Einstein concludes "But for the future our hope lies in overcoming the general moral abasement which today gravely menaces the very existence of mankind."' Which refers to the 'today' of 1948. Am I too optimistic if I think there is general improvement in our world's moral standards and behavior now from the 40's and 50's.

I think we are too casual in our tendency to ridicule as 'PC' an inclination to value sensitivity to others. It seems to me it is a strength and a leap forward from the casual inhumanity of earlier times.

Recently there was a seminar of US newspaper editors held in D.C., and one forum featured several reporters who had been working in and on the Iraq war. It was agreed by them all that the reason cells of terrorists were not being turned up in the US to the extent they have been in European and middle eastern countries is that our society is inclined to openness, and that muslim communities here are able to meld as they are nowhere else in the rest of this world.

In a way, isn't our innocence one of our strengths?

Ruth, innocence can be both a strength and a vulnerability. Depends on the context. In an environment of threat, weakness. But then, think it through and ask yourself if innocence is the right word to use for what you're trying to convey.

As for PC, unmitigated weakness. The sensitivity can be a strength, but the structure of PC itself makes it impossible to be anything other than a weakness. The 2 need a divorce, or both will go down the drain as PC does.

But with respect to Muslim communities in America vs. Europe, your ESP is on because I have an article tomorrow with some excellent thoughts on that exact subject from "Muslim Refusenik" Irshad Manji.

JK:

Glad to hear re: your topic-to-be. I look forward to it.

Disagree re: PC. I think you're taking too seriously the ridicule of typical campus level poseurs, and that without a standard of correctness (okay, I'm being silly to call it PC) there would be much more unthinking bias.

I take as an example my becoming aware that I had always held an unreflecting bias against gays. It was part of an unquestioning attitude. When I became aware of a couple of people I really like and respect being gay, it shocked me, and with a great deal of agonizing, I became aware that I was totally 'incorrect' in my attitude. Sounds awfully pat, but it was not.

I particularly was influenced by my son who, although straight himself, holds a chairmanship in a gay group. I do admire that.

Okay, re: innocence. You might have deduced that the words 'strong' and 'weak' aren't particularly leading members of my vocabulary. I'll take this one under consideration. You could be right.

PC is doomed because it's totalitarian to the core, enforced through codes that make dissent thoughtcrime. A quick look around campuses reveals its essence - and that essence is a farce of Keystone Cops Maoism to the vast majority of the students who experience it.

It's possible to constrain overt actions, of course; that's the essence of western law. In debate, it's possible to appeal to standards - but that recognizes that the standards are subject to debate if they're seen as unfair or as politics by other means. Likewise, one can appeal to ideals like common humanity. Martin Luther King's genius and power came from appealing to standards his enemies had sworn to uphold (scripture, American ideals) while making an eloquent case.

PC is part of the "illiberal liberalism" complex, and its biggest weakness is that it short circuits discussions over standards and ideals by trying to place them beyond debate. Which is exactly the wrong thing to do if we take Einstein's quote seriously. It's like the guy who climbs all the way up on to the roof... and then pulls up the ladder behind him so others can get up there too. Um, slight disconnect.

It's also possible to take approaches that "dissolve" certain questions. Gay rights? The biggest factor going today is 5 guys named Thom, Kayan, Carson, Jai and Ted. The long term impact of millions of straight people watching that will be seismic. Likewise, what changed the abortion debate re: issues like 3rd trimester abortions wasn't politics - it was ultrasound.

Just look at what happened at harvard. That alone puts the entire lot of them in discredit.

The attackers due to their in your face war against reality, and the target, unable to defend objective truth.

As for the jihad to force the abnormals to be accepted as normal, its a fraud on it face. The left do not support individual rights, but the concept of group privlege. The leftist doctrine transforms what is immutable into the whim of the state.

And presto, there is the road to leftist hell.
And of course, yet another attempt at utopia is where their eyes are affixed

Its nothing more than part of "Tear it all Down"

JK:
My statement: “I think we are too casual in our tendency to ridicule as 'PC' an inclination to value sensitivity to others.”

Okay, I knew I was pushing your buttons. But your reply to the implication that PC (politically correct) could be seen, a propos of the Einstein quote deploring “the general moral abasement which today gravely menaces the very existence of mankind”, in 1948, as a desirable aspect of our present day culture - was quite remarkable in its total rejection.

