Korthor

Perhaps if the US had acted differently sixty years ago NoKo wouldn't be a problem. And perhaps if China and SoKo stopped propping up NoKo it would collapse--although massive starvation (even to the point of millions) doesn't really seem to phase communist regimes. But then again, if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass on the ground when they hopped. It's great to talk about upholding principles of self-defense. I'm all for it, but I haven't seen anyone on this forum explain how to apply those principles in the context of NoKo. Some people have suggested preemptively attacking NoKo. Maybe that is the best policy, but people advocating that should at least acknowledge the real costs in millions of allied Asian civillian deaths and tens of thousands of American lives. Don't let Kim's bad haircut and goofy grin fool you. The NoKo military is not to be taken lightly... I've asked repeatedly for anyone on this forum to produce a single example of sanctions/blockades bringing down a tyrannical government. If the moral is practical, there should be at least one practical instantiation of people's theories. Or maybe people need to re-evaluate the content of their moral principles within the context of foreign policy.

North Korea was starving for quite a while before they got any humanitarian aid in the late 1990s. Literally hundreds of thousands of North Koreans starved, and there was no evidence it weakened the government. If anything, starvation aids the regime because controlling distribution of food empowers it. More generally, I'll repeat that there is no evidence that sanctions or blockades bring down tyrannies. Can anyone give me a single example? On the other hand, there are numerous examples of policies of engagment and/or containment collapsing tyrannies and diffusing enmity. Although there is no guarantee either policy would work, there is at least some basis in reality to believe that it might.

I don’t particularly like 6 party deal, but I do like the facts… 1. The deal doesn’t in any way “aid” NoKo’s nuclearization. It gives money, humanitarian aid, and fuel oil. Given that NoKo had made its nuclear program a top priority, it’s not like isolation of the regime was slowing it down. I’m sure the nuclear scientists were the last ones to be deprived of resources. 2. How would we blockade NoKo? Even if we could convince SoKo to end their Sunshine Policy (if not, would we declare war on South Korea?), how would we stop China from supplying NoKo? Would we invade China? Would we sink Japanese ships if Japan didn’t agree? Or would we just destroy the alliances that might be really important in containing China a couple of decades down the road? 3. Much of NoKo’s artillery is hidden in tunnels in the mountains, so it’s not clear that even a nuclear attack would destroy it. It’s very likely that NoKo would retain the capacity to retaliate against Seoul and possibly even Japan. Moreover, the nuclear fallout would definitely affect South Korea. I’m sorry if some don’t “buy” my characterization, but those are the facts. If anyone has arguments from a credible military analyst explaining how a first strike could disable NoKo retaliatory capacity, then I might change my position on the matter. 4. The North Korea military, unlike the Iraqi army, is in an extremely defensive position, and there’s no evidence they’re eager to surrender. Certainly, we shouldn’t enter the war with wildly optimistic assumptions. Remember what happened last time we did that? The Iraqis greeted us as liberators and the oil revenues paid for the war! 5. Would a blockade collapse the regime? Even under conditions of extreme starvation (like the late 1990s) the regime didn’t collapse. In the end, the army and security forces get fed, which seems to be enough to sustain the regime. Is there any evidence at all to support the thesis that blockades and/or sanctions collapse tyrannical regimes? In fact, empirical evidence suggests the opposite. Yeah economic malaise led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that was under conditions of engagement, not isolation. 6. It will be years before the US is ready to fight another conventional war or has bunker busters (if we decided to really work at building them). By then, NoKo will have several nukes if pessimistic assumptions about their propensity to cheat are correct (which is probably the case). Should we invade them now when we’re not ready, or later when they have nukes? Surely there must be another option, like containment…you know the policy that actually brought down the Soviet Union.

