It is pretty clear (as I am sure Mr. Auster knows). The enemy of your enemy is your friend, and to the antiwar right Israel is the enemy, the crowning totem of neocon universalist imperialism.

That sort of tactical alliance can even work sometimes, if you are a legitimate power and if you have properly identified friend and enemy.

The Right, however, is not a legitimate power, and has not properly identified friend and enemy. The Right has no choice but to stand on the fundamental moral law, because all else has been taken from it. That is why it is important for the kind of clarity Mr. Auster has shined onto race and racism to also be shined onto religion and “religionism,” and particularly anti-semitism. To know our enemies, and to know our friends, we must first know ourselves.

The paleo tendency is to view things as particulars. That is why (or partly why) the enemy becomes the magically conspiratorial Jews, or the demonically anti-semetic Christians, etc. The enemy though is not a particular: it is the anti-particular; it is the overarching abstraction of liberalism in which we are all to some extent complicit. The enemy is within as well as without; “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church” (Pope Paul VI). The gates were breached even before the Republic was founded. That is why ultimately the path out involves repentence, not merely the defeat of a particular enemy or enemies.

Mr Auster’s argument could easily be applied to Australia, where the majority of the population believe that the aggressive, violent and destructive behaviour of illegal immigrants (there have been three more arson attacks in the past week) is a result of our own weak behaviour and “being taken advantage of”, whilst liberals continue to search for any evidence of illegals being badly treated.

The only complication to the argument is that some right liberals, including the Prime Minister, have been willing to bow to popular pressure and take a “tougher” stance, whereas left liberals have consistently followed the orthodox line explained by Mr Auster.

The antiwar right would rather not have foreign entanglements and American involvement with the defense of Israel is an example of the type of entanglement they’d rather not have. That puts them on the anti-Israel side and once they’re there it’s hard to avoid picking up the arguments people on that side make. They don’t think they have to be realistic about what’s involved there because they don’t want to be there in the first place.

It’s not clear whether Mr. Kalb’s intent is to defend the antiwar right or condemn them. Objectively, the behavior he describes—of not caring about the truth, not caring about the fact that they are making excuses for evil killers, not caring about the consequences of their words—are utterly immoral. I hope Mr. Kalb is not suggesting that people are justified in such immorality if they “don’t want to be there in the first place.”

Mr. Auster asked a question and I attempted to answer it. The intent was to describe what I think is going on. If he thinks I’m right that’s fine and if he thinks I’m wrong that’s fine too.

He’s no doubt right that giving a bad reason for staying away from a situation that you think is dangerous and none of your business can be utterly immoral because giving a bad reason indicates carelessness about the truth. Whether, when and to what extent that judgment applies to the antiwar right I will leave to others.

To describe immoral behavior in a completely non-judgmental way is to imply a defense of it. This happens to be a staple of post-modernism which one can see in almost any issue of the New York Times.

It is clear that Mr. Kalb was describing the antiwar right’s behavior toward Israel in such a manner as, at best, to avoid any judgment of it.

He wrote: “The antiwar right would rather not have foreign entanglements…. That puts them on the anti-Israel side and once they’re there it’s hard to avoid picking up the arguments people on that side make.”

So, according to Mr. Kalb, if I don’t want America to be involved in foreign conflicts, it therefore becomes “hard” for me to avoid taking the side of terrorist bombers against the Israelis (which implies that I shouldn’t be condemned if I do that). It becomes “hard” for me to avoid demonizing the Israelis for taking vitally necessary steps to defend themselves against such terrorist killers. That’s what Buchanan did, to his everlasting shame, yet according to Mr. Kalb we should understand that given Buchanan’s principled stand against foreign entanglements, Buchanan’s unprincipled demonization of the Israelis was “hard” to avoid. (Which, once again, implies that Buchanan shouldn’t be condemned for doing that.)

We could go on with any number of similar examples. If I didn’t want America to intervene in Africa to protect the Tutsis from the Hutus, then, according to Mr. Kalb’s reasoning, it would have been “hard” for me not to cheer for the Hutus as they were mass murdering the Tutsis. Or, if I didn’t want America to be militarily involved in protecting South Vietnam from the Communists, it would have been “hard” for me not to start actively supporting the Communists and chanting “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh.”