You said re: PC

**“As for PC, unmitigated weakness. The sensitivity can be a strength, but the structure of PC itself makes it impossible to be anything other than a weakness. The 2 need a divorce, or both will go down the drain as PC does.
PC is doomed because it's totalitarian to the core, enforced through codes that make dissent thoughtcrime. A quick look around campuses reveals its essence - and that essence is a farce of Keystone Cops Maoism to the vast majority of the students who experience it.
PC is part of the "illiberal liberalism" complex, and its biggest weakness is that it short circuits discussions over standards and ideals by trying to place them beyond debate.”**

May I venture to point out that there is a closeminded aspect to your characterisation of the concept of ‘politically correct’.

Einstein was encountering a society that was unselfconsciously racist, somewhat northern European tribal, which was closed to nonwhite, nonchristian, nonstraight, and generally nonconforming members which I would typify in the mold of Sinclair Lewis, WASP dominance. It was stifling and smug, and its mindset is one I would contrast to today’s PC as ‘totalitarian’ in its WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) dominance. Not what I would expect you to endorse.

While I see the reaction to that, the rejection of the dominant WASP culture as desirable, the McCarthy era - which I suspect Einstein would agree with me on - and name as PC attitude the breaking away from that closed mindset, you seem to be assuming that all that 1948 mindset is behind us, so the present day PC is your bete noire.

Our terminologies seem to be a main point of dispute. My experience, born in 1944, includes that of the “Main Street” society, yours most likely begins after that was all behind us. While I see the era of the Rosenberg execution being put behind us and see the PC attitude as a healthy rejection of that societal character, you see today’s society as being marred by a totalitarianism of rejection (PC) of a conservative mindset. My experience of conservatism is that of some one who saw the ills of the WASP domination it represented in the 40's and 50's.

Your experience I would venture to suggest is of some one who sees the ills of rejection of mainstream conventional society. I also would venture to suggest that we both have healthy outlooks, and have basic agreement about decency and morality. But while I went through the era when openness was outside the norm, you are more of the era when openness is embraced ad nauseum. Hmmm?

Raymond:

As you have twice called me a 'baby killer' following my suggestions as to ways you might actually save lives, I tend to think you are incapable of discussion of actual moral values.

Raymond,

We are finding out that what you call abnormals are for the most part biologically determined. And in some cases interactions of the environment with genetics as in the case of PTSD, especially as it relates to use of illegal drugs.

Addiction or Self Medication

A blood test for PTSD

If the so called abnormals present no danger to life or property they ought to be included in the community of man.

Of course this goes against everthing the cultural conservatives believe and want. In the end science will win. It always has.

Which is one of the reasons that the Catholic Church is Darwinist. The science is quite strong and is consistient across many disciplines.

As our knowledge of biology increases many of the old prejudices will be untenable. My condolences.

Ruth the rosenburgs was guilty
In fact we now know we missed quite a few.

And I answered you fully, its bad form to pretend I did not. Intelectual honesty please.

There is a baby shortage if your looking to adopt, something i pointed you at, pointing at a recent poster who is one of those that got lucky.

But your fraud implies since nobody is to take care of them then killing them is OK.

No bzzzt sorry, Human beings have rights.

I wont accept a false primis, or false choice questions, lefties use those a lot, so those that dont fall for the misdirection ....

What the left always opt for is license to be irresponsible, they dont allow freedom because they see man as imcompetent in its excersize, which flows naturally from those that sees the notion of self restraint as incoherrent.

You see this in the essay pointed at by Glens Nightfall post.

All I can see, are children in adult bodies begging for govt slavery as the solution to their lack of self control.

When amorality (nonjudgmental) becomes a "virtue" the rest that flows from that is automatic.

We have a different future in store, you will be free, but you will be held responsible for your actions ... there will be no license ... bad behavior that produces bad results, the actors must bear the burden for those results.

Others are not to bear the burden for the irresponsibility of others.

This will have the natural effect of forcing more to be responsible. its worked that way for at least 5,000 years.

We dont want what is happening in Britain and the rest of Europe to come here.

They can melt down without us, they are well on the way, we will watch, and also watch the cultural marxist ideas go down with them.

Ruth (#6) "Openness is embraced"... that's a joke, right?

M. Simon

Dont dare misreadme

In the USA, even the abnormals have rights, individual rights. And those rights extend up to the bounds of the equal rights of others.

