The New Republic

Maybe it was the IDF, Marty.

Can you account for the whereabouts of every IDF member?

Indeed, do you yourself have an ironclad alibi?

I do. I was with thousands of Anti-Zionist friends of mine. Jackson [following me everywhere I go] has a videotape of us plotting a takeover of The Spine.

Turkey comes in 47 on our list of massacres. Before Aruba and after Paraguay.

gw

- iambiguous

May 5, 2009 at 12:40am

These post titles are getting Twitter-worthy!

- Mormon Socialist

May 5, 2009 at 12:45am

If it keeps going like this, at some point the length of these headlines is going to take over the Spine box capacity on the TNR homepage.

- ironyroad

May 5, 2009 at 1:03am

Maybe it was members of the NRA.

- Wandreycer1

May 5, 2009 at 7:03am

I was thinking Zero Population Growth hardliners...

- selish70

May 5, 2009 at 8:19am

“I was with thousands of Anti-Zionist friends of mine. Jackson [following me everywhere I go] has a videotape of us plotting a takeover of The Spine.”

How can anyone follow an old crazy shut in?

George is a keyboard cowboy who has paranoid fantasies while typing.

- jacksondyer

May 5, 2009 at 9:30am

Another free verse experimental riff from the Spine:

Oh, What

A Relief:

Turkish Wedding Massacre

Might Not

Have

Been

An Inter-Ethnic Act Of Terror.

It Could Just

Have

Been

A Blood

Feud,

With 45 Murdered

By

Four

Men With Machine Guns

- teplukhin2you

May 5, 2009 at 10:49am

You're right Tep - its postively koan like. Marty distilled to the essence of Marty.

- Wandreycer1

May 5, 2009 at 11:21am

Someone needs to code a character limit on the headline field.

- mmathog

May 5, 2009 at 11:41am

Marty, according to the story, both the family of the bride and the groom were members of the village guard, set up to provide info against groups like the PKK.  So I doubt it was an act of the local Villiage Guard.     You should add an addendum to your post title.

- boneill

May 5, 2009 at 12:19pm

Hmmm. Turkey is 99.8% muslim.  This must've been perpetrated by Christians or Hindus or something.  After all, those Christians are always up to something.  That's what Dan Brown and a whole nation of left wing secular profs tell me.

The Religion of Peace has nothing to do with this, because they're a religion of peace...

- jwl2672

May 5, 2009 at 1:53pm

sexuallyambiguous,

Turkey comes in 47th on your list of massacres? Maybe you forgot the hundreds of thousands of Armenians killed.  Maybe that moves it up a couple of notches?

A couple of rogue soldiers put a dog collar on some prisoners and we never hear the end of it (fuck, some people, mostly liberals, pay good money to get spanked and treated like a sadist).  But heck, 50 get slaughtered and it's not even a blip on the news radar.

- jwl2672

May 5, 2009 at 1:56pm

"(fuck, some people, mostly liberals, pay good money to get spanked and treated like a sadist)."

ummm jwl, how would you know that?

"A couple of rogue soldiers put a dog collar on some prisoners and we never hear the end of it"

Maybe you should pick up a newspaper sometime jwl, get informed!

- mmathog

May 5, 2009 at 2:26pm

Wow, jwl, you're really on today!  Taking down Dan Brown.  Its about time his critical praise got punctured!  After all, real Americans don't like his Christian-bashing, right?  Only those pointy-headed college profs who buy his novels.  Good call.  But yes- Turkey is almost entirely Muslim.  Chances are though that this massacre had nothing to do with Islam qua Islam.   There can be crimes in Muslim countries that don't have to do with religion- remember Saddam?  Also, no one is suggessting that this was Christians or Hindus.  You're really becoming unhinged.  

Oh, and when people pay money to get spanked, they aren't being treated like a sadist.  They are being treated BY a sadist, as they themselves are masochists.  And, although sexual kinks cut across the political spectrum, it is usually the more repressed that want to be treated by a mistress.  So, being a sub isn't really just a lefty thing.

