I agree with Holleran. The "M" word was nowhere to be found. That would be like making a film about Nazi attrocities and never identifying the Nazis as ... Nazis.

D. Eastbrook

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 4/30/2006 03:14:20 PM

Check out Scott Holleran's review of United 93 at Box Office Mojo:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=2056&p=.htm

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 4/30/2006 06:55:21 AM

I read that. It was, like, you know, dude, it was scary. We counted on these people to, like, you know, just stand there in awe of our chains. You know.

Not a clue among the whole bunch.

This reminds of a story from England about traders and Kyoto freaks who tried to stop trading on the floor. Seems those usually polite traders weren't so polite to the shocked trespassers and saboteurs.

That provided a good laugh as well.

Janet Busch

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 4/30/2006 12:56:58 AM

You will be relieved to know that United 93 makes the specific point that the passengers knew they were destined to die and acted in the only way that might save themselves in the process.

--
Posted by Ayatollah Ghilmeini to Thrutch at 4/29/2006 07:28:51 PM

When I was a child, I heard a comment that stayed with me: The safest place to hide is in a crowd. That goes along with the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. Both, to differing extents, address the meaning of evasion. Islamists have never been either covert or subtle, ever, in their entire history. People who should know better in the West over the past several hundred years have seen Islam for what it is and have done this kabuki dance of evasion, as though by not identifying the nature of Islam, it would not be Islam. Thus, these truly evil people in NYC strut their stuff before legions of disinterested and selectively unconscious Americans. This Islamic Thinkers group is reminiscent of SNCC, Black Panthers, etc. of a few decades ago--people in responsible positions all ran for the sandbox to stick their heads in. Those groups morphed into the current nasty black activists, including Nation of Islam.

But, take hope. They think they are King Kongs and can get away with anything because they have the local, state, and federal authorities backing THEM up, not us, and they think they have all of us cowed. Bad miscalculation: resistance is not futile (thanks to Star Trek for the expression). In the recent past, for example, CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) has lost big time legally, several times now. People stood up to them,and justice prevailed.

We have to let these Islamics know that we are mad as hell and won't take it anymore (thanks to movie Network for the line). These are bullies. When they encounter resistance, they increase their force. When the force of resistance increases, they begin their retreat.

--
Posted by George Mason (PBUH) to Thrutch at 4/29/2006 10:30:49 AM

Republicans are Democrats in drag.

The clearest example I have seen in a long time came from this so-called "universal health insurance" law in Massachusetts. Republican governor Romney bragged all over the airwaves that this act, his bill, was a classic. And, indeed it was. It was Democrat principles implemented through a Republican filter. The thing he liked about this "Republican filter" the most was that it "reformed the market."

In a mixed economy, such as we still have at present, all the varieties of socialism run together. This makes it hard to call one item, say, communist, another, say, social democrat, yet another, say, fascist. And so on. It reminds me of going into a saloon, with bottle after bottle lined up in front the mirror behind the bartender. When he asks, What'll you have, you really have a quandry. Every liquid in every bottle is poisonous, although each acts in minor ways differently from its neighboring liquids. The answer is "None," followed by a quick trip down the street to get a big dose of capitalism.

We already know Democrats so really do not have to discuss them. We need to rip the masks off the Republicans.

Fire them all.

--
Posted by George Mason (PBUH) to Thrutch at 4/29/2006 10:12:41 AM

They have effectively shut down any attempt to speak out against them, so they feel perfectly safe and are emboldened to be honest. It is past time to replace the fear of Allah with a more healthy fear of the USofA.

Janet Busch

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 4/22/2006 12:33:44 AM

Hi Gideon,

Thanks for your comment and the link. I particularly like Locke's quote at the end of your post.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 4/18/2006 03:37:40 PM

It seems that VDH has a rather confused view of reason as Platonic contemplation and discussion, the opposite of forceful action. Once again we see the limitations of Conservatives. I have commented on this on my blog a while back.