The North Korea situation is truly depressing. There are no military options that would not involve the immediate elimination of Seoul, the deaths of tens of thousands of American servicemen stationed in South Korea, and the possible obliteration of Tokyo.* On the other hand, the North Korean track record on following agreements hardly makes the current policy appealing. I guess the Bush administration’s thinking goes like, “We either engage in diplomacy to try and slow down NoKo’s inevitable nuclearization, or we do nothing. Slowing down is better than nothing.” The only glimmer of hope is that the Chinese seem serious about trying to limit NoKo’s nuclearization, and the Chinese do have some influence on the regime. Additionally, it is important to distinguish between South Korea’s unconditional aid to the North (the so called “Sunshine Policy”) and the aid agreements resulting from the 6-Party talks. The South and the Chinese have been propping up the North for years simply because neither wants millions of North Korean refugees streaming across their borders.** That brings up the question of what their long-term hopes are, since the current situation can’t go on indefinitely. They seem to be hoping that at some point their can be a peaceful rapprochement, perhaps modeled off the German experience. That may be wishful thinking, but on the Korean peninsula everyone seems to think the status quo is preferable to all other options. It easy to mock the insanity of US policy towards NoKo, but is there any alternative? *Also, the US military is way overstretched. Senior military analysts have gone so far as to describe the US Army as “broken” because of Iraq. We are hardly in good shape to get involved in a land war in Asia. And we can’t just bomb our way to victory either. The North has been preparing for a defensive war for the over fifty years, and they are quite literally “dug in.” The US could destroy NoKo’s civilian population, but much of its offensive military assets at the DMZ could survive any conventional attack, and possibly any nuclear one as well. We could eventually destroy North Korea, but not before they killed tens of millions of people. Plus, who knows what the long-term geopolitical implications of such a move would be vis-à-vis the Chinese? ** And that’s the optimistic scenario. Who knows what Kim would do in the event of a sudden regime collapse?

It seems to me that the two predominant defenses of abortion rights (fetus isn't viable and fetus isn't rational) have some problems. In the case of viability, the advance of medical technology will probably soon make even a fertilized egg viable. To say that we should shift our understanding of viability to those that can survive on their own without medical technology brings its own problems: this standard would justify killing many disabled people, as well as many babies that are born prematurely. In the case of rationality, pro-life people seem to have won the argument that one is talking about "potential" rationality, since a new born baby is in no way rational. That then brings up the question of why fetuses aren't equally potentially rational? Why does birth give an entity a qualitative increase in either potential or actual rationality? I've never seen a good argument for this position. I think the real argument for the pro-choice posiiton is that the fetus is part of the woman's body. One has the right to do whatever one wants to one's body, and that would include abortion. While I might at least empathize with the claim that is morally questionable to kill one's potentially rational/viable offspring, to say that a fetus has a right to life would imply an on-face contradiction in rights... that is in no way compatible with Objectivist philosophy.

I agree with DavidOdden that you jump the gun a bit in your proof. For example, you begin your proof proper with "individual rights can be rationally justified as moral principles derived from the social requirements of man’s nature. The argument would go something like this: because man exists as a rational being with a particular mode of survival, he must have the right to life in order to survive" You are essentially jumping from "man exists as a rational being with a particular mode of survival" to "the right to life." I can completely understand why your prof would be confused, since the phrase "rational being with a particular mode of survival" means a great deal to Objectivists, and very little to everyone else. You need to do a lot more work defining the moral nature of man before you can make that jump. You start to do that a bit in the middle of the second paragraph when you talk about "thinking freely," etc. You need to move those arguments up and elaborate on them more. Moreover, I think your phrase "social requirements of man's nature" is what led the prof to think that you thought rights derived from society. Is there a better way to phrase this that wouldn't lead to that confusion? Finally, I found your distinction between "inherent" and "conditional" rights in the second paragraph somewhat confusing. Moreover, the distinction seemed somewhat secondary given your rather enormous task of defending rights in two paragraphs. Can you take it out? Was your only motivation the academic need to talk about Locke for your prof's benefit? If so, you might figure a way to use some Lockean principles (e.g., his argument for property rights) to defend your notion of rights rather than trying to distinguish between Locke and your view of rights, which somewhat muddies up your argument. In conclusion, when faced with situations like these I would try to learn rather than be angry. Your paragraphs aren't perfect, and maybe you can learn from your prof how to argue your case better. Even if you find him frustrating personally, learning to deal with irrational people is also a valuable thing to know in this society.

That's good news. I can't believe that some on this forum defended Yahoo's outting of dissidents as just the price of doing business. There's a difference between complying with stupid and arbitrary regulations in a country on the one hand, and handing over people to be tortured on the other. If the Nazis required you to cooperate finding Jews for them during WWII in order to keep your business open, would you have complied? Yahoo should have withdrawn its business first. Although there probably isn't the law to support it, I'd be strongly in favor of the Yahoo people who made the decision going to jail (in the US) for many years.

