The American Spectator

Aaron| 4.8.09 @ 8:41AM

Good! I see no reason why a president or a parent shouldn't be arrogant, dismissive or derisive when the situation calls for it.

cdc| 4.8.09 @ 9:06AM

As the closing lines of this essay make clear, moral authority is mostly meaningless it is only physcial might that matters. As such North Korea would have to be more insane than it is to sacrifice its military strength at the behest of the US.

JeffW| 4.8.09 @ 10:23AM

CDC,
Let me guess, your single and have no children? If so, lets keep it that way. The world is in enough trouble with all of the children and now young adults allowed to raise themselves by parents that think as you do. In case you missed it. The authors son was a teenager not a country of adults. Children need guidance and boundaries. Otherwise they grow up to think they are entitled to anything they please even if it isn't good for them. Kind of like Obama and Kim Jong Il

Pete| 4.8.09 @ 10:40AM

The only way for this posting's analogy to work would be if you would be comfortable with your next door neighbor coming over to tell your kid to turn off the computer and go to bed.

Jeff W, I take it you're in favor of military action against North Korea? Explain to us how such an action wouldn't result in reigniting the Korean War, resulting in the deaths of potentially millions of Koreans. Explain to us how a military strike against North Korea wouldn't result in China either declaring war on us or simply cutting off their loans to us.

Speaking of loans, considering we're running this enormous deficit, partly brought about by financing the totality of the Iraq War with loans from China, how exactly do you propose we pay for a war with North Korea?

cdc| 4.8.09 @ 11:25AM

Jeffw, In case you missed it, the author's story is allegorical and as such the closing lines have more meaning than the author probably intended.
Parent's do have authority over children, this can arguably stem from superior morality but practicably stems from physical strength, economic support, and emotional attachment.
I must assume you do not have children that have required a spanking, withholding or bestowing of treats, or appeals to love or guilt.
Korea is not a child: it does not want to be subject to force, it isn't dependent on the US, and it Korea does not love the US. Treating Korea as a child is mistake that the US consistantly makes.

Tim| 4.8.09 @ 12:03PM

"And with that, I yanked the plug on my son's computer, turned off the lights in his room, and ended the conversation. "

And from there that angry child went on to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, where he expanded the fourth ammendment to protect kid's rooms.

Paul Milenkovic| 4.8.09 @ 1:53PM

"As the closing lines of this essay make clear, moral authority is mostly meaningless it is only physcial might that matters."

I and many others here are in clear agreement with "cdc." With respect to the conduct of nations with respect to each other, moral authority is indeed meaningless and physical might indeed matters. That is why I support full production levels for the F-22 jet.

JeffW| 4.8.09 @ 2:04PM

Pete and CDC, Please show me in the above story the portion that has to do with North Korea? I read the story several times and still do not see it. It was about Moral Authority. Now if you assuming the story was us trying to excercise moral authority over N. Korea then ok, I will go with that argument. I see your point that on one hand we have no authority of N. Korea. However, if your comfortable with rogue regimes having nuclear weapons then we will have to disagree. And while I do not think a military strike is the proper first response I do not believe it should be taken off the table either. So, Pete, get off your high horse. I was referring to the leadership styles of both Kim Jong and Obama. It's say one thing & do another. If that doesn't work manfacture a crisis and exploit it. If that doesn't work, force the issue. And yes, not only have my children misbehaved, I have spanked them. And while I believe it also should not be the first resort, I do readily reserve it as a resort should the situation esculate.

Pete| 4.8.09 @ 2:21PM

Jeff, gee, the actual blog post pointedly juxtaposed a parent demanding that his child go to bed with Obama's recent statements about North Korea. Unless we are going to refer to North Korea as being our "child" that must be scolded by the "parent" America, then the analogy by the blog author is a pretty poor one.

By the way, the notion that the US should be considering a first strike against North Korea is utterly foolish. Unless you feel that the US should start a World War likely involving Russa and China, with millions dead, based on nothing more than a fear that North Korea might someday do something to us, then such bellicose talk accomplishes absolutely jack shit.

