My Response To Ms. Malkin and Spoons
Dean
The always-interesting Michelle Malkin responds to my criticisms as does the irascible Spoons, both suggesting that I don't think we should be worried about homeland security.
Cheap shot, guys.
I have a brother who's former Border Patrol who now works for DHS as a special agent, and a father who used to be an INS investigator and assistant director for special investigations in Texas. I know a little something about how these things operate. If our suspected terrorist was on a watch list, it means they've been watching her, or trying to, for a while. Furthermore, the Border Patrol and INS often catch people quite some ways from the Rio Grande, because they've found that patrolling every inch of it is inefficient; instead they patrol many highways and back roads north of the river, many of them well into US territory. This is normal; just getting over the Rio Grande doesn't mean you've done anything more than trudge through the desert, well away from civilization. Patrolling north of the river is often a more reliable way to catch "undocumenteds" (to use the PC phrasing). Indeed, they often catch them a hundred miles or more from the border, because they know that there are only certain paths you can take to get to civilization from the desert.
So until I hear a lot more details, I'm gonna assume our boys and girls in DHS have been doing their jobs.
I also note that both Spoons and Malkin completely ignore my larger point about racial profiling, about how the very most-wanted terrorists that Malkin points to mostly do not look particularly Arabic, and how this latest one we caught was a woman with a South African passport. Which renders the reasoning for profiling rather suspect. Both Spoons and Malkin completely skip over this point, which is a profound one--because as someone who worries a great deal about national security, I don't particularly want to leave Al Qaeda such an obvious security hole. Get a non-Arabic passport, get a few people who don't particularly look like Arab men, and traipse right past our authorities who are spending too much energy looking at the swarthy white guys with the big noses.
My much smaller point, the one Spoons and Malkin choose to attack, is that the authorities obviously had our latest terrorist on a watch list, which means in my experience that they'd had their eye on her for a while. So I'd really like to hear more than what's been shown to us so far before we merely assume that this woman has been skipping merrily back and forth across the border without anyone really knowing.
I'll await a direct response on my point about the foolish security hole that racial profiling would leave us, since that was the point both of you seem to have missed.
Indeed, let me be clear: I think you're both guilty of short-sighted thinking that's likely to get Americans killed.
(Cartoon by the incomparable Cox & Forkum, who have more on the use of non-profile-fitting people for terrorism.)
Because it was a completely unrelated point! As it happens, though, your point about this woman we caught is still wrong. Despite the fact that this woman was on a terrorist watch list, we didn't manage to catch her when she crossed the border. We caught her only because she was dumb enough to show up at an airport and present hinky documents. Like the foiling of the Millenium terror plot, the fact that we got this woman is largely attributable to luck. That was my point, not your stuff about racial profiling.
Besides, just because I attack one thing you said, I have to attack all the things you said? Very well, if you wish....
Your attack against so-called racial profiling is a straw man. Racial profiling, as you surely must know, does not mean that you look only at Arab males between 18 and 40, and everyone else gets a pass. That's silly, and no one proposes it. No one wants to create the "security hole" for anyone who doesn't fit the profile. What we should do, however, is consider the race, sex, age, religion, national origin, etc. as we evaluate potential threats. That's only common sense. Saying that we shouldn't be allowed to look at those factors is logic that only a lawyer or a liberal could love.
The overwhelming number of people who want to attack us fit a certain profile. Could the terrorists purposely recruit someone who doesn't fit? Probably, although not without some difficulty. They could probably get Arab or Muslim women fairly easily, so if you want to argue that the profile should include women, I'd have no problem with that. But that's arguing about the details of the profile, not whether there should be a profile. It's easier for the terrorists to use certain kinds of people to attack us. Certain kinds of people have been responsible for most of the attacks in the past. Why do we insist that the people charged with preventing attacks ignore that information.
Let's say we've got 25 people on a given flight whose files raise red flags for one way or the other. Perhaps they paid cash for their tickets. Or bought one way. Or bought right before the flight. Or don't have luggage. Whatever. Let's say we've got the resources to pull aside 10 of those people for further questioning before the flight. 3 of the 25 are from Saudi Arabia. One is from Egypt. One is from Lebannon. The rest are non-Arab citizens of the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Jamaica, and Portugal.
If you oppose racial profiling, you're saying that we ought not to make any special effort to make sure that the Saudis, Egyptian, or Lebannese get extra questioning. That's madness.