To Garry Brenner… You obviously have a great deal invested in Wagner, so I doubt anything I say could convince you otherwise. When I point to anti-Semitism in his aesthetic theories, you say that anti-Semitism was common. When I point to anti-Semitism in his operas, you say that you choose not to read them that way. When I and others point to Schopenhauerian nihilism* at the root of Wagner’s narratives and themes (and he himself admits this), you say lots of people had bad philosophies. No doubt if I said Wagner tortured babies, you would dismiss this as a quaint eccentricity… But the debate about Wagner is somewhat besides my general point, which is that there are disturbing elements in German Romanticism. Despite your careful point by point response, you don’t really respond to my particular arguments about German Romanticism: 1. I think you misunderstood my argument about universalism v. exclusivity in English v. German nationalism. English and French nationalism were framed in largely universalism terms (“white man’s burden” to spread civilization everywhere and the declaration of “the rights of man”), while German nationalism was much more inwardly focused on establishing a homogenous racial and cultural community. Yes the English thought of themselves as special people, but they thought that precisely because they believed the English embodied universal norms of “civilization.”** 2. Moreover, my argument about anti-Semitism was NOT a matter of anachronistic PC-policing. Anti-Semitism plays a particular role in this German Romanticism, given that the Jew is a symbol of the disintegrating forces of modernity that threaten this community (you can find this phenomenon in lots of places, but I thought my Wagner quote demonstrated the point). Thus, anti-Semitism is not just a cute peculiarity, but instead intrinsic to its Weltanschauung. Moreover, the Jew is a symbol of capitalist modernity, which ties to my third point… 3. Yeah we all read Beowulf in high school, but I’ll still argue that Wagner’s neopaganism is a particularly Teutonic phenomenon, and that it is an expression of anti-modernism that is much more tied to German Romanticism than that of other nationalities. So I stand by my argument: search for racial purity, anti-modernism, anti-Semitism, and Schopenhaurian pessimism run strongly in German Romanticism, and you can find all of these in Wagner. But if you still like his music, it’s OK. Like Nietzsche, there is perhaps more to admire than condemn. When it comes to aesthetic appreciation, what you get out of the art is the most important thing. My comments about Wagner and German Romanticism are written from the perspective of a cultural historian, not a music critic. *Schopenhaurian pessimism isn’t just Christianity redux. If anything, it’s closer to a very passive interpretation of Buddhism. Moreover, it’s not a matter of him just taking over motifs (like Michaelangelo in the Sistine Chapel), but rather Schopenharian pessimism guides his writing on the thematic level. **Just look at the language difference. The word “civilization,” with its universalistic overtones, is a Latin-French import. The closest Germanic equivalent is “Kultur,” which has much more particularistic overtones (there are universal standards of “civilized” conduct while “cultural” norms are always specific). It’s true that “Zivilisation” eventually made its way into German, but it has much more of the connotations of modernity (e.g., die Zivilisation v. das Hinterland). Thus, even the German idea of “Zivilisation” evokes a particular time and place (e.g., the “civilized” parts of the country). To my knowledge, the Germans have no word that really evokes the same universalism as the word “civilization.” P.S. Pssst…. Jack London was a naturalist. It’s OK… I won’t tell anyone you like him.

I believe that the universally accpeted criterion is if they clap their hands. Failing that, perhaps a smile will surely show it.

I think Rand's comments reflect the fact that she knew relatively little about musicology (to my knowledge). Maybe some of ya'll who seem to know a great deal about the subject would care to elaborate some theories? (Although that would probably should be a new thread)

One more point of clarification on the "anti-capitalism." I would argue that Wagnerian hostility to capitalism is rooted in a hostility to modernity (whose symbol was the Jew), not a philosophical sense of the role of the government in the economy. Thus, it is not completely bonkers to look for anti-capitalist messages in the way Wagner reinterpreted Nordic myth.