Seriously, wouldn't it be great to actually finish the Afghanistan War before we start gearing up for a war with North Korea, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Cuba?

jeffW| 4.8.09 @ 2:49PM

Ok Pete your right, he did point that out. Happy? But you also might want to reread my last post. I did not say anything about a first strike being the proper response. In fact I said just the opposite. You brought up the first strike response. But you sure are defensive aren't you? North Korea is going to be a pain in our side for a long time. And if you think that China has no influence or control over N Korea than you are the one being foolish. There are other ways to handle it diplomatically and getting China to exert their influence is a good start. But if you take the military tactics off the table you weaken your argument from the start. Appeasement only works with people that have your best interest at heart. Not ruthless dictators. History proves that. I take it you also do not think we should use atomic bombs during WWII regardless of the much larger numbers that would have died in conventional warfare with Japan? The genie is out of the bottle, no wishful thinking will put it back. What good would it do us to abolish all our Nuclear arms and then ask the world to do the same when any nutjob with the right tools can build a dirty bomb? Reduction I can agree with , elimination of our nuclear stockpile is a death sentence to us. Sometimes Moral authority does nothing without the will and ability to back it up.

cdc| 4.8.09 @ 4:18PM

Jeffw, I'm glad you finally got around to reading the article and noting the subtle allusion to Korea.
Military tactics are a last resort and like most things tend to have unforeseen consequences. Invading Iraq resulted in uncertainties in the middle east driving up the price of oil making russia, Iran, and venuzuala very wealthy. The falling price of oil is bankrupting the russian military, and jeoprodizing venuzualan and iranian dictators. Therefore a suitably disruptive technology such as highly effiencient or non oil dependent vehicles will do more than to advance US interests than multi trillion dollar wars.
N Korea is more of a cats paw for china than an influenced ally. Therefore weakening the power base will advance US interests. China is growing wealthy by serving as the world's cheap labor/manufacturing center. A suitably disruptive technology, in this case captal intensive infrastructure namely robotics, would break china and render N Korea moot.
An oil tax increase would bankrupt the middle east. A reduction in corporate tax and expensing depreciation would bankrupt china.
Industrialization produced the post war boom, computers produced the reagan boom, and robotics could produce another one.

Pete| 4.8.09 @ 5:51PM

Jeff, actually, Truman was more than justified in dropping the bomb in WWII. But North Korea of today is NOT WWII.

As for the "appeasement" strawman that gets played way too much in discussions like this, it gets tiring that not immediately wanting to use a military strike against a country that looks cross-eyed at us is labelled "appeasement". The simple reality is that a military conflict with North Korea would in fact be a blunder even bigger than the Iraq invasion (which was also predicated on the notion that the dicatator there "might" do something to us). Yes, China has to exert influence to defuse the situation. Yes, it really isn't in China's economic interests to have the Korean penninsula in flames. That's why Gingrich's fairly blunt statement that if he were President that he would have used military means to "disable" the missile was idiocy on toast.

But, back to the parental analogy that touched off this whole discussion. The US is not the "parent" of the world. Unless we're the parent who lectures their kids about not drinking and then crashes the car in the front driveway after a liquid lunch.

William| 4.8.09 @ 6:21PM

You should have established first if your son is Horde or Alliance. God help you if he is playing Alliance side and quotes Obama. He will never grow up if that is the case.

Roy| 4.8.09 @ 7:44PM

Yeah right William, he should be playing Horde and priding himself on his superiority to "racism" against groups of pixels.

FOR THE ALLIANCE!

-Stasko, Draenei, Hyjal

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.8.09 @ 8:37PM

Son, I brought you into this world; I can take you out.
Bil Cosby

Christopher Holland| 4.9.09 @ 2:01AM

President Eisenhower said that moral suasion (that means authority in my book) was all piss and wind. I wonder how long it will take the Greatest Genius of All Time to work that out for himself.