Mr. Kalb writes: “[Mr. Auster is] no doubt right that giving a bad reason for staying away from a situation that you think is dangerous and none of your business can be utterly immoral because giving a bad reason indicates carelessness about the truth. Whether, when and to what extent that judgment applies to the antiwar right I will leave to others.” Why does Mr. Kalb feel exempt from the duty to come to moral conclusions in this one particular area, but not in other areas, where he commonly expresses moral judgments about all kinds of things? To think reasonably is to think morally. You can’t do the first and then try to avoid the necessity of the second.

Why does Mr. Auster feel the need to coerce moral judgements out of men of good will who have stated plainly that they are not prepared to make them? When did “I am not ready to produce a fully articulated comprehensive answer” become an invalid intellectual response?

In reply to Matt, I don’t think Mr. Kalb was merely saying that he was “not ready to produce a fully articulated comprehensive answer.” He said that he would “leave to others” the question of whether the antiwar right is immoral. That’s not a statement that one is working on a fuller answer. That’s a refusal to engage with the issue.

Mr. Kalb’s comments are indicative of the wish of many on the traditionalist right that the issues of Israel and of anti-Semitism would somehow just go away so that we wouldn’t have to make judgments about them. On the face of it, this is entirely understandable. We Westerners face grave threats to our own civilization yet seem to be drawn time and again into the impossibly thorny question of the Jews (2 percent of the U.S. population and .3 percent of the world population) and Israel (a country of five million in a world of six billion).

So it’s understandable that some paleo and traditionalist conservatives wish that the Israel issue, and the broader anti-Semitism issue, would go away. They see it as a drain, a distraction and a danger. But, despite their wishes, it doesn’t go away, and, as Mr. Kalb’s own comments in this discussion inadvertently indicate, there is nothing they can do to make it go away. Why? Their desire to make the Israel issue disappear, to say simply “We shouldn’t be involved with the Mideast,” inevitably leads—according to Mr. Kalb’s own reckoning—to their taking sides AGAINST Israel, even an IMMORAL side. Thus the paleo right’s supposed desire to be neutral and disengaged on Israel leads directly back to the problem of anti-Semitism that the paleo right says it wishes would go away.

I said in another article: “The question of anti-Semitism is unavoidably central to our concerns as traditionalist conservatives…. [T]he choices currently presented to us are either to remain silent about the fate of our culture out of fear of being called anti-Semitic, or to join with those who will decline to oppose any anti-Semitism.” As we’ve just seen, a supposedly neutral or nonjudgmental position does not provide an alternative to those two unsatisfactory choices. Thus it seems to me that there is no escape from taking a substantive moral stand both on the Israel question and the anti-Semitism question.

I wonder why, though. Why can’t the paleo Right simply say “I think it is wrong for us to intervene, even if it can be shown that one side is in the perfect right and the other is in the perfect wrong.”

Here is the dissonance. On the one hand, Mr. Auster says:

“Why does Mr. Kalb feel exempt from the duty to come to moral conclusions in this one particular area, but not in other areas, where he commonly expresses moral judgments about all kinds of things?”

Now, this can be interpreted in a number of ways, but the most obvious way is to view it as a requirement to take sides in every moral question. On the other hand:

”..if I didn’t want America to be militarily involved in protecting South Vietnam from the Communists, it would have been ‘hard’ for me not to start actively supporting the Communists and chanting ‘Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh.’ “

So on the one hand there is a moral requirement to take sides, and on the other hand we are to believe that it shouldn’t be hard to avoid taking sides. It isn’t that there HAS to be cognitive dissonance or a sense of catch-22 here, but I think some hair-splitting in how it is said will be necessary in order to avoid giving the impression that a trap has been set for paleos.

By the way, I think the solution is implied in lengthy thread on anti-Semitism. There are three different moral processes involved:

1) Making a moral assessment of a situation (or of a people, or ideology, or whatever).
2) Deciding what ought to be done about it in general, in the ideal case.
3) Deciding what we ourselves ought to do specifically, if anything, about it.

The problem with the language of “bigotry” and “anti-Semitism” is that it does not allow us to separate those three considerations objectively. An attempt at assessment-of-the-facts in itself can earn one the label “bigot” or “anti-Semite” and thereby completely discredit one and silence all further discussion.