And it's no answer to say that we should just question everybody. The specifics of this hypo aren't the point. The point is that we have limited resources. There will always be more things that we'd like to investigate than we can investigate. Race, national origin, and religion are factors that a rational person would consider in focusing our limited resources. That doesn't mean we never look closely at a Canadian. It just means that we take all available information into account.
You're right, ethnicity and national background should be used as factors in the decision-making process. I'll start with myself. I am, as Arnold Harris put it in Dean's original thread, a "mongrel American". I had one grandparent from each of the following countries:
Ireland
England
Poland
Italy
My last name is Italian (it's not really Sobchak, in case you haven't seen The Big Lebowski and didn't know). I "look" kind of Italian, because I have somewhat dark skin, though that's really just relative to White white people. I'm highly agnostic, leaning heavily toward atheism, so I guess my religion can't really be considered a factor, unless you would argue that agnosticism is inherently nihilistic, making me a more likely candidate to commit acts that "normal" people would never even consider ("We believes in nothing, Lebowski, nothing!"). Let's call that one a neutral and move on to nationalities.
1) Irish:
Lots of terrorists from Ireland in the world, far more than most other countries. But I'm neither a practicing Protestant nor Catholic, although I was baptized Catholic and both my parents are, but don't practice either. So, does that give me an exemption or a red flag?
2) English:
Hmmm... not much here as far as terrorism, although there are a lot of Muslims living there now. I would think even the most incompetent bureaucrats would be able to avoid associating my Brit ancestors with modern-day Muslim immigrants, but you never know. Also, let's not forget that the Irish lineage in combination with this one probably means some internal conflicts (because we all know that one's ethnic background is always at the forefront of every sane person's mind), potentially making me more prone to suicide.
3) Polish:
The Pollocks are probably too dumb to worry about, right? Plus, they'd certainly never dare to mess with the U.S., 'cause then we'd just sic Germany or Russia on 'em. So this one's gotta be a pass.
4) Italian:
Almost too obvious to mention. Red flags all over the place, especially since this is the one that matches my last name, meaning my father was Italian, meaning possibly only two degrees of separation between me and Tony Soprano himself. I wouldn't trust me on a plane just for that. Hell, I wouldn't even trust me in the airport, 'cause who knows what a greasy lying wop dago might try with all those executives and diplomats passing through non-stop. Scary.
Please let me know when you and fellow supporters of racial profiling have managed to create a system that can account for all the elements of my racial background, and the approximately 10 quadrillion or so other potential combinations of ethnicity (don't forget all the possible psychological interactions between ethnicities, by the way). You better get started soon if you want to be finished with this by the election. If you'd like, I know a few warbloggers I'm sure you could recruit to the task (not sure if any of them have the programming or data-collection expertise that you'll need, but at least they'd be warm bodies). Good luck to you. I know I, for one, will feel more secure once I can just check with the government to find out whether I'm safe to allow on a plane. Sometimes this keeps me up at night, just wondering whether I might someday decide to blow up a plane for the freedom of my Irish brothers, the glory of my English compatriots, the solidarity of my Polish comrades, or the honor of The Family. Help me, Obi Wan Spoons. You're my only hope.
Hardly. If your point was that fewer than 100% of terrorists look like Arabs, or that any security procedure that subjects all non-Arabs to zero scrutiny is a bad idea, then it was a master-of-the-obvious point. If it wasn't, then I'm not sure what your point was, assuming that was one at all.
The point remains unaddressed by any of you.
Spoons addressed your point handily, I thought, but maybe I can add something to help. The main communication problem is that we aren't advocating simple ethnic profiling. You, Spoons and I (I am not comfortable speaking for Michele, since her words aren't right in front of me) are in agreement that a simple ethnic profile is not desireable.
Profiling works based on probabilites. Since we have only limited resources it is smart to use them efficiently. It forces our enemies to work harder to find people who don't match the profile, provided they know what the profile is. If the terrorists know the profile and if they can match a safe profile, voila: they have exploited your security hole. If we can't check everyone then our only other option is random checks. But random checks are even easier to defeat. You just send more attackers, knowing some will get through.
So you do profiling and random checks. Profiles should consider current and past behavior, credit history, political affiliations, professional affiliations, sex, nationality, ethnicity, country of origin, faith and other factors I hope somebody else thought of. These factors should be weighted, and the weights should change, based on the available intelligence.
