies living on snakes, going from shootout with the army or with right wing guerrillas to shootout, they are in no position to actually implement leftish policies.
But all of these devoted leftists competing for office and joining the electorate?
That could bring real change.
Was it only yesterday we were reading Disaster Capitalism, a book about neoliberalism on a roll?
And what was Beinart writing about the Millenials?
About that downside, just consider how little regard these folks have for diversity, freedom of expression or opinion, or democracy.
How willingly they play the Red Guards and the Thought Police.
And how frighteningly their attitudes have spread like a cancer from the radical left to the professional left to the entire class of 100%, down the line liberals and all their allied interest groups and factions.
Revel had it wrong.
People don't want to be subject to totalitarian power.
They want to exercise it.
Liberals disguised as conservatives.
So Danny the thug is a liberal thug who reacts with shame and guilt when a brownish Muslim immigrant greets him with racist hatred.
Like a bully's victim, he whines and pleads his harmlessness and personal innocence.
Danny Reagan, the thug.
The rest of his family is just as bad, the Commish, especially.
Browsing The New Left Reader.
The unhealthy concoctions so many of our fellow boomers imbibed in youth continue to do them and us lasting harm.
The title of Furet's magnum opus was mistranslated into English as The Passing of an Illusion.
It's better taken as The Past of an Illusion.
The publisher's title both misses the allusion to Freud and falsely suggests the book maintains the illusion has passed.
That it's all over for the anti-capitalist radicalism intellectually and politically inspired by the thought and history of revolutionary Marxism.
Neither for its chiliastic illusion of a classless utopia nor for the hatred of actually existing civilization it inspires, sanctions, and feeds on - though the former nowadays as in the past seems often no more than a plastic idol whose worship is perfunctory, infrequent, and of doubtful sincerity.
Nor for its hatred of the natural egoism of mankind, expressed on the one hand as the rejection of politics for private life and, in our age, on the other in the institutions of bourgeois society.
Nor for its own institutional expressions as, at best, social democracy and, at worst and far more commonly, democidal chaos and terror.
Think of a cook breaking sixty dozens of eggs and producing only a twelve ounce quiche.
And the pilgrims continue to arrive in Havana.
Since 1917, utopian dreams, obtuse faith in benevolent dictatorship, and irresponsible hatred of the rule of the haves have drained off the support of hundreds of millions from the practical and efficacious left and squandered it on horrors that have done vastly more harm than the most vicious capitalism they opposed.
Kenyatta in appeal for equality.
Much worse than the whitewash of Mandela.
Ortega 'could stand for fourth term.'
When they came to power in1979 they were communists and installed themselves as a Marxist, one party dictatorship on the Cuban model, allied with Castro and the Soviet Union.
Reagan's illegal support for guerrilla opposition forced the profoundly unwilling dictator, Daniel Ortega, to open the country to real, competitive elections and break off cooperation with Cuba and the Russians in supporting guerrillas and subversion throughout Latin America.
That was all Reagan wanted.
But Ortega to this day, like other admirers of Castro in presidential palaces, is impatient of constitutional limits on his power or its duration.
And so a chief duty of his party in the legislature is to push back those limits.
The left is generally fine with that, the radicals more than the others.
But when Hitler and Mussolini did that - or even Peron - the left was very unhappy.
Saudi human genome project launched.
Within the last few weeks a Saudi cleric visiting England issued a fatwa condemning a Muslim to death for denying creationism.
The Muslims are as crazy on this as the Christians, but more violent about it than the Christians have been for several centuries.
India court reinstates gay sex ban.
A court in Delhi had thrown out a law from colonial times banning homosexuality and punishing it with 10 years in prison.
The Indian Supreme Court has reinstated it.
Apparently the law is quite popular with Indians regardless of religion.
Interesting how the gods so often seem to want to herd people, however unsuitable their proclivities, into what gays disparage as "breeding pairs."
I write dissenting comments at sites of the left and sites of the right.
The lefties' responses berate me as a conservative.
The wingers lambaste me as a liberal.
All abuse me for missing the diversity of views on their side of the street.
Crude, but candid and full of insight, in particular the essay, An Enquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue.
Essentially correct, though not great on the relationship between morality and religion.
And a good joke on J. S. Mill, in more ways than one.
How a creationist fatwa proved a shocking example of Wahhabi Islam's influence | Andrew Brown.
Oddly, the American left thinks worse of our Christian fundamentalists than of the Muslim variety.
Locally, of course, the Christians are the greater threat.
But not globally and not even in Western lands where their numbers reach critical mass, though far less than those of Christians.
No more Muslims in the US, please.
BBC NEWS today has a story about thousands of soi-disant al-Qaeda fighters from all over the world, including many from Britain and France, using safe houses in southern Turkey for passage into and out of Syria, fighting Asad's dictatorship under a false flag of democracy - or a true flag of Islamist, faux democracy.
No, it's not Munich this reminds me of.
That the Western powers don't want to unseat the dictator but cannot espouse his cause, instead cheering for democracy with no enthusiasm, makes those echoes of Spain all the more clear.
Yes, I have cast the Muslim volunteers from all over Europe and the world as the communists of the faux-republican International Brigades, type-casting as those of decades ago today's deluded fanatics depicted so widely in Western media as heroes - and how else can one say it? - of anti-Fascism.
In the past, Turkey - or anyway the Turkish generals of Ataturk's army - would've put a stop to this.
But recent, successful moves to end that tradition of secularist intervention by that country's ruling democratic Islamists have made Turkey hospitable to Jihaders, including al-Qaeda.
Is there not current congressional authorization for the president to make war against not only al-Qaeda but also allied forces and sheltering nations, anywhere in the world?
And what loon would expect or want war with Israel's once and perhaps future ally, Turkey, in defense of the anti-Zionist dictator, Asad?
Certainly not those Jewish-American agents of Israeli influence, the neoconservatives - or their goyische cohorts - who have done their best for decades to get America to crush both Syria and Iran on behalf of the only country they love more than the USA, their ethnic, religious, and ancestral homeland, Israel.
Whatever their blather, they fear and hate first and foremost Israel's nation-state enemies.
Not Islamists, not Muslims, and not al-Qaeda or other Muslim fighters, per se, but enemy states and their tools.
Which is why they first insisted America's retaliatory attack on al-Queda and the Taliban must include outright invasion, occupation, and regime change in Afghanistan and then diverted that effort as soon as possible, in the first flush of apparent, easy success, into a struggle against Israel's three most hated enemies, dubbed for the purpose "The Axis of Evil," though succeeding only in forcing America into wasting a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives in war against only one of them, Iraq.
But America is tired of Israel and it's endlessly warmongering Jewish-American agents of influence, though it would take bunker-busting nukes to blast them out of their dominant positions in America's classe-politique and American culture.
And given that last, we know America's days as Israel's super-power cat's paw are very far from over.
Only fools believe for every problem there is a solution.
So says Jonah Goldberg at NRO, today.
And when the robots do all the work?
Creative and scientific and cultural - all the work?
Jonah will starve unless Jonah owns robots.
Only robot owners - capitalists - will eat.
They will do nothing for their command of all the wealth.
But they will be owners, and so not takers.
But it's a very small step from a robot economy to a robot planet.
On the money and class war issues, anyway, Elizabeth Warren is to the left of both Clintons and most office holding or office seeking Democrats.
I find it difficult to think she's more hawkish or more in Israel's pocket than Hillary, though of course she might be.
So, pending dissuasion, I think I am with her.
Besides, it's time.
Really, it's time for America to put a female redskin in the White House.
Don't you think?
Yes, that's a joke.
Look it up.
But I mean it about supporting her.