Shyster| 4.9.09 @ 3:03AM

Obviously, both Pete and CDC, demonstrate a complete ignorance of what moral authority is.
Equally obvious, is their complete ignorance of morality defined by something more than what Pete and CDC have decided, in their infinite wisdom, is moral...i.e., anything Pete and CDC don't like. With flexible definitions, it's possible to describe any action as immoral, which apparently is what Pete and CDC seek. Sorry, CDC and Pete, morality exists independently of your attempts to redefine it.

Macheivelli, anyone?

Catherine| 4.9.09 @ 4:56AM

Florence King was right about the fact that children should only be heard when they are responding to, "is there enough room in the toes?"

Roy| 4.9.09 @ 10:20AM

I'd have to know the context in which Ike said that. If he was talking about Stalin I'd agree. But Napoleon(I think) said the moral was to the physical as 3 to 1 and he was no slouch either.

Justin Long| 4.10.09 @ 10:50AM

those are typical left and right responses the left will try to push the blame as an excuse for their action the right will reach out and do

Paul Crowley| 4.11.09 @ 8:11AM

What Horse manure. . .

I don't believe for one minute that this conversation, or any like it, took place between Shattan and his TEENAGE son, at 3 A.M. in the morning, or at any other time, either (unless this pre-written exchange was read out loud, by each one, so as to give credence’ to the claim).

This is little more than a “Honey I Shrunk The Kids,” or “The Simpsons,” style of fiction, in right-wing essay form form (and a quite clumsy application of it at that). A style of fiction that the majority of Americans, aged about 40-21 years old, grew up on. A style used to Teach Them as children and adolescents, and now as adults.

Whatever one thinks of the deductive reasoning, and conclusions drawn from it, being attributed to the son character, then, according to this, the teenage character is made to sound as if he were “better informed,” details wise, where Obama’s speech in Prague, is concerned, than the Shattan father character, who uses the internet “to learn something.”

It fits the “Honey I Shrunk The Kids,” or “The Simpsons,” technique, perfectly, but contradicts the claim of Sheraton, as father character (in the “Cosby Show” variant of the technique, not only does it always conclude with a happy ending, but it does so, because the father character isn’t presented in the usual dimwitted manner; but is just as unbelievable).

=>“World of Warcraft”
An American teenager “playing something called World of Warcraft on his computer” is the only believable statement in this essay.

And not only teenagers, it’s common enough for millions of grown men, about 61 years old and younger; especially 45 years old and younger.

=>"When I go on the Internet it's not to play games -- it's to learn something." [Shattan]

To Be Taught, or in the case of a propagandist of Vitriol & Instruction” like Shattan: To Teach others.

In the case of Shattan, and “The American Spectator,” then “the others” appears to be the so-called “low-brows,” on the right-wing.” Other self-styled “conservative” websites are focusing their “Vitriol & Instruction” on the so-called “middle-brows” on the right-wing.

One can see the same thing taking place on the self-styled “liberal,” “progressive” or “socialist” websites, where left-wing propagandists of “Vitriol & Instruction” focus upon the so-called “low brows” or “middle-brows” on the left-wing.

The Libertarian propagandists of “Vitriol & Instruction” (who would still be obscure and mostly unknown without the internet) focus upon the so-called “low brows” and “middle-brows” on the left, and right, wings.

At any rate, if one really wishes to “learn something,” then his time would be better spent in a good research library than on the internet.

Paul Crowley| 4.11.09 @ 9:27AM

=>“World of Warcraft”

“An American teenager ‘playing something called World of Warcraft on his computer’ is the only believable statement in this essay.

And not only teenagers, it’s common enough for millions of grown men, about 61 years old and younger; especially 45 years old and younger.”

Computer Game Ethics Formation for “Children of All Ages.”