Ideally a Paleo ought to be able to say, “well, I think Zionism was a bad idea in the first place, I don’t think Judaism has been an unmitigated good for Christian society or indeed is even an ally of Christian society, AND the Palestinians are heinous criminals for blowing up innocent women and children, AND I don’t think it is our fight so we shouldn’t get involved” all without earning the label anti-Semite. After all, if one’s intention is to stay out of a conflict then one’s attempt at assessing the facts of the conflict is far less pertinent than if one intends to enter the conflict directly. Indeed, it actually goes farther: if one intends to stay out of a conflict then one’s _burden_ to comprehensively and accurately assess the facts is far lower than if one intends to enter. Our only burden, if our default position is to stay out of it, is to determine whether or not anything morally OBLIGATES us to enter the fight.

Matt asks a question of (to my poor brain) daunting, even hairsplitting, logical complexity and then expects me to answer it without recourse to hairsplitting. I will try, but cannot promise that I will succeed.

Let’s start with the easier issues first. I didn’t say Mr. Kalb or anyone is required to come to a moral conclusion on all issues. I pointed out that he had described a specific behavior of the antiwar right that was at least arguably immoral but that he was refusing to judge it; indeed, to me, his tone suggested he was excusing their behavior. He said: “They don’t think they have to be realistic about what’s involved there because they don’t want to be there in the first place.” Describing the antiwar right’s motivation from their point of view as he understands it, Mr. Kalb was saying that they don’t have to take any responsibility for their statements and positions because they don’t want to be involved in that issue in the first place. He was thus seemed to be justifying the fact that, even while the antiwar right claims to want not to be involved with Israel, they feel free to attack Israel, to lie about Israel, to make all kinds of statements harmful to Israel. Attacking Israel is not “not being involved.” This is a phony neutrality.

As for Matt’s charge against me of contradiction, let’s approach it this way. Let’s say that one foreign country is at war with another foreign country, or that a certain foreign people is threatening to destroy and exterminate another foreign people. Let’s further say we don’t want to get involved in this foreign dispute because we think it’s not our business and that getting involved will only harm our own country. Now, leaving aside the question of whether it is possible to be morally neutral in every such case, I would say that it is possible to be honestly neutral. President Washington, for example, kept America truly neutral as regards the war between England and revolutionary France in the 1790s (and it was not easy). Jim Kalb, as far as I can tell, is truly neutral regarding Israel and the Palestinians; that is, I’ve never seen him say anything that was either sympathetic toward Israel nor hostile to Israel.

But at the same time Mr. Kalb, who I stipulate is truly neutral, says this about the antiwar right which also claims to be neutral: “The antiwar right would rather not have foreign entanglements and American involvement with the defense of Israel is an example of the type of entanglement they’d rather not have. That puts them on the anti-Israel side and once they’re there it’s hard to avoid picking up the arguments people on that side make.” Now, “the arguments people on that side make” is an inclusive category, comprehending the whole range of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic arguments with which anyone who is half-sentient today is quite familiar. Mr. Kalb is saying that it’s at least natural (he holds off judgment as to whether it’s moral) for people who want non-involvement with Israel to be in fact anti-Israel.

To recap, it was my position that it is possible for a person to be truly neutral as regards a foreign conflict. It was Mr. Kalb who introduced the point that people who say they are neutral as regards Israel will end up in fact being anti-Israel, and he declined to judge them for that.

The contradiction Matt accuses me of is between my saying (A) that Mr. Kalb ought to have a moral opinion on the phony neutrality of the antiwar right, and my saying (B) that true neutrality as regards foreign conflicts is possible. Statement A pertained to Mr. Kalb’s act of describing the arguably immoral behavior of certain individuals while he added that any moral judgment about that behavior was not his concern. Statement B pertained to the POLITICAL decision not to involve ourselves with foreign conflicts. The respective statements pertain to two different categories, the moral and the geopolitical, and so there is no contradiction between them.

Matt writes:

“Ideally a Paleo ought to be able to say, ‘well, I think Zionism was a bad idea in the first place, I don’t think Judaism has been an unmitigated good for Christian society or indeed is even an ally of Christian society, AND the Palestinians are heinous criminals for blowing up innocent women and children, AND I don’t think it is our fight so we shouldn’t get involved’ all without earning the label anti-Semite.”