Tammy Bruce:
bq. For example, as a gay woman, I expect tolerance. But I understand that tolerance is not "acceptance" or "buy-in." I don't expect other women to run out and become lesbians just because they tolerate me, or even if they like me or admire the stands I have taken. A fundamentalist Christian may think my lifestyle is wrong, but it's not by fundamentalist Christians that I have been attacked and demonized over the last seven years.

As for biological determinsm, that is a fraud. more of that lefty "science". its no more biological than child fixated dysfunctionals are. or those that get their kicks from pain.

There can be a brain malfunction inset from childhood, you should ask Tammy Bruce about that.

She talks about the untold secret, the older woman who abused them.

In the Death of Right and Wrong

Bruce started to notice a pattern of behavior among the Left of which she herself was guilty: many passionate leaders of the Left usually came out of a very traumatic past, such as child molestation or abuse, or an abusive relationship later in life. And usually this type of traumatic experience made them very angry at the world. The problem, she argues, is that they try "to shape our world to mirror their own damaged psyches." And it is their damage that holds them together.

Bruce proposes a diagnosis: a form of pathological narcissism called malignant narcissism. Pathological narcissism is "a pattern of traits and behaviors which signify infatuation and obsession with one's self to the exclusion of all others and the egotistic and ruthless pursuit of one's gratification, dominance, and ambition."

When pathological narcissism reaches "the aggressively destructive stage," it becomes malignant narcissism. Malignant narcissism "is very much connected with evil and with a number of clinical forms that evil takes, such as the pleasure and enjoyment in controlling others, in making them suffer, in destroying them, or the casual pleasure in using others' trust and confidence and love to exploit them and to destroy them." Malignant narcissism, Bruce argues, drives the Left Elite.

Bruce claims that, "What I am seeing today in the activist ranks of NOW and in the gay-power elite is something of which I have firsthand knowledge." She admits that, due to her own damage, she "was subconsciously attracted to the political spectrum that feeds on, exploits, and ultimately projects its demons onto the culture."

She recalls being in NOW board meetings where, if she didn't know better, she would have thought she had walked into a group therapy session. The problem is not that they have had horrible experiences and talk about it openly (this would seem relatively healthy); the problem is how they face it by not really facing it.

They leave out the final stage of recovery - "the stage where the group is supposed to concern itself with 'reintegrating the survivor into the community of ordinary people.'" But, instead, they remain perpetual victims. The victim's mindset becomes their morality.

Course, this is not particular to sexual dysfunction, Look at where Britain is going with their cultural marxist destruction of the link between mal-behavior and responsibility.

And as I said, they are free to jump into the abys, and the US is free not to follow them.

JK:

You said: '"Openness is embraced"...that's a joke, right?' which refers to my saying: "But while I went through the era when openness was outside the norm, you are more of the era when openness is embraced ad nauseum."

You may be expressing: opinion as to a lack of the print media's 'openness', or of societal lack of 'openness'. I'm not sure. But as I said earlier, my experience in 40's and 50's society was lack of openness, of the WASP variety. So I see openness in acceptance of [buzzword] diversity and unconventional thought. Extremes like Ward Churchill (sp?) and Anne Coulter aren't norms and aren't representative in my view.

Raymond: quite possibly Rosenbergs were guilty, but that wasn't the crux of their case in the press at the time.

Possibly ?
Not possibly certainly

We also learned that McCarthy was right, and why John and Robert Kennedy stuck with McCarthy

IE, the information in the Verona transcripts and other classified material was known to them.

And Simon, I left put the best part

Really, do you honestly think if a child is actually sexually confused because his priest or Uncle Joe molested him, that anyone at the “gay school” is going to tell him that he just might need psychological help dealing with the trauma, and may be heterosexual and not gay at all?

Of course not. We’ll throw that kid on the garbage heap so gay malignant narcissists can feel more “normal” by making kids be just like them. While the gay establishment refuses to address the impact our histories have on our sexual identity, I refuse to let that cowardice take children as its next victims.

That biological trait crap is just another leftist fraud.

And Ruth
You compare Ward Churchill and Ann Coulter?

That makes Ward better than he is or Ann worse that she deserves. its a smear she does not deserve.

Its the Bush=Hitler moonbat syndrome.

Ruth

"I tend to think you are incapable of discussion of actual moral values."

Are you an advocate of moral value legislation? If so then who is to decide? The minority, the majority, the judges, the legislators the list goes on. The Terri Shiavo case should be evidence enough of the process gone amuck. When you remove from public debate that which should be squarely decided by the public you loose any sense of morality that might exist.