--
Posted by Gideon to Thrutch at 4/18/2006 11:22:01 AM

Thanks Jason,

I wasn't aware of VDH's book, but your comments re unearned guilt make perfect sense to me.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 4/17/2006 12:31:56 PM

That’s a good point and Hanson has been saying this for some time going back at least to the publication of his book Carnage and Culture. If the title isn’t a hint, the “editorial reviews” spell it out. The impression that I’m left with (from reading the book years back) is that he accepts the necessity (or the prudence) for the need to fight with all one’s might but also accepts an unearned guilt. Still, if one can ignore his judgment he still argues with extensive historical reference that it is a free society that produces both the will to fight and the means to fight that provide the decisive edge.

However, I suggest that an unearned guilt, if widely accepted, will demoralize and undermine that will. Speaking of unearned guilt, this also reminds me of Paul Johnson’s lament (in Modern Times) that the British people accepted the “utilitarian” policy of bombing German territory including the near certain if not deliberate killing of civilians.

--
Posted by Jason_Pappas to Thrutch at 4/17/2006 12:21:38 PM

You mean the destruction of a Government, which has brought their people under an absolute despotism, and the death of a tyrant will make the freedom loving Iranian youths hate us? WHAT????

--
Posted by Jeff Luebcke to Thrutch at 4/16/2006 01:41:58 PM

Amit,

I really like the "roach motel" analogy!

Gus

--
Posted by Gus Van Horn to Thrutch at 4/13/2006 11:01:04 PM

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the comment (and sorry for taking so long to respond). Believe it or not, originally I had started that paragraph with "Probably not of interest to most here...", but then I thought it was a bit too lame to actually say. Instead I tried to indicate that the post was revealing of the mentality of Objectivists' critics (or at least one brand of them), and I think that even your comment suggests that it did indeed fulfill that purpose.

Nonetheless I agree that that post was a bit of a departure from the typical Thrutch subject matter, as I have tried to position Thrutch to deal with issues of a more general nature, and will continue to do so in the future.

As to your comment about Mike and Diana, I have to disagree, I think it is a value to confront those who make wild claims and show how ridiculous they truly are. This is a benefit to the new reader or the genuinely confused, and I think by the comments of others on that thread, that purpose was served.


Obviously it's not necessary to do it over and over, but I don't think that's been the case, and from here on out people can link to that thread to see the typical Objectivist basher's claims for what they are-- baseless drivel.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 4/12/2006 11:53:48 AM

Thanks for the comments and links zama and Janet; I hadn't spent much time on either of the sites you mention but will make a point to do so soon.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 4/12/2006 07:40:33 AM

I concur. I've been a long time LGF reader. I quit commenting a long time ago, however, when a bunch of racists and/or religionists sort of took over.
Johnson has done a good job of keeping up with what is happening and his readership represents hundreds of dedicated extra eyes and ears for him.

I like to keep up with MEMRI, as well. LGF links to the most interesting translations, but I like to check it for myself. It is fascinating - and eye opening - to see what is being said in Arabic out of one side of someone's mouth, and compare it to what is being said in English out of the other side.

Janet Busch

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 4/12/2006 02:36:13 AM

I'd have to agree. Most of the Islam exposing sites are either pro-Christianity or Christianity appeasing as well. I see alot of the sentiment: "Islam is not a true religion of love and peace but Christianity is". This hardly helps the problem.

Also I see that many secular exposers of Islam a very eager to make "allies" with Christians. Jason Papas' site Liberty and Culture comes to mind. He does a good job of showing the true nature of Islam but never goes the extra mile by connecting it to the problems with faith itself ala Ayn Rand in "Faith and Force" for fear of offending his religous viewers. He even rationalizes it:

http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2006/03/two-methods-of-attack.html

There are many sites like that. Its like the David Kelly approach of trying to make friends by conveniently ommitting the religious nature of your newfound allies.

But your right. Everyone should read LGF to keep up with both the Islamic assault on the West and the post-modernists capitulation to it.