I agree with Matt. If paleos said this kind of thing they would not be friends of the Jews, but they would not be anti-Semites either. As regards Israel, the paleos in Matt’s example are truly neutral. Unfortunately, Matt’s example is something of a straw man, because this discussion has not dealt with people who remain truly neutral regardless of their moral views of the respective parties in the Mideast. This discussion started with Mr. Kalb’s non-judgmental description of people who claim to want to be neutral and uninvolved with Israel but in fact adopt the entire range of anti-Israel positions.

“It’s not clear whether Mr. Kalb’s intent is to defend the antiwar right or condemn them.” Lawrence Auster

It’s not clear to me that, in merely reporting a faction’s position, or what he takes to be their reasons for their position, the person doing the reporting is ipso facto required to either defend or condemn them. Mr. Auster’s tactic here appears to me to be unnecessarily, not to mention unfairly, bullying and belligerant toward Mr. Kalb.

That being said, I would point out that the disagreement here seems to have arisen due to a misinterpretaton of Mr. Kalb’s comments:

“The antiwar right would rather not have foreign entanglements and American involvement with the defense of Israel is an example of the type of entanglement they’d rather not have. That puts them on the anti-Israel side…” — Jim Kalb

This is true with respect to foreign policy, but not with respect to the conflict in the Middle East itself. The reason it’s true with respect to foreign policy is that all matters relating to Israel in America today operate according to the “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” principle. Either one supports an eternal, limitless commitment to that foreign nation or one is held to be “anti-Israel.” There is no room for dissent without being characterized as a positive enemy of Israel (or of humanity itself).

On the question of whose side one should take in the current Middle East conflict, however, Mr. Kalb’s conclusion doesn’t follow at all. Advocacy of non-intervention typically reflects a stance of neutrality with respect to the belligerant parties, not of favoring one party over the other.

I think Mr. Auster is wrong in putting this latter construction on Mr. Kalb’s comments.

I said: “There is no escape from taking a substantive moral stand both on the Israel question and the anti-Semitism question.” I also said: “True neutrality as regards foreign conflicts is possible.” In my earlier comment I had a qualification to this which I deleted in order to avoid too much complexity, but now I see I’ve left an apparent contradiction.

In the ideal sense, a neutral position vis à vis Israel may be possible, and in some cases such neutrality (Mr. Kalb was my example) may actually exist, but in reality (based on what Mr. Kalb said about the antiwar right and their phony neutrality) it would seem that true neutrality on Israel is very difficult to maintain.

Not all cases are the same. No group in history has been subject to the hatred to which Jews have been subject. After the Nazis committed the most monstrous crime in history, Israel was founded, with the support of most of the nations of the world acting through the U.N., to provide Jews with their own country where they could live in safety and defend themselves. The Arab world wants to exterminate Israel and in order to achieve that end have been carrying out, and morally and financially supporting, some of the most evil acts ever committed in the world. Leaving aside the fact that a supposed neutrality regarding Israel and her would-be exterminators is a betrayal of the world’s support for Israel’s founding and of Israel’s very right to exist, it is true that one could logically maintain that such neutrality is sustainable as a matter of geopolitical prudence. But, in the long run, both morally and practically, I doubt that such neutrality is possible.

On another matter, since both Matt and Mr. Newland have now said that I was “coercing” or “bullying” Mr. Kalb, there must be something to what they’re saying. I admit my tone was tough and in spots excessively so. Rhetorically suggesting any comparison between Jim Kalb, one of the most rational men on the planet, and postmodernists was over the top, and I apologize for that. However, on the substance, it seems to me that I was drawing logical inferences from what Mr. Kalb was saying.

In this connection, Mr. Newland quotes Mr. Kalb:

“The antiwar right would rather not have foreign entanglements and American involvement with the defense of Israel is an example of the type of entanglement they’d rather not have. That puts them on the anti-Israel side…”

Then he says:

” … Mr. Kalb’s conclusion doesn’t follow at all. Advocacy of non-intervention typically reflects a stance of neutrality with respect to the belligerant parties, not of favoring one party over the other…. I think Mr. Auster is wrong in putting this latter construction on Mr. Kalb’s comments.”