To me the problem with "PC" talk is that it follows the same protocol as slang. Slang and "PC" talk are designed to make light of the gravity of the debate. They are used to portray that which some may find offensive or objectionable in a manner that is less than what it really is.

For instance I personally see mo value in hate crime legislation. It makes light of the fact that the current law which is sufficient for all somehow is not sufficient enough. If that be the case then it is time to rewrite the law for all. Specific allowances or alienations only complicate the matter and do not address the issue at hand.

As we began this thread, "Einstein concludes "But for the future our hope lies in overcoming the general moral abasement which today gravely menaces the very existence of mankind."' Which refers to the 'today' of 1948. Am I too optimistic if I think there is general improvement in our world's moral standards and behavior now from the 40's and 50's."

If you followed JK's original message, the conclusion of Jewish philosophy was that the role the people of Judaism saw for themselves was in carrying on the adherence to and teaching of moral values throughout the ages.

You ask if I see moral values as legislative matters, and no, I think an individual chooses his own way. If there is an attempt to legislate particular moral values, it is going to result in ultimate quibbling. Each of us has to apply our own moral grounding to himself/herself.

If your experience of the "PC" values is of triviality, that is one experience. As I pointed out, what today we see as PC is an advance on the 40's and 50's, when society was somewhat blind to status for ethnic and religious minorities. So I view it as a positive development. And a step forward from the moral debasement that Einstein was observing around him in that era.

Ruth how are lies an advance ?

I find the perversion of language the very thing Orwell warned about.

You dont change attutudes via word substutution.

And the lefts efforts there is changing the makup on, not the makeup of.

Look at the lefts current definition of hate speach and racism. winning the argument.

And thats all i can see from here, all it is is a reality defense screen, part of their group think bubble.

And as for behavior, M Moore could go to the RNC and he KNEW, he would need no security, because he knows we act properly.

When the most vile creatures give speaches at university, they dont bother with much in the way of security, because they know we will act properly.

The same is not true when Ann goes to a speaking engagment. they always make those that invited her jump thru hoops because the maoist stalinist left dont want rightist speakers on campus, the administration will often deny or cancel under threat of riot.

Because the left, with their speach codes and correctness are those that display the lack of self control, heckle and throw pies.

Lot of good the leftist PC does for the left.

And word subtitution does not address what is wrong with them.

Their behavior during the convention in new york, even people standing in lines with their kids was attacked.

We dont do that type of thing ... and we dont need your stupid PC codes to know how to behave ourselves.

Ruth

"Am I too optimistic if I think there is general improvement in our world's moral standards and behavior now from the 40's and 50's."

No you aren't and I agree with you on that point.

"If your experience of the "PC" values is of triviality, that is one experience."

Where I think we disagree is on the use of the term "PC". Einstein called it as he saw it. He didn't use double speak or try to gloss over the tragedies and their implications of the day. If in that sense you want to consider his statement "PC" then that's fine with me.

My issue with "PC" today may be a totally different definition of the "PC" you speak of. As the terms Liberal and Liberalism have been hijacked on numerous occasions I am quickly coming to the conclusion the term "PC" has followed the same fate.

Ruth, I'm going to invite the wrath of all the libertarians that comment here by claiming that all laws are attempts to legislate morality. We don't outlaw murder simply because allowing it would be disruptive, but also because it's wrong. We don't outlaw fraud only because it makes doing business difficult, but also because it is dishonest and immoral. Even if you assume that we do, in fact, outlaw such behavior only because it is destructive to good order, that still implies a moral judgement on the importance of good order. There's a reason we call it the "Justice" Department and not the "Order" Department. I also don't accept (again contra libertarians and liberals) moral relativism. Like all relativisms, it's ultimately self-refuting. If I maintain that all moral statements are relative (to a religion, a gender, a racial or ethnic group, a culture, or an individual), either that statement, as a moral statement, is itself relative, in which case it's true if it's false and false if it's true or there is at least one absolute moral statement (that moral statements are relative). Again it's true if it's false and false if it's true.

I'm not sure we're any more moral than we were in the 40s and 50s. It seems to me that Civil Rights is more a broader application of traditional morality than an addition to it. And another total war like WWII in which our survival was at stake would elicit the same brutality that WWII did.