BTW, here is anothe good aggregate site:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

--
Posted by zama202 to Thrutch at 4/11/2006 05:44:29 PM

Hersh is wrong. There are no current plans to have an air strike against Iran.

http://charlottecapitalist.blogspot.com/2006/04/no-attack-on-iran-by-airstrike.html

Andy Clarkson

--
Posted by Andy to Thrutch at 4/10/2006 04:30:07 PM

Before anyone thinks I am an anti-American, defeatist bastard, I'll tell you that I am a capitalist, pro-reason kind-of guy. But heres how it is... there is no better unifying factor for a country than when another invades it. We invade or even just bombard Iran, we will lose, we are already spread thin because of Iraq and partly because of Afghanistan; invading Iran would be suicide. On the other hand, without an invasion, Iran is not unified, the educated youth, a.k.a. the future leaders of Iran see the evils of its present dictatorship and everyone survives. We threw out the dictatorship in Iran years ago, and look where we are now. Lets not do the same thing again. I know I might sound like one of those squeamish spoiled little brats who keep saying 'just listen to them, give them what they want, were the evil ones'. No, were not the evil ones, but lets not make our own situation worse than it already is.

--
Posted by Will A. to Thrutch at 4/10/2006 03:16:30 PM

The guys in Iran seem to be preparing.

--
Posted by softwareNerd to Thrutch at 4/09/2006 09:10:49 PM

Who gives a rat's ass about 'saving Iran'? This is about saving our own asses from nuclear IEDs and worse.

--
Posted by The Anti-Jihadist to Thrutch at 4/09/2006 05:57:51 AM

I was disappointed you (Thrutch) directed us to the R. Campbell Mazzo thread.

The whole debate, from its starting point (Ayn Rand's issues with Evolution), was a dog's breakfast of speculation, knee jerk reaction to non-essentials and abundant mis-use of concepts (e.g. "instinct" is an anti-concept). There were some interesting points among the mess, but not enough to warrant the patience it took to get to them.

It's beyond me why people spend time responding to the nonsense of such as Robert Campbell. Their rationalism and crude manner are too common on Objectivist blog/discussion sites. The best solution is to ignore them and the sites that give them a voice.

Mazzo, and Hsieh, surely have smarter and happier things to do. I know I do, which is why I generally come to Thrutch. I'm afraid that link was a let down.

--
Posted by Richard Bramwell to Thrutch at 4/08/2006 07:58:33 AM

The fact is that either we choose to allow the Islamic Republic of Iran to develop the nuclear system that would allow for nuclear weapons or we don't. Bring on the apocalyptic rhetoric.

--
Posted by JasonSpalding to Thrutch at 4/08/2006 09:28:47 PM

Whatever the truth or falsity of the story or claim, the police have priorities and I believe you can get a quicker response by what you say. If you want them to come, motivate them.

--
Posted by Jack Crawford to Thrutch at 4/06/2006 05:58:36 AM

No matter how convoluted and obfuscatory the questions and the "studies," the solution is always the same: CAPITALISM.

--
Posted by George Mason (PBUH) to Thrutch at 4/05/2006 08:31:54 AM

Thanks for an excellent blog!

Your link to Blair on "How to Call the Police" was certainly made in good faith, but Blair may not have done his homework. Snopes (urban legend tracker) states that the story is not true, but their methodology can be confusing.

Each explanation at www.snopes.com begins with a Claim statement. They then assign the Claim statement a true or false Status. Then a sample story is presented with a detailed explanation.

In this case their Status assignment was "True, and was followed by the sample that Blair quoted. However, the detailed explanation demonstrated that the sample story was false!

I learned that it is the *Claim* to which they assign a Truth Status, NOT the story. Their approach, rationalized in their FAQs, is that the Claim and Status statements are about the general *kind of* story, and not about the example. Unfortunately this readily leads one to believe a particular story is true, when it is not. These ought to form two types of legends -distinguishing the True and False types. Each could then have accurate examples of each.

--
Posted by Richard Bramwell to Thrutch at 4/03/2006 08:24:19 AM

Thanks Richard, I hadn't ever really looked at the snopes site in any detail, and wasn't aware of the distinction you point out.

I don't normally blog on this type of item, but just thought it was amusing when I saw it on Blair's site.

Generally the point you make is very important though, as overall I've realized that I'm too quick to believe what I see on other blogs and will have to do more source checking in the future. So thanks again for commenting.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 4/03/2006 08:38:34 AM

It's refreshing to see it stated so explicitly.

--
Posted by Brian Most to Thrutch at 4/02/2006 10:42:51 AM