Mr. Newland is free to disagree with the substance of what Mr. Kalb said about people who profess to be neutral toward Israel. But even if Mr. Kalb’s ideas are substantively wrong, that doesn’t mean that my construction of what he actually said was wrong. And what he said was that the desire not to have foreign entanglements puts the antiwar right on the anti-Israel side, where, he continued, “it’s hard [for them] to avoid picking up the arguments people on that side make.”

Well, paleos keep bringing up the point that the reason true neutrality is hard to maintain is because when someone attempts to maintain neutrality he gets labeled an anti-Semetic monster anyway. There is clearly some truth to that. So if you are going to be thought an anti-Semetic monster anyway it is no longer a discussion but simply a discursive war, and all is fair in all-out war (especially when you are hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned). I think that is making excuses for shameful behavior, but then just because you are paranoid it doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.

Mr. Auster didn’t like it that Mr. Kalb refused to call the antiwar Right’s behavior shameful. Would he be more pleased if I said that the behavior of both the antiwar and pro-war Right as groups has been shameful?

Not to split hairs, but I didn’t say that Mr. Auster should NOT split hairs; I said he ought to give it a try.

Mr. Auster wrote:
“The contradiction Matt accuses me of is between my saying (A) that Mr. Kalb ought to have a moral opinion on the phony neutrality of the antiwar right, and my saying (B) that true neutrality as regards foreign conflicts is possible.”

Well, no. Mr. Auster was not that specific. He articulated a general principle as the basis for his criticism of Mr. Kalb:

“Why does Mr. Kalb feel exempt from the duty to come to moral conclusions in this one particular area, but not in other areas, where he commonly expresses moral judgments about all kinds of things? To think reasonably is to think morally. You can’t do the first and then try to avoid the necessity of the second.”

So the REASON that Mr. Kalb is REQUIRED to pass a moral judgement in one particular case is that we are ALWAYS required to pass moral judgements in EVERY case in order to think reasonably at all. Without this principle in place on what basis can Mr. Auster criticize where Mr. Kalb does and does not choose to pass judgement? Mr. Auster has backed off of this now (I think); but since it was the basis of his criticism in the first place, on what basis does the criticism now stand? If it is OK for Mr. Kalb to refuse judgement on the Middle East conflict then why is it NOT OK for Mr. Kalb to refuse judgement on the internal conflict between the pro- and anti-war Right?

Is there a dimension to this subject of the anti-war right which is being left out? I refer to the topic of alternatives to the particular war which seems to be in the offing (the impending attack on Iraq which does not seem to have been overtly provoked), alternatives favorable to Israel which Israel’s well-wishers among anti-war right presumably would support. Those on the anti-war right who oppose the war may not be opposing it in a vacuum, so to speak, but in a context wherein they see viable alternatives favorable to Israel — alternatives whose absence might make them support the war now in the offing instead of opposing it.

There’s also this repugnant neocon idea of converting the whole Muslim Middle East by force and “de-Nazification” into little multi-culti pluralistic post-modern democracies. That notion to me is a horror — their culture has the same right to exist as any other (not to mention the unmitigated hypocrisy, by the way, of the same neocons in having fired Ann Coulter for blurting out what amounts more or less to the same proposal in one of her post-9/11 columns — “We should invade their countries and convert them all to Christianity!”).

I happen to be of the anti-war right but in a category Mr. Auster hasn’t mentioned yet. He has spoken of those who are truly neutral, into which category he puts Jim Kalb, and those who seem to have strayed into an anti-Israel position, into which he puts perhaps some paleos. I am in neither of these categories, but am definitely in the pro-Israel camp of the anti-war right. I will support this war if there is no alternative way of guaranteeing Israel’s entire survival intact as we know her, and her well-being into the future. If there is an alternative way of doing that, which I suspect there is, I am not in favor of this war.

In reading through Mr. Kalb’s statement, I think I now disagree with one of his assertions. Mr. Kalb: “The antiwar right would rather not have foreign entanglements and American involvement with the defense of Israel is an example of the type of entanglement they’d rather not have. That puts them on the anti-Israel side…” Why does a Paleo’s not wanting the US to be involved in foreign entanglements (such as defending Israel with our troops, tax dollars, etc.) automatically put him on the anti-Israeli side? As Matt correctly pointed out, it is certainly possible to condemn both the horrific terror attacks perpetrated upon the Israelis as well as excessive force used in an Israeli response and at the same time refuse to become involved other than through official diplomatic statements, etc. The problem I see in some of the anti-war right is one of not being completely truthful - they claim neutrality, while effectively giving support to the Arab side by harshly condeming Israeli actions and failing to condemn Arab atrocities which are worse, by any objective standard. Their claim of neutrality is questionable, at the very least.