One more thing, because yo ureally manage to pack a lot of dumb into a few sentences: we hear more about our soldiers putting on dog collars (oh, and waterboarding) because they are our soldiers and we are part of Western Civilization and this is something we don't do.  We hear more about what happens here then in southeastern Turkey.  Not a shock.  And also, when people pay to be a sub, it is a choice.  When people don't it is coercion and not the way a Western country treats prisoners.  So yeah, pretty much wrong on everything.  

- boneill

May 5, 2009 at 3:16pm

" And, although sexual kinks cut across the political spectrum, it is usually the more repressed that want to be treated by a mistress."

Since you went out of your way to correct jwl2672 on his faulty terminology, shouldn't you have been more knowledgeable with yours?

I believe the term you were aiming at was ''dominatrix".

But I understand your errors;  you were in a rush to express your derision and not too particular about accuracy.

- noga1

May 5, 2009 at 3:33pm

No, people frequently call the dominatrix their mistress, not in terms of adultery, but in terms of a woman with power (think "headmistress").  I thought I'd use the more casual term.

And yes, I was in a hurry to express my derision, lest someone read jwl and think he had a point.  Otherwise, excellent rebuttal.

- boneill

May 5, 2009 at 3:59pm

Well, it's POSSIBLE it had nothing to do with religion; and it's POSSIBLE it had nothing to do with culture.  Where is Ayaan Hirsi Ali now that we need her?

- Mickey Weinber

May 5, 2009 at 4:03pm

Mickey-  I would say that it has to do with culture, which of course is tied up with religion, but I don't think it is so clear here.   If the families were part of the village guard, then they might have made a lot of enemies.  If they were powerful families, theymight have rivals.  Even a blood fued predates Islam (one of the many nice things that Islam incorporated).  Point is, I could be wrong- and will be happy to admit if it turns out I am- I doubt these people were killing in the name of God, just as the pious mafia killed for secular reasons.  

- boneill

May 5, 2009 at 4:26pm

Nogal- sorry about the sarcastic "excellent rebuttal" thing.  That wasn't deserved.  

- boneill

May 5, 2009 at 4:27pm

"..people frequently call the dominatrix their mistress, not in terms of adultery, but in terms of a woman with power (think "headmistress")."

Well, clearly you know much more about these things than I do. I humbly apologize for doubting the superiority of your  (linguistic)  expertise in the field of kinky sexuality

- noga1

May 5, 2009 at 4:49pm

Let nothing human be alien to me.

- boneill

May 5, 2009 at 5:00pm

jw:

Turkey comes in 47th on your list of massacres? Maybe you forgot the hundreds of thousands of Armenians killed. Maybe that moves it up a couple of notches?

george:

You still don't get it do you? It was me...I killed them all.

Indeed, there isn't a single massacre you can name...throughout human history...that was not either planned or executed by me. Or someone like me.

It all ends here. With me. With Us.

No child would starve, no man would be tortured, no evil would exist at all, if only my kind would go away. If only your kind ruled the world.

But then, your kind does rule the world, don't they?

george

- iambiguous

May 5, 2009 at 9:35pm

I don't know which amuses me more about JWL: the fact that is so ignorant, that he is borderline illiterate, or that he is so fucking pushy about being both ignorant and illiterate.  Responding to him is a whole new amusement park game: Whack-an-Asshole, with the added benefit that your arm won't hurt afterwards (even if occasionally i feel kinda bad beating him up - I mean, last time I taught undergrad was about twelve years ago, and even they weren't as bad as this clown).

And bone - needless to say, I totally agree with your use of "mistress", "dominatrix" being far too Hollywood.  

One thing is amusing, though - it is the capacity of the conservative "mind" to draw general conclusions about particular behaviours, and tar entire regions, religions, people with the same general brush.  And, interestingly enough, it is a trait shared by conservatives the world over, it would seem to me.  Just before logging on here, I was looking at a conservative Iranian website - listing rape, murder, exeuction, theft, etc. statistics in the US, and presenting near pornographic articles on Columbine and the Viennese torturer ... and naturally concluding that all Westerners were murderers and rapists, that all Western women were loose, that ... I make fun of these websites to my friends, and then come here and read the mirror image of the same comments and analysis in JWL ... Oy.