This is similiar to computer anti-virus protection and similiar security issues. Virus signatures can be defeated, yet they are very helpful. There is no silver bullet. I believe in the power of combined arms, including in security. Bring all the useful tools to the task, including profiling.
Yours,
Wince
And they're getting non-Arabic passports. Why are you guys sidestepping this?
And further, if they know what our profiling methods are, they'll specifically work around them. Why are you guys ignoring that on the list of most-wanted terrorists, A MAJORITY OF THEM ARE NOT ARAB-LOOKING MALES?
Why are you just sidestepping that and sneering at me? The very list of FBI most-wanted terrorists that Michelle linked to was a MOSTLY NOT ARAB LOOKING MALES.
So what the hell are you guys talking about? A sophisticated database that looks at country of origin, sex, etc. based on probabilities? Okay, but jesus, as soon as it's known what they're looking for they'll tailor their way around it.
It strikes me that common sense has gone out the window with you guys.
Ahh, we are in agreement. Those who are complaining, "We aren't looking Norwegian-looking grandmothers" are doing two things:
1) Arguing against political correctness run amuck. They aren't arguing against random checks and sophisticated profiling of the sort Spoons and I advocate. They are arguing against applying the standards of American race-based politics to this security issue.
2) Complaining because a particular Norwegian-looking grandmother was subjected to extra scrutiny and she was very upset. Note that this group isn't just right wingers. Echoes of, "Why the heck did they put a sobriety checkpoint here? I'm going to be late to work at this rate. Rassa frassa...."
Do you think I've got it right? If so, everyone can calm down and stop calling each other stupid.
Yours,
Wince
None of us is claiming perfect security. If we subject one out of ten passengers randomly to extra scrutiny, we have a one in ten chance of of the extra scrutiny paying off. To highjack a given plane with four men, the attackers just make sure 10% plus four of the passengers are highjackers. So some sort of profiling is helpful.
The first sort of profiling is for behavior, such as one-way tickets. But behavior is easy to change, so this sort of profiling has an obvious security hole.
The other characteristics we've mentioned are harder to change. But not especially hard. Passports can be forged. Dark skin and hair can be bleached. Cosmetic surgery works. Men have been masquerading as women for a long time. And you can always recruit those who don't match the profile.
The only way to avoid the security holes from profiling and random checks is to subject everyone to the same level of scrutiny. But this is obviously wastes resources on those who are not a threat. Some such wastage is unavoidable, but wastage of more than 90% seems a bit excessive.
Yours,
Wince
The issue isn't really even so much whether racial profiling might not be a bad idea in theory. If we were dealing with, as Wince and Nod said, computer viruses, then it would be a great idea. Because, after all, computer viruses are not human beings. With human beings, it's really not a difficult progression from profiling for legitimate law enforcement / anti-terrorism reasons to all-out race wars. Haven't you guys seen the experiment with the blue-eyed/brown-eyed kids? You can read about it here, but you need to watch the video to get the full impact. Basically, the gist of it is that labeling people as inferior (or, in this case, "deserving of suspicion") because they possess certain physical characteristics engenders corresponding "inferior" behavior in those so labeled, and "superior" (even abusive - please watch the video if you can) behavior in the rest of the group.
Look, if we start officially checking all Arabs, even if they're not the only ones profiled, the slippery slope potential should be kind of obvious based on historical evidence. If I thought we could trust ourselves not to take it too far, then maybe I'd consider supporting something like that, although even then reluctantly. It's just too ugly all around. And by the way, no matter what, profiling leaves a security hole: one need only look at the case of Israel if you don't believe me. Israel does profile on planes, and there hasn't been a successful hijacking of El Al in about 30 years, so now it's buses and restaurants that get hit. If you want to argue that the scale of destruction is still smaller in those cases than it would be on a plane, then maybe you'd have a point. But even then, it still illustrates that profiling is not a fully effective option for dealing with terrorism.
In my opinion, addressing the legitimate grievances that terrorists use as an excuse to murder people is the only way to remove the continuous supply of new recruits, because I'm sure that most Muslims and Arabs are regular people just like Americans, who end up volunteering as bin Laden's cannon fodder because they just saw a friend or family member blown apart by a smart bomb that (oops!) accidentally landed on an apartment building.