Matt writes, characterizing my position:

“So the REASON that Mr. Kalb is REQUIRED to pass a moral judgement in one particular case is that we are ALWAYS required to pass moral judgements in EVERY case in order to think reasonably at all. Without this principle in place on what basis can Mr. Auster criticize where Mr. Kalb does and does not choose to pass judgement?”

I think I addressed this question (as well as can be done at the moment) with further clarifications of my positions in the first three paragraphs of my post of 8:50 p.m.

But Mr. Kalb’s neutrality, for which he was taken to task, was not vis-a-vis the Mideast conflict itself. Mr. Kalb was taken to task for remaining neutral in the internal conflict between the antiwar right and the pro-war right (that is, for attempting to say something objective about the dynamic in direct answer to a direct question without passing moral judgement on that assessment of objective state).

Mr. Auster’s post of 8:50 does appear to say, for one thing, that everone MUST make a moral judgement about the current Mideast conflict because the Jews have been uniquely oppressed as a people. I suppose if that is true then everyone MUST make moral judgements about every directly related issue, including the internal pro- and anti-war conflict on the Right. But I don’t see how, even if we stipulate that the Jews are unique in history in terms of their status as victim (and I say this without a hint of sarcasm), that it follows that men of good will MUST make moral judgements about every conflict in which Jews are involved and specifically the current one. It is as if Mr. Auster thinks that there is literally only one possible correct way to think about an actual concrete political situation and prudential judgements that have to be made in response to it — as if it were a matter of calculating a result rather than making a prudential judgement; and it is exactly this posture that polarizes the paleos.

The point that we were part of coalition that created the state of Israel in the first place, and that therefore we are in part responsible for it, does make sense and I want to acknowledge that explicitly. In fact I think it is the only good argument for the US to make war specifically to protect Israel (although I also don’t think that American involvement in the current conflict is about protecting Israel, I think it is about protecting America, so in that sense the whole discussion is a bit moot to the practical issues). Paleos might want to say that hey, WE didn’t personally approve of zionism; but either the obligations of our nation are all of our obligations or there is no nation. That is an entirely different argument though from saying that Mr. Kalb or anyone else is morally obligated to pass judgement on any conflict involving Israel, or any internal conflict among rightists involving the proper rightist posture toward Israel, because of the putative uniquely oppressed status of Judaism or because of ANY general requirement to pass moral judgement when commenting on objective facts.

The thing that bugs me about this discussion, for the record, has nothing to do with Israel or the mideast conflict. The thing that bugs me about this discussion is the notion that men of good will simply cannot in intellectual honesty think about the objective situation, the ideal remedies, and actual remedies as separate concepts. Mr. Auster seems to think that such precise thinking is related to postmodernism and is somehow morally defective, while I think exactly the opposite: that we are OBLIGED to think in these analytic terms and that FAILURE to do so is complicit with modernism and the liberal smear-language of “bigotry” and victimization.

I am happy to say for the record that Unadorned is a unique case :-).

Coulter got in trouble because she wanted to convert all the Moslem countries to Christianity by force. If she had wanted to convert them all to tolerant secular liberal democracies by force the whole neocon establishment would have rallied to her.

The topic is whether man is basically “good”as perceived by liberals or “evil” as perceived by conservatives and how such perspectives must run contra to anti-war conservatism. I take a different perspective and believe that each new child is only potential for either state, and during development displays the traits for which the labels of good or evil attach.

I think it futile, here on VFR, to seek, ad infinitum, philosophically everlasting and universal labels, including the terms paleo, neo and mainline conservative.
After all, the meanings they carry are timely to and accurate only in the post WWII U.S. They are only as acceptable as the experiences of the person using them and have no other use except some imperfect predictive use as labels implying past behavior. Everything in the world comes out of history including these labels.

What I label paleo-conservative only reflects the value I assign to my personal experiences of the immediate political past of my country. Neo, Paleo and Main means only new, old and Now, and these confer no predictive value only historical connotation. As our society corkscrews into the unknown and contingent future the very most that we can hope for is general agreement on behaviors based on the norms of our enlightened society.