We are dealing in "simplistic" generalities, so you can no doubt find counter-examples, and ultimately people familiar with 19th century European culture will either be convinced of my analysis or they won't, but I'll give it another try... I would make two distinctions between English Romantic nationalism (e.g., Kipling) and German Romantic nationalism (e.g., Wagner): 1. German nationalism is much more rooted in the past, in the historic sense of the Germans as a "Volk." While you can find some Arthurian legend and whatnot in the English writers (e.g., Tennyson), the English rely much less on a sense of myth in defining their national ethos. After all, one of Tolkien's main motivations was precisely a lack of English myth. In fact, I would go so far as to say that "progress" was an essential component of English national identity. In short, the English looked to the future, the Germans to the past. 2. The English nationalist (i.e., imperial) project was framed in universalistic terms. After all, it was "the white man's burden" (Kipling) to bring civilizatoin to the world. By contrast, German nationalism was much more exclusivist. They thought of themselves as a particular people, and had no desire to spread "German-ness" across the globe. To put it another way, when the English conquered people they set up schools. When the Germans conquered people, they killed the Jews. Anti-semitism is a broadly European phenomenon, and one can find examples of it everywhere--including in Wagner. The Nazis might lead one to suspect the Germans were a bit more serious about it than others, but it would be unfair to blame Wagner for the Nazis. On the other hand, I would make the claim that an essential aspect of the way the German Romantics conceived their identity was contra-Jewishness. The Jew was a symbol of capitalist modernity,the erosion of community, and the debasement of "Kultur" and "Kunst." For an exemplification of these views by our friend Wagner, here's a quote from "Jewishness in Music": "According to the present constitution of this world, the Jew in truth is already more than emancipate: he rules, and will rule, so long as Money remains the power before which all our doings and our dealings lose their force. That the historical adversity of the Jews and the rapacious rawness of Christian-German potentates have brought this power within the hands of Israel's sons — this needs no argument of ours to prove. That the impossibility of carrying farther any natural, any 'necessary' and truly beauteous thing, upon the basis of that stage whereat the evolution of our arts has now arrived, and without a total alteration of that basis — that this has also brought the public Art-taste of our time between the busy fingers of the Jew, however, is the matter whose grounds we here have to consider somewhat closer. What their thralls had toiled and moiled to pay the liege-lords of the Roman and the Medieval world, to-day is turned to money by the Jew: who thinks of noticing that the guileless-looking scrap of paper is slimy with the blood of countless generations? What the heroes of the arts, with untold strain consuming lief and life, have wrested from the art-fiend of two millennia of misery, to-day the Jew converts into an art-bazaar: who sees it in the mannered bricabrac, that it is glued together by the hallowed brow-sweat of the Genius of two thousand years?." There is also a vigorous debate about Jewish steotypes in Wagner's operas. If you're interested in the subject, I'll let you do your own research. But I'm certainly not the first person that suspected Wagner of anti-Semitism (that was one of Nietzsche's main reasons for the sudden shift in attitude demonstrated in "Nietzsche Contra Wagner"). In addition, no discussion of late 19th century German Romanticism would be complete without a mention of Schopenhauer. His influence on that period can not be over-estimated, and his influence on Wagner in particular is well documented, especially in "Parsifal." Schopenhauer refashions Kant into a pessimistic crypto-Buddhist philosophy of abdicatoin... certainly not something to be admired. To sum up, there are at least four disturbing aspects that are especially strong in 1850-1940 German Romanticism in general and Wagner in particular: 1. hostility to modernity/longing for mythic past 2. a sense of German-ness rooted in both culture and race 3. anti-Semitism 4. Schopenhauerian pessimism I'm not writing this to dismiss Wagner--I have no particular opinion on him as an artist. But I do think that he participated in and contributed to a Weltanschauung with some disturbing elements. So did Nietzsche, and he is one of my favorite writers. "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains."--JJR

I agree my analysis was simplistic. There are many contradictory elements within even German Romanticism. I nonetheless stick to my claim that the tendencies I identified are part of German Romanticism (especially post-1850), and I don't think you will find a comparable longing for national collectivity in English and French Romanticism. One possible explanation is that England and France were long established nations by that point, while the German state was in the process of being established--it is not suprising that people would latch on to a national/cultural/racial mythos to support such a project. Moreover, Wagner did participate in the bad side of German Romanticism (anti-Semitism, neopaganism, belief in the destiny of the German Volk, etc.). The more interesting question is, to what extent these bad elements are bound up in Wagner and others' literary achievements? I'm no musicologist, so I'll leave others to decide such questions. Finally, when I talk about German Romanticism, I'm talking more about the later cultural movement (Weltanschauung) than the literary movement at the turn of the 18th/19th centuries. My post wasn't meant to be a dig on Heine, whom I like a great deal. Oh, and Rousseau was still a defender of liberty (within his historical context), but if you really want to debate the subject we can start a new thread.