I realize this has almost become a liberal cliche, but I guess my view is that it always takes two to tango, and if people are willing to personally fly planes into buildings, killing themselves and 3,000 other people, I have a hard time believing it's just because they "hate freedom". More likely, just as with almost everything else involving human beings, there are plenty of entirely disparate reasons, but I bet among those reasons is U.S. behavior toward the Muslim world, which can at best be considered arrogant and at worst hegemonic. Regardless of any of that, do those of you who aren't bigots (I assume most of you, other than Arnold Harris from the first thread) really want to live in a country where Arabs (or any other groups) are second-class citizens?
Bernadine Dohrn is a Norwegian-looking grandmother. She's been a terrorist. Has she been one lately? No. Is she linked to terrorist groups now? No. But just look at the anarchists and lefty "pro-peace" assholes who plan on disrupting the Republican convention in a few weeks, and ask yourself if any of those people could be recruited.
Al Qaeda is now trying to recruit women, blacks, whites, non-Arabs. The IRA is known to work with groups like them. Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols may have had ties to them. When Hizbollah figured out that the Israelis went out of their way to look mostly at men, they started recruiting women, with much success, getting even 15, 16 year old girls to work with. Half the terrorists we're looking for now are not Arab males, and terrorists are now carrying non-Arab passports.
I've talked to people in law enforcement who will tell you that the most effective drug smugglers coming out of Mexico are white retirees in their 70s and 80s driving Winnebagos, because they figure no one will look twice at them.
Political correctness run amok? OKay, I can oppose that. But what about political INcorrectness creating a mile-wide hole in security?
You REALLY think I can't find a 60-something white woman who hates America and would work with terrorists? What the fuck are you smoking?
Al Qaeda is NOW RECRUITING NON-ARABS. We KNOW they are doing this. Why are you letting your opposition to political correctness blind you to common sense?!?
I would much rather we take sensible precautions, like randomly searching young Arab males more often than Norwegian-looking grandmothers to prevent a big attack on the U.S. after which we get fed up and nuke Mecca. I'm much more worried about our penchant for revenge than I am about our penchant for racism. Sorry, Walter, I think your way will result in more Muslim and American deaths than mine.
Yours,
Wince
Partly this is because we all construct such profiles anyway. We teach our children to beware of strangers. We notice people who are out of place. These are not phobias, they are a completely useful survival mechanisms. I am wary of men in urban apparel and biker gear. People don't dress like that where I live and work. That's a profile. Such profiles are wise for those who want to be safe, as long as you know most people who dress thus are not a threat, and you use behaviorial cues as well.
I don't think you can keep people from profiling. It is a human trait. So why not take advantage of it, control it and make it scientific in accordance with the intelligence we receive? If we deliberately teach ourselves, via frank and open discussion, to construct our personal profiles based on more than simple appearance or ethnicity we enhance our security and we reduce racism. I would very much like to recognize the behavior of a Norwegian-looking grandmother who happens to be a terrorist, as well as that of an Arab whose behavior is actually an attempt to comply with the washing necessary before the required daily prayers.
As for your question, I pick jail, especially since you did not specifiy that I was the only one killed in the attack. This is easy, since it is hypothetical. I'd be righteously pissed to be imprisoned and tortured when I was innocent.
Yours,
Wince
I don't relish the idea of any increased scrutiny due to terrorism. But it's something the world is going to have to get used to.
That said, the lady was busted at the airport, which means she avoided all those measures. That's what makes it scarier, atleast for me.
He wrote:
"In my opinion, addressing the legitimate grievances that terrorists use as an excuse to murder people"
Terrorists have no legitimate grievances. As soon as they start murdering people, they forfeit all claims to my sympathy. Looking for "legitimate grievances" or "root causes" of terrorism is nothing but abject appeasement and surrender. We must stop rewarding terrorists and start destroying them.
is the only way to remove the continuous supply of new recruits, because I'm sure that most Muslims and Arabs are regular people just like Americans, who end up volunteering as bin Laden's cannon fodder because they just saw a friend or family member blown apart by a smart bomb that (oops!) accidentally landed on an apartment building."
An accidental death in a war against mass murderers justifies deliberate mass murder? I say no, it doesn't.
"I realize this has almost become a liberal cliche, but I guess my view is that it always takes two to tango, and if people are willing to personally fly planes into buildings, killing themselves and 3,000 other people, I have a hard time believing it's just because they "hate freedom"."