Larry asks:

“Why would the antiwar right abandon their entire, hard-won world view, their deep understanding of the nature of power and of enemies and of evil, only in this one case, where the enemy they are whitewashing also happens to be the mortal enemy of the Jews?”

I believe that today’s anti-war right has goals and aspirations little different from those they held before World Wars I and II. In these earlier periods, the political far right’s isolationism (the antiwar label is inappropriate) ) was just a politically acceptable cover for their true ideology. They were secretly in favor of the Germanic expansion in Europe, for anti semitism and white supremacy and against socialism here at home.

Before WWII, for example, U.S. ambassador Joe Kennedy, Charles Lindberg and many other so-called conservative Americans were openly pro-German; there existed large German-American bunds across America, American immigrants, jews and blacks were social inferiors, all of which attitudes marked the far-rights “anti-war position as, really, solidarity with German attitudes and hegemony. Even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, many still opposed the war.

Only since WWII has an anti war-left been added to the mix. Before both WWI and WWII the left favored U.S. involvement (war) because they wanted, and got, our intervention on behalf of international socialism. The post WWII European mild democratic socialism enforced by our successful prosecution of each war was a result unintended by the lefties who wanted to go much, much further to the left.
Only when we began to oppose socialism-communism in the late 1940’s did the American left switch to anti-war. They’ve never left the rhetoric of anti-war politics since.

Opposing or supporting wars is no more or less than an extension of the real political ideology of each side. Anti- war for the far right, is rooted in “paleo” denial of the mid 20th century “progress” they don’t like. Anti- war for the left is rooted in protection for the “progress” they think they’ve gained.

A true anti war position, left or right, never did and does not now exist. As von Clausewitz said: “War is nothing more than politics by another name”.

“I believe that today’s anti-war right has goals and aspirations little different from those they held before World Wars I and II. In these earlier periods, the political far right’s isolationism (the antiwar label is inappropriate) was just a politically acceptable cover for their true ideology. They were secretly in favor of the Germanic expansion in Europe, for anti-semitism and white supremacy, and against socialism here at home.” — Sandy

Sandy, you’ve been reading the wrong books again. I had high hopes for you, for a while there, but you’ve backslid. You sometimes trot out some of the WEIRDEST ideas, Sandy, honestly!

Unadorned:

As a further weird idea and as an addendum let me also say that the idea of nuetrality is just another weapon in the war of words.Any claim of neutrality by someone already participating is specious and everyone is obliged to see it as a secret and “moral equivelent” to agreement with the “other” side, the one politically urging inaction or anti-war..

” … [T]he idea of nuetrality is just another weapon in the war of words.” — Sandy

Tell that to George Washington and to the country of Switzerland.

Un:
You’ll need to enlighten me with your meanings about Switzerland and George Washington, and perhaps, its relevance for post WWII rhetoric.

Neutrality is possible and legitimate and does not amount to agreeing with one side or the other. I fully agree with, I think it was, Matt on this point. (I am not talking about being “a moderate,” which I view as illegitimate in most cases. As Rush Limgaugh says, being “a moderate” often is simply not having enough knowledge or understanding or personality to know what the issues are and therefore where one stands in regard to them or how one ought to so stand.)

Say finally whether you are a man or a woman, Sandy. There are circumstances in which I like to know what gender I am debating with. Yes, it may make a difference in how I interpret what you say and how I construct and phrase my response. Sorry.

Sandy has fallen into the trap of believing that everyone either agrees with her or is some sort of subhuman monster with a hidden agenda of unspeakable evil. This attitude is complicit with extremes like Naziism rather than helpful in exposing and opposing them, though Sandy doesn’t see it. It is exactly the sort of thing - not that this constitutes an excuse for anyone, mind you, all sides as groups are behaving badly on this — that drives some on the right to verbally apologize for e.g. Islamic suicide bombers and soil the whole right in the process.

I think Jim Kalb’s tendency to state things in the neutral objective is quite helpful. Sandy and Mr. Auster don’t like it because they would rather not face the fact that yes, there is no excuse for supporting (even just verbally) the sorts of things that the Palestinians are doing; but at the same time those who do so are being driven there by moralists who want to force them to take sides and sacrifice sons in conflicts that they do not view as their own. Somebody wise once said that if you want to get the stick out of your neighbor’s eye you should take the one out of your own first.