The Supreme Court upheld PBA ban on a 5-4 vote. The replacement of O'Connor by Alito probably tipped the balance. Let those those defending "strict constructionism" as a legal philosophy witness their handywork...

I have no opinion on Wagner’s music, but I wanted to comment on German Romanticism… I think it’s important to distinguish between varieties of romanticism. Many English and French Romantics (e.g., Byron or Rousseau) emphasized the liberty of the individual against society. By contrast, there is a strong element of collectivism at the root of much of German Romanticism, which often expressed a longing for atavistic collectivities (e.g., neopaganism and the obsession with the Volk). It also expressed hostility towards the modern world and capitalism, and yes, the Jew was often a symbol of capitalism. This type of German romanticism ran strongly in Nazism, as it did in Wagner. I’m not saying Wagner was a proto-Nazi (although he was anti-Semitic), but it is a reason to view with caution his particular sort of romanticism. P.S. Please don’t interpret this post as a “smear” on Wagner, and don’t demand that I supply “evidence.” I think any "evidence" would require a pretty comprehensive survey of a rather larger literary and cultural movement, and I don’t feel like writing a paper on German Romanticism at the moment. If you doubt my claims, do some research on the intellectual currents in nineteenth and twentieth century German Romanticism (as I have) and then you can come back and pronounce me ignorant.

Perhaps the most under-reported aspect of Barak Obama is that he represents the first serious religious left figure in a long time. He got his start organizing black churches in Chicago, so his religion is hardly the perfunctory "oh I believe in God too" of the average Democratic candidate. While we might have derived some comfort in the past from the secularism of at least one of the major parties in America, Obama suggests that a serious shift is coming in the way the Democratic party understands itself. If you want to hear a very interesting and revealing speech of his, one that might foretell the death of secularism in the American left, go to his campaign website and look under religion...

I think this “state rights” debate supports my original position, which is that leftist interpreters of the Constitution are superior to rightist ones (e.g., strict constructionists). Where are the conservative state experiments that support individual rights? As far as I can tell, the conservative state initiatives focus on things like restricting abortion and gay rights, hardly consistent with Objectivist positions. Are there states out there fighting for capitalism? On the other hand, there are states fighting for leftist individual rights issues like medical marijuana and legalized euthanasia. The irony is that strict constructionism would suggest a straight-forward “supremacy clause” reading that would crush those initiatives. Go leftist judges!

To be clear, in my recent post I wasn’t calling Moose a racist. I was calling him a reverse-reverse racist. People asked, what’s the point of the term “reverse racism,” much less reverse-reverse-racism? I think there are some useful distinctions. Racism is based on the idea that one race is inherently superior to the other. Reverse racism (e.g., Sharpton or affirmative action programs) in no way invokes this belief. If anything, their condescending attitude implies something negative about racial minorities. While their effect might be racist (discriminating against majorities), their motivation is a sense of entitlement based upon histories of victimization. That’s why I coined the term reverse-reverse-racism. I define it as a sense of outraged entitlement that interprets any injury by the “PC-police” as an offense to “privileged” (to use the language of reverse-racists) communities everywhere. It is sometimes called in the press “angry white male syndrome.” What is the tipping point between legitimate outrage against Sharpton and “reverse-reverse-racism”? It requires a judgment call, just as it requires a judgment call to distinguish between legitimate objections against Imus’s racism and the racial pandering of Sharpton. For me, the tipping point was when Moose took this opportunity to start talking about how racist he thought black people were. I interpreted such a comment as reverse-reverse racism. Moose’s comments, like those of Sharpton’s, reveal more about his own state of mind than race relations in America.

I thought Moebius in his recent post delivered a pretty devastating rebuttal of your "personal experience" argument. Moreoever, in my personal experience (as a white) whites are more likely to be racist. Maybe that is a geographical issue. I grew up in the American south where anti-black racism of the most pernicious variety is still very much alive and kicking. Beyond that, I don't think you addressed my main reason for calling you a reverse Sharpton: your posts invoke a sense of entitled victimhood that sounds just like Sharpton. When you adopt the attitude that what is done to Imus hurts you, you sound just like Sharpton appropriating the harm done to the Rutgers basketball women. So first we had racism. Then we had reverse racism. Now it seems we have reverse reverse racism.... Is that progress? P.S. From my experience, white teenagers are more likely to wear their caps sideways... perhaps because of the influence of "hip hop" culture.