Yes. It's because they hate freedom. They hate a civilization in which women walk free and unveiled, in which homosexuals are not stoned to death, in which homosexual marriage is seriously discussed, in which polytheists as well as Christians and Jews worship freely, and in which atheists are free not to worship at all. Yes, they hate all that and they will stop at nothing to destroy it.
"More likely, just as with almost everything else involving human beings, there are plenty of entirely disparate reasons, but I bet among those reasons is U.S. behavior toward the Muslim world, which can at best be considered arrogant and at worst hegemonic."
Blame America First. That right there is Political Correctness run amok in anything ever was. That word "hegemony" so popular among the Politically Correct Left comes from the jargon of the Maoist (not even Soviet) Communists, for whom even Nikita Kruschev was too pro-Western.
I am proud to be an arrogant American hegomonic Western Zionist imperialist. Our civilization _is_ superior to any other on this planet.
"Regardless of any of that, do those of you who aren't bigots (I assume most of you, other than Arnold Harris from the first thread) really want to live in a country where Arabs (or any other groups) are second-class citizens?"
Anybody who comes here for the purpose of pepetrating terrorism should not be a citizen at all. They should not be allowed to set foot on our soil in the first place.
I'm proud to be called a "bigot" by the Politically Correct appeasers, One-Worlders, and America-haters. Now, where is Arnold Harris? We need him here. He always livens up a discussion.
"Again, if you want to argue that discrimination is better than a terrorist attack, then you might convince some people, but not me."
Discrimination is far better than a terrorist attack. Discrimination is good. Discrimination is one of the highest virtues. We discriminate all the time, or we should. We discriminate between the beautiful and the ugly. We discriminate between the smart and the stupid. We discriminate between food and poison. We MUST discriminate.
Thanks for taking Walter to task for his clearly grevious folly. I was concentrating on the topic of the thread. The terrorists are not justified in any way. This country is a city on a hill, and al Quaeda nothing more than murderous thugs. This doesn't mean that all Arabs or all Muslims are such. But the Baathist party's father is the Nazi party, and al Queda's father is the Assassins.
Yours,
Wince
If you set up any more straw men, you could plant a field of corn and be assured that no crow would ever trouble your crops. There is no discussion with someone as assured in his opinions as you, so I won't bother trying. I'll just leave you with this: find an Arab or Muslim. Talk to him or her. Learn about his or her life, and family and friends. I challenge you to do that and then repeat what you've just said to him or her in person. I don't believe you would do it, because like most racists, you are nothing but a lazy coward who always takes the mental path of least resistance, arriving at only the easiest, most convenient answers to the world's problems.
And Wince, I'm extremely disappointed that you backed him up. I thought you sounded like a reasonably intelligent person, but I guess I was wrong. In any case, I call Godwin's Law on you, thereby ending this thread.
I am reasonable. So is Stephen. But we are fighting a war, and you are unwittingly siding with the enemy. Consider that an extremely important reason to call it like it is. You'll note, if you care to look, that both Stephen and I were quite careful NOT to slam all Muslims and all Arabs. Stephen slammed only the terrorist minority, and I added the Baathists.
You are a reasonably intelligent person, but you might consider giving us the benefit of the doubt. Arnold Harris, whom you casually slam, is a WWII vet. He is as crusty and cantankerous a curmudgeon as one could ever hope to read, and his clarity of thought has earned our respect. I disagree with him on some subjects just as much as I do you, but my respect for him is immense. Stephen has earned my respect as well, even though on at least two subjects we are on decidely opposite sides of the issue. We all could benefit from this conversation. Your careful point about the true dangers of racism shows you deserve our respect, but you will get slammed for coddling terror here. It is not a popular position on this blog.
Godwin's Law hasn't been passed by Congress. It means only that people are unwilling to contemplate evil and call it like it is. In any event, I didn't call YOU a Nazi, so Godwin's Law cannot be invoked. You are more like Charles Lindbergh, who became, behind the scences, a hero of WWII. Be all you can be, Walter.
Yours,
Wince
You posted your reply while I was still writing mine. That happens frequently. I surely did not want to undercut anything you said, if I did so. Thank you.
OK, you haven't coddled terrorists. You are just playing the "It's America's Fault" song, which is the theme music from the "Let's Coddle Terrorists" TV show.
That would be a tough thing to say, but I think you are exaggerating. When the TSA pulls aside an innocent Norwegian grandmother for a random try at extra scrutiny she gets upset, but she doesn't go to jail. Similarly, when the TSA pulls aside an innocent young Arb male for a random try at extra scrutiny he gets upset, but he doesn't go to jail.