I also agree with USMC that we're probably working off different definitions of "PC." People on the left tend to defend things like speech codes in the name tolerance and fairness. People on the right have no problem with tolerance (depending on what's being tolerated) or fairness, but we disagree that a speech code is the way to achieve it. Many on the left then have the intellectual dishonesty to claim that since we oppose speech codes, we must ipso facto oppose the tolerance and fairness they are designed to enforce. If you define the tolerance and fairness itself as "PC" I think you'll find few who object to it. But if you define the specific policies like speech codes as "PC" you'll find many who have a huge problem with it.

I'm not sure we're any more moral than we were in the 40s and 50s. It seems to me that Civil Rights is more a broader application of traditional morality than an addition to it. And another total war like WWII in which our survival was at stake would elicit the same brutality that WWII did.

Fred

And it isnt "Civil Rights" those do not exist, but the consitutional rights garranty to the individual.

The civil rights invention is just another leftist egalitarian creation out of thin air, backed by nothing.

Fred

"I'm going to invite the wrath of all the libertarians that comment here by claiming that all laws are attempts to legislate morality."

While I don't disagree with your assessment, be they laws or the ten commandments or pick your favorite. There are three rules in my house that I enforce and expect from all individuals. Don't lie, don't cheat and don't steal. Mind those and the rest will take care of itself. Not only will you gain respect and tolerance you will more than likely gain support for your endeavors.

"If you define the tolerance and fairness itself as "PC" I think you'll find few who object to it. But if you define the specific policies like speech codes as "PC" you'll find many who have a huge problem with it."

Thanks for clarification. You hit the nail smack dab on the head.

True, we're using the term PC in different ways, and it's partly my fault because I used the 'buzzword' to denote an attitude, when really for most of you it would denote a pose. As I noted to JK, it was partly pushing buttons, and for that reason we've taken a lot of time getting around the term itself.

Ruth, you're close to the heart of it. In being provocative you've stumbled onto something - but can you see it?

You see PC in generational terms that are, really, once removed. Most of the people here commenting see it as something they've lived through and experienced as subjects of those who practice it.

What you're hearing isn't that PC is a pose, though it often is. What you're hearing is that PC is both real and the antithesis of open-mindedness, or tolerance, or justice.

What you've stumbled onto is the fact that the phenomenon isn't what you think it is - and frankly, it's highly analagous to the trust-fund Trotskyites of your generation who would become puzzled when confronted with people who had actually lived in Marxist countries. The words denoted a common subject, but one was talking about an imaginary thing in their head while the others were describing experienced reality that had lasting effects on their attitudes.

But don't let me stop you from lioninizing "PC" in any form you like. No point looking a gift like that in the mouth, and all.

One thing that should be understood, though.

Re: tolerance. This isn't a problem of excessive open-mindedness (though relativism and the kind of brainless cant so scathingly mocked on South Park are issues with iberalism). "PC" is about attempt to AVOID debate or discussions about values or political programs, entrench a political monoculture that brooks NO dissent, and display quasi-judicial conduct that is consistently worthy of a Soviet or Maoist state - complete with kangaroo courts, lack of legal rights or freedom of dissent, and 're-education' as punishment for thoughtcrime. You can often throw in good old fashioned racism as well.

It is very often undertaken by people who visibly lack any [a] sense of tolerance or open-mindedness, [b] sense of decency, or [c ] constraints of safeguards or accountability. They display these lacunae quickly and often, and many make Joseph McCarthy look broad-minded, restrained in his methods, and scrupulous by comparison.

Abandoning previous targets of repression and choosing new ones designed to persecute your political opponents does not make one more open-minded. And as my generation sees it, that's all "PC" is.

They have passed by that which Einstein has seen, and learned nothing.

We've made progress despite PC, not because of it - and when you look to the segregated dorms and other "innovations" that would have done Jim Crow proud, some of us also see a major erosion in progress rather than any kind of growth of open-mindedness, tolerance, respect, or shared values.

Joe, Applause.

The delelmma of the left is they have principles, but cannot voice them, all they have left are little more than tools of opertunity, and used as such, give an in your face example of those that have no principles.

Principles are morality, and the large ones we see on todays stage are neither economic or social but both at the same time.

The left agitate on race issues not for Justice but as weapons, one instant we are called bigots, the next instant Powell is called a "House Slave"

When Clinton shoved kathleen against the wall and groped her, it was called merely "borish" and we are told he is a "top alpha male that must have his appetite sated".