PATHETIC, but true

.=>"When I go on the Internet it's not to play games -- it's to learn something." [Shattan]

True of tens of millions of people, and growing, Whose Opinions and Ethics Are Formed by their respective “good guy” propagandists, each, as opposed to their respective counterpart “idiots” Whose Opinions and Ethics Are Formed by THEIR respective “bad guy” propagandists.

It's where countless numbers of average people Learn Their Opinions, Are Formed (actually malformed) In Their Ethics, and Are Taught the "Pithy" Statements, and delivery style (which they could never formulate on their own), that they parrot back, as if they were 'standup comedians.'

Also PATHETIC, but true.

In radio broadcasts, then it's been so-called “Talk Radio.”

Right-Wing Talk Radio for the Formation of right-wing "low brows."

‘Shock-Jock’ radio, for the Formation of left-wing and apolitical "low brows," including those formed when younger, but who later turn “conservative,” while still in their youth (21-39 years old) or in middle age (40-59 years old).

‘Sex-Talk Radio’ for Formation in the new sexual-ethics primarily for the left-wing, and apolitical, "low brows."

‘Radio Call In’ Talk Radio, of all kinds, especially after natural disasters, as a variation of Group Therapy for all.

In audio elements of the mass-communications media (television and movies, broadcast, closed-circuit, or satellite), it's Morals and Political Formation For All.

Where else are the majority of “low-brow” Americans, especially those not being re-formed by one of the new reformed religions, or a “grass-roots” organization, or Non-Governmental Organization, of some kind, and of which there are literally tens of
thousands, going to be Formed these days? ‘Where else can they go?’

Public Education Formation of the ‘social-anthropological generations’ (“Baby Boom,” “X,” “Y,” un-named “Z”. . .) is only general, supplements the Formation by the rest of the Mass-Communications Media, especially the 'Information' and Entertainment' elements, and very ephemeral, making major shifts about every 13 years, since “X” (born 1960-73).

Military Formation of the “low brows” and “middle brows” is limited in reach, at the moment, due to the All Volunteer Force size (The navy is the only place that I ever received formal introduction, via instruction programs, to the pedagogical techniques
ofthe Maslow, Rogers, et. al. popular psychology of 1960-89: The ‘de-sensitization’ phase--call me incorrigible; they failed in my case. There is Nothing "conservative" about the American military).

The Ethics Training, of the Multi-National Corporations, and the large contractors beholden to them, only began in earnest about ten years ago, and, at present, focuses mostly On The Formation of the “middle-brows.”

I know. One shouldn’t speak so clearly about all of this Formation of Peoples via the Mass-Communications Media (which includes Public Education and Employers).

After all: ‘How Does This Make People Feel?’

Paul Crowley| 4.11.09 @ 9:49AM

=>“People like to think that it’s their idea.”

The (true) observation of one prominent, nationalized British Marxist intellectual, originally a native of eastern Europe.

The old fashioned variation of ‘How Does This Make People Feel?’ was the upper-class Britons and anglophiles:

‘We all know it to be true, but it’s not the sort of thing that one says in front of the children or the servants.’

Jason Taylor| 4.11.09 @ 1:22PM

oy| 4.9.09 @ 10:20AM

"I'd have to know the context in which Ike said that. If he was talking about Stalin I'd agree. But Napoleon(I think) said the moral was to the physical as 3 to 1 and he was no slouch either. "

Napolean was speaking in a purely millitary context. And Napolean did not mean right and wrong, he meant morale, as in psychological cohesion. In other words, in that context he was saying it is more important to scare your enemy then to kill him.
In any case, in foreign policy, Napolean never went in much for "moral suasion".

Alan Brooks| 4.12.09 @ 6:08PM

morality is dead.

dont you see?

Alan Brooks| 4.12.09 @ 6:12PM

.... if you dont understand that genuine morality is dead, then you are as deluded as libs.
no no, don't argue, you have nothing whatsoever to back up a claim that morality yet exists.
ANYTHING you might point to would be situational ethics.