Racial profiling doesn't mean throw random Arabs in jail.
Yours,
Wince
Yes, I understand that Al Qaeda is recruiting non-Arabs and non-Men. I don't see anyone advocating profiling Arab males to the exclusion of anything else.
But it seems to me common sense that if 6 Arab males board a cross country flight with one way tickets, they ought to get a "little extra attention" before lift-off.
Yours,
Wince
1) There are two sides, one overwhelmingly powerful, wealthy, technologically advanced, while the other is weak, poor, and backward.
2) The weaker side happens to control territory that contains a resource of high value, one might even say indispensable to the functioning of the stronger side's economy.
3) The elite portion of the weaker side has, for years, made certain that its peasants are kept poor and miserable, but held mostly quiescent through religious study and the promise of a better life in the hereafter.
4) The stronger side, despite every motive and opportunity, is totally innocent of all wrongdoing with regard to the weaker side. It acts with only the noblest of intentions, its leaders slavishly devoted to bringing freedom and prosperity to all the world's people, especially those who oppose it most fiercely. It never acts out of naked self-interest, and does not miss an opportunity to open its arms in generosity and fellowship with all mankind. It has certainly never taken any action that might give a sane person reason to hate it.
Please e-mail the results of your search for such a real-world situation to:
notbloodylikely@snowballschanceinhell.com
Ahhh, we are in agreement. Bush's plan to address the legitmate problems in the Middle East by giving the Iraqis a chance to build their own Democracy is my favorite solution.
Yours,
Wince
"But it seems to me common sense that if 6 Arab males board a cross country flight with one way tickets, they ought to get a "little extra attention" before lift-off."
They ought to get "a little extra attention" before they're allowed into this country! There is no Constitutional right to immigrate into this or any other country. A sovereign, free, nation has the right to exclude unwanted aliens for any reason it sees fit. Nobody about whom there is the slightest question as to their loyalties or intentions should be allowed to set foot on our soil. We are at War for our very survival.
Walter Sobchak's latest comment comes down once again to "It's all too complex for you benighted rubes to understand, but enlightened intellectuals like me see that America, the country you love, is really an evil imperialist hegemonic superpower exploiting the wretched of the earth."
No. I assume you're intentionally twisting my words, so I'll say it once more, briefly:
That is not my view of America. All I wanted to point out is that people on the receiving end of our power might see it a little differently. If you can't even wrap your mind around that in theory (whether you agree with it or not), instead assuming that the range of feeling toward the U.S. goes directly from blind, unquestioning love of every aspect to fanatical, equally blind hatred, then you really are a benighted rube. Not anyone else, just you. Of course, I'm sure you can grasp the concept, but refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy because that would require bending one of the rigid structural bases of your crystalline-fragile worldview. It's not a difficult concept and requires no intellectualism, just a basic understanding that other human beings are as complex as you are. So long as you can assume that your enemies are mindless, unreasoning savages, it's easy to maintain that famous right-wing moral certitude that's so conducive to constructive debate. On the bright side, at least you were able to add to your growing collection of straw men with this latest argument.
Walter is not necessarily humming the tune I thought he was. His tune might very well be hummed by Stephen Den Beste and Paul Wolfowitz. It's completely compatible with the idea that a democratic solution is best. It is also completely compatible with those who "Blame America First". But Walter has been pretty careful to distance himself from that second idea. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Walter,
You are experiencing Stephen's flamboyant, expressive, passionate style. Isn't it refreshing? He doesn't often change his mind about an idea, although it has happened. But he will change his mind about people.
Yours,
Wince
Thank you. I'm going to give Walter the benefit of the doubt, too. He's trying to grasp the complexities of the whole situation, see things from all sides. I'm more black-and-white, absolute.
I must confess that just before 9/11, I myself was reading Chomsky and others on the Left, including the once-venerable Industrial Workers of the World, with a somewhat sympathetic curiousity, seeing about synthesizing that with a Chestertonian distributism.
9/11, and every word I heard from the Left every day thereafter hammered different thoughts into my brain which left no room for Chomsky or Moore or anybody else in that quadrant. Santorum and then John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner hammered yet more thoughts into me which further crystallized my position to where it is now, very close to Rand and even closer to Nietzsche.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.