- icarusr

May 5, 2009 at 9:54pm

boneill:" I could be wrong- and will be happy to admit if it turns out I am- "

Me too.  I wish we were dealing in moral equvalency here.  Unhappily, we are not.

And I really do wonder why Hirsi Ali seems to have disappeared from the media.

- Mickey Weinber

May 6, 2009 at 2:17pm

icarusr:

Good God man.  You teach undergrad? But of course I should have known.  The indoctrination begins at an early age.  Good thing I didn't pay much attention during my bullshit liberal arts classes.  Having the advantage of experience and exposure that I didn't as an undergrad, I feel for your poor undergrads, being graded and exposed to the liberal tripe you spew.

What a joke university education has become.  Rid the schools of worthless liberal arts curriculum and return to the basic math, science, and english courses that sparked the industrial revolution.

- jwl2672

May 6, 2009 at 3:49pm

boneill: we hear more about our soldiers putting on dog collars (oh, and waterboarding) because they are our soldiers and we are part of Western Civilization and this is something we don't do.

And yet the only reason this got so much exposure is because of the anti-American elements of the world media (and the US media).  It's identical to those Danish cartoons that drew nary a comment until some douchebag imams made a campaign of using them to stir-up anti-Danish sentiment.  Dude, I remember they interviewed an Iraqi who said that it was nothing and that far far worse happened in Abu Ghraib under Hussein.  He couldn't understand the big deal about it.  The more that the media reports on this, the more it serves al qaeda's purpose in recruiting (although those they recruit are already inclined to hating us, this gives al qaeda another tool).

Yes, we should make note of this abuse.  Yes, we should correct it.  And yes, we should punish those responsible.  But why the heck create such a damned huge stink such that the already US hating terrorists use it as their rallying cry? That's self-suicide.  How many innocent people were bombed and killed because the media kept playing up that same story every day?

- jwl2672

May 6, 2009 at 3:59pm

jwl grunts:  "Rid the schools of worthless liberal arts curriculum and return to the basic math, science, and english courses that sparked the industrial revolution."

wikipedia, with further reference to Encyclopedia Britannica:  "The term liberal arts denotes a curriculum that imparts general knowledge and develops the student’s rational thought and intellectual capabilities, unlike the professional, vocational, technical curricula emphasizing specialization. The contemporary liberal arts comprise studying art, literature, languages, philosophy, politics, history, mathematics, and science."

- ironyroad

May 6, 2009 at 6:20pm

Irony: what comes out of JWL's mouth is not a grunt, it is a fart.

JWL: why would I even expect that you would understand basic English?  I *don't* teach undergrad any more (it's been twelve years) precisely because I had to deal with too many ignorant loudmouths like you.  I wait till the education system has culled the assholes and the idiots from the undergrad program, and then indoctrinate the best ones at law school.

"And yet the only reason this got so much exposure is because of the anti-American elements of the world media (and the US media)."  Actually, I was actively in support of the Iraq war until two things happened: Mission Accomplished (when it clearly hadn't) and Abu Ghraib.  Not because I was anti-America, you bloated bleeting fathead, but precisely because I was, had been and remain actively *pro-American* that Abu Ghraib hit me hard.  Mine was the reaction not of a cynic but a jilted lover.  I had lost the one argument I kept repeating to all anti-Americans: the exceptionalism of the American ideal; now, there was little to separate American from Egypt or Namibia for that matter.

And yeah, I teach my students silly idealist things like "the Rule of Law" and Western Legal Traditions; I teach them about such nasty liberal values as individual autonomy and the sanctity of contracts.  Poor things.    

- icarusr

May 7, 2009 at 12:29pm

In that case, icarusr, my apologies.  I tend to lump liberals into the same category (because personally, I know no other type in my experience) - that of the jilted lover as opposed to the cynical, hateful enemy for life.  In that case, we can talk, as we both want what's best for this country, albeit with different ideas of how to achieve it.