The double standard informs that our opposition has no standards.

Not that they dont actually have what is to them their blind faith religion, Socialism. but they cant offer it openly because it dont sell.

The left can only accuse demonize and point the finger because they have no ideas that are not out of the communist manifesto and in the speeches of Hitler Stalin Castro Mao and Trotsky.

All those ideas have been rejected. so what do they have left?

When I first heard of the PC crap years ago, it was a joke. and we made jokes about them.

"Significant other" instead of wife and husband ?

Just hearing the phrase labels the person that utters it as a mentaly unballanced dullard.

Ohh the joke, "I suppose I call my ex wife, my Insignificant Other? "

PC,, a joke then, a joke now. and the invention of postmodern moonbat dysfunctional jokes.

I think, Raymond, you'll be surprised that the Left has ideas that go beyond Marx (though some leftists may not). Give this article in Dissent Magazine a read and you'll find some - but will you, too, be able to accept what you're seeing?

Norm Geras has been a leftist all his life. Yet he will fight for the betterment of humanity in real terms, and for the truth. He absolutely gets what Einstein had to say - and what the lesson of Warsaw means.

Read his article, and then I dare you to come back here and deny that.

Personally, I wouldn't be a whit surprised by a future return to religious roots by the Left. That was once common among social reformers. Marxism is, like General Franco, still dead (Chevy Chase SNL reference there). As part of that, much of the left's animating theology is in tatters while its teleology remains. Its quasi-nihilist relativist strains, meanwhile, can only stand in a vacuum... and the vacuum is ending on many fronts. The Left will transform - to what end, and into what configuration, no-one yet knows. But we can guess, and if I had to put down a marker, that would be one of mine.

At which point, you may need to get a better schtick to beat them with.

I'll add that "issues as weapons, not causes" and blatant double-standards are standard across the board in politics. Which is, of course, precisely why politicist ideologies like Marxism, Fascism, et. al. are so deadly dangerous.

Im familiar with Norm, and ive read what he is writing about his fellow leftists.

His dismay at their behavior, such as opposing any chance of success for the people of iraq because Bush might get some credit, is an expression of things we both share.

"What does the left stand for?" he is asking, what is wrong with democracy in Iraq?

So if most rightist share these things, based on core principles, and have all along. what does it mean to be a leftist, and what does that say as to who my target is?

Norm Agrees with me on that issue, so im clearly not talking about Him.

The freedom-forward rightist might be an invention of Goldwater, but goldwater did not invent that principle in the American Right. Its only a change of emphasis, a natural effect of that core principle comming under attack from the left.

That principle rules out leftism, that is by its nature authoritarian. and thats why it became a new issue to fight on. before it was taken for granted, shared by the democrats, it became an issue of contention when the democrats began to be taken over by the left.

This is not the first fight over freedom the Republicans have had with the Democrats, I seem to remember a freedom problem with the democrats because they thought it only applied to white people.

On that issue I and Norm would suddenly find ourselves in disagreement, and I would win that argument. Leftism without tyranny is impossible, and voluntary leftism isnt leftism, its charity.

Leftism requires govt thugs with guns to impose it.

Gimme enough of his time and if he is willing to stay intelectually honest, I can prove it.

Never the less, Norm is principled, he thinks he can have what he wants without govt thugs, he is wrong, but at least he is principled.

So as both I and Norm both look on the same bunch in the same disgust. both He, I and everyone else knows who both He, and I, are talking about.

Im sure we would both love for some sanity to return, where the moonbats no longer control the left side of the debate.

It would certainly be more enjoyable to debate the Norm Colemans than the moonbats Deniacs and the ANSWER bunch.

Explore the question if the left can seperate their idology from the need to impose their doctrines by force, ie, there are inherrent violations of human rights in the implimentation of leftism, the politics that imposes its doctrine with deadly force automatically has some unavoidable things that come with it.

Hence the pile of 174 Million skulls. or the slow decay with see in Socialist Europe, that will take you to the point eventually where the govt must start shooting people or abandon leftism.

Yup could have a nice debate with Norm, share some drinks ....

But then again. people like Norm are not the problem today, are they. They have been sidelined by the moonbats.

Another big question for Norm is, can leftism exist without the moonbats.

Remember when the stalinst union was blocking supplies sent to our troops fighting in Korea ?

Back then the moonbats was called "usefull idiots"