I think the "semantics" issue is that the word "selfish" carries lots of baggage in people's minds, baggage that has nothing to do or is even the opposite of what Objectivism intended. One possibility is to use a phrase like "rational egoist." The unusualness of the phrase makes it less likely to carry baggage, and it might prompt their curiosity, thereby giving you an opportunity to fully explain what you mean.

I remember a couple of weeks ago I reaised the question of how easy it was to distinguish between what is "essential" to Objectivist philosophy and what is not. I was described as an "annoying" troublemaker for pressing the issue, and most people gave me pat responses that basically amounted to saying it would of course be obvious. I think this issue indicates that it is NOT in fact obvious. Moreover, the poll is flawed because it needs a third option. "Yes I believe that a pro-life posiiton is compatible with Objectivism, but I am pro-choice" or... the Yes answer needs to be reworded to just say "Yes I believe that a pro-life position is compatible with Objectivism." The way the poll is currently worded, it guides the reader to affirm that their own opinion on the issue is in fact the only answer for Objectivism, when the poll is ostensibly designed to answer the question of whether there is such a correct answer.

Reading the full article, it seemed the main reason for EE's desire to have her kids stay way from the guy was that he brandished his gun at people with which he had disputes. I can understand why a mother might want to have her children stay away from the property of a man who is willling to shoot intruders. Your larger point may be valid, but it's hardly "classy" to misrepresent events (by not telling the full story) to prove it.

My point was a critique of the new victim culture promoted by those who feel beseiged on all sides by the "PC police." Often their paranoia is just as strong as that of the Sharptonites. When people like Moose feel entitled to spout off about how blacks are generally racist (even though he has no real evidence for that claim), then we need to be careful to censure (not censor) the new reverse-Sharptons amongst us. I think people like RationalBiker are doing exactly that.

You jumped from "Sharpton" to "blacks" in general. Isn't that an example of racism? Isn't your rush to feel victimized as a poor victim of the PC police the same kind of victimhood claimed by Sharpton and his clones? Oh, poor, poor, poor white people. They've had it so badly.... blacks really should apologize to whites for how badly blacks have treated them. Finally, do you have any studies to support your analysis of racism in America? If not, you sound like a reverse-Sharpton spouting off nonsense to support your own sense of victimhood-entitlement.

To Thales, with insult... My warrant for the claim that there is "harm" or "insult" is that the young women said they felt insulted in the press conference. Were they lying? Imus meant to be funny, but was misunderstood as being insulting. After all, it easy to misunderstand the accusation of being a "nappy-headed ho" as an insulting one. And to be clear, I have no problem with insulting people. I just have a problem with insulting "civillians" like the Rutgers women, especially by nationally syndicated radio hosts. What's worng with an apology? Must the Rutgers women be "collateral damage" in this larger cultural war? And I don't think "postmodernism" is the issue here. I would characterize the worst elemeents of the Imus-haters as being very confident in both their epistemological and moral claims. After all, one of the main criticisms of postmodernism/poststructuralism by the anti-racist/feminist left was that it undermined the basis for the truth claims of oppression made by those like Sharpton. If you want to be a foot soldier in the Kulturkampf, you should get better intelligence reports on the enemy. Next thing you know, you'll be promising that the modernists will greet us as liberators. Also, I loved the idea of "intellectuals hiding in the shadows." It made my day. So are Cornell West and Catherine MacKinnon pulling the strings here? I'm sure they'd be flattered. Finally, in your rush to fight the intellectual postmodernist leftists running this scandal from their secret underground bunkers in Berkeley, you have missed perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this affair. Conservatives (e.g., Scarborough) are jumping onto the idea put forth by Sharton et al that we need a broader crusade for "decency" targeted against "offensive" culture like hip hop, MTV, etc. The conservatives have realized that the PC-left has given them a tactical opening to crack down on offensive speech. The same thing happened with the alliance between feminists and conservatives against porn in the 1980s. However much you hate the intellectuals and Sharptons that constitute the cultural Left, they are Lilliputians compared to the American cultural Right. My prediction: O'Reiley will soon start sounding peculiarly like Al Sharpton on this issue.