I would challenge your assertion that American exceptionalism is wiped out from Abu Ghraib.  Tarnished perhaps.  No one event from rogue soldiers should define a country.  It shouldn't unless it becomes institutionalized dog-leashing and hazing.  The Rule of Law is not so much important as the Spirit of Law.  How many countries are out there with clearly defined constitutions which the dictator-for-life uses as his cover for beating the hell out of his citizens? Far more important for the country to remember the Puritan foundation it was founded on.  In an ideal world, the Rule of Law matches perfectly the Spirit and also covers every permutation that may happen.  But we all know that's impossible and judges inevitably place their stamp on defining terms within the law/contract.

- jwl2672

May 7, 2009 at 2:33pm

ironyroad:

That may be what the classical definition of liberal arts, but the practical definition, as defined by the "great" liberal arts colleges of our time places significant emphasis on the philosophy, politics, and art over math and sciences.  Which is perfectly fine if the student is taught to decide for themselves whither the contrasting viewpoints presented from philosophers in history are valid.  But they're not - they're told how to think and to answer finals exams as the professor thinks.  I prefer straight right and wrong answers ala math and sciences.

- jwl2672

May 7, 2009 at 2:37pm

I think if you attended a history of philosophy class at any respectable liberal arts college, you would find the teaching and the exams place rather more weight on students understanding the debates and the controversies between contrasting viewpoints, and learning to develop their own arguments about them, than just regurgiting professorial opinion.  Students tend to give back professorial opinion, however, even when that's not required, as they believe it will get them a better grade.  Mostly, it doesn't   Still, some exams, even in the humanities, are informational -- it's not all interpretation.

Regarding the sciences -- interestingly enough, I heard just today that English majors consistently score higher on the MCAT test than Biology majors.

- ironyroad

May 7, 2009 at 5:14pm

"No one event from rogue soldiers should define a country."

No, but the problem with Abu Ghraib was not a single event from rogue soldiers; it is a disservice to the soldiers, and to the country, to continue to insist that this was just a simple problem traced to a couple of bad apples.

What we know is that systematically, elements within the Department of Justice sought to bend the law to achieve a particular purpose; that that purpose was to torture; that practices learned by torturers in Gitmo and elsewhere were then transplanted into Abu Ghraib; that when the news broke, the Pentagon decided to sacrifice the specific perpetrators and refused to address the bigger picture, even though its own internal report said that the problem went further up; that when the issue of torture was discussed, the Secretary of Defence, instead of being horrified that prisoners in the care of the US were being tortured in the name of the US and by US soldiers, made glib comments about his own standing around for four hours a day ... and so on.

I don't quite understand the distinction between "Spirit of the Law" and the "Rule of Law".  The Rule of Law is a bedrock principle, dating to the time of Henry II in the Anglo-Saxon world, and to Justinian in the civil law tradition: it is the principle that gives meaning to a constitutional republic like the United States.  (Without the "Rule of Law", why would anyone follow the US Constitution, regardless of its "spirit"?)  The Rule of Law is antecedent to everything else; it is the most basic of the Judaic precepts, in fact: the Ten (actually sixteen) Commandments must be followed not because they make sense, but because they are the law, that is all.  And so it is in our time.

The problem with the dictatorial countries that you mention is not that they have to do not have a constitution, it is in their imperfect attachment to the underlying principle, the Rule of Law, the primacy of the constitutional order to the dictator, to the will of the army, to the will of the majority, to the received wisdom of the church, and so on.  And, incidentally, the Rule of Law also means that it is not the traditions of the Puritan founders that are relevant, but the laws of the country: the Constitution as agreed and amendment, and the laws enacted thereafter.  The moment you oppose the Puritan traditions to existing laws - the Mayflower versus the Geneva Convention - you are undermining the Rule of Law and the constitutional order of the country.

- icarusr

May 7, 2009 at 6:25pm