Looking at this discussion after a night’s sleep, I realize that my initial question that set off this discussion has gotten lost in hairsplitting side issues, for which I am responsible as much as anyone else.

I had asked at the end of my post: “Why would the antiwar right abandon their entire, hard-won world view, their deep understanding of the nature of power and of enemies and of evil, only in this one case, where the enemy they are whitewashing also happens to be the mortal enemy of the Jews?”

Mr. Kalb then wrote his comment that has been quoted several times now:

“The antiwar right would rather not have foreign entanglements and American involvement with the defense of Israel is an example of the type of entanglement they’d rather not have. That puts them on the anti-Israel side and once they’re there it’s hard to avoid picking up the arguments people on that side make. They don’t think they have to be realistic about what’s involved there because they don’t want to be there in the first place.”

I replied that we don’t normally assume that an uninvolved stand on a foreign conflict necessarily leads people to “pick up the arguments” used by one side in that war against the other. For example, President Washington’s desire for the U.S. to remain neutral between Britain and revolutionary France did not lead him to start finding excuses for the French Terror. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan’s desire for the U.S. to stay out of World War I did not lead him to start making all kinds of excuses for the German Reich’s appalling behavior in Belgium. But today’s antiwar right DO take sides and DO make excuses for the terrorist Muslims, arguing (just like utopian liberals) that the Muslims are really reasonable souls who will drop their war against Israel as soon as Israel gives up its settlements on the West Bank. Thus, while Mr. Kalb described the antiwar right’s behavior, neither he, nor anyone else in this discussion, has answered my initial question about the antiwar right. And the answer to that question is that conservatives who abandon their entire world view and start making excuses for savages only in ONE case, where the savages are trying to mass murder Jews and destroy the Jewish state, do so because they are anti-Semites.

Mr. Auster’s analysis is probably correct as far as it goes up to the sentence beginning “Thus…”, but he should also acknowledge that this occurs because people are relentlessly whipped into take sides in any conflict involving the Jews even when they do not want to take sides.

Mr. Auster also says:
“Thus, while Mr. Kalb described the antiwar right’s behavior, neither he, nor anyone else in this discussion, has answered my initial question about the antiwar right. And the answer to that question is that conservatives who abandon their entire world view and start making excuses for savages only in ONE case, where the savages are trying to mass murder Jews and destroy the Jewish state, do so because they are anti-Semites.”

I think Mr. Auster’s question HAS been answered, and he just doesn’t like the answer. Part of the answer is what he says it is: that some people just irrationally hate the Jews. The other part of the answer, which Mr. Auster has done everything possible not to acknowledge, is that BOTH the pro-Israel and anti-Israel side demonize anyone who attempts neutrality.

Mr. Auster describes the paleo world-view:

“Why would the antiwar right abandon their entire, hard-won world view, their deep understanding of the nature of power and of enemies and of evil, only in this one case, where the enemy they are whitewashing also happens to be the mortal enemy of the Jews?”

I think Mr. Auster is giving the paleo world-view too much credit here, which is part of the problem. If the paleo world-view were on such firm bedrock foundations as Mr. Auster says here, then the exceptionalism he describes would only be explicable by that unspeakable evil, anti-Semitism. But Mr. Auster knows better: he has criticized other aspects of the paleo world view before.

Matt agrees with my analysis and the resulting imputation of anti-Semitism insofar as it applies to some of the people on the antiwar right who make liberal-type excuses for Muslim terrorists, but he says that my analysis doesn’t apply to other people on the antiwar right who also make liberal-type excuses for Muslim terrorists. The latter group, he says, are not anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, and have a neutral view of the Mideast conflict. But when they express this supposedly neutral view they are demonized (by neocons, presumably). And so, in reaction against the neocons demonizing them, these supposedly neutral, supposedly non-anti-Semitic antiwar people then do exactly what the acknowledged anti-Semites in their ranks do: they start adopting liberal-type excuses for Muslims terrorists, all the while, mind you, remaining neutral and non-anti-Semitic.

It would be interesting to see if Matt could provide some examples to back up his theory. Until then, it seems implausible.

Unadorned 1:04

You can be guided by knowing I am a man in my 60’s and a courtroom trial attorney for 38 years, now near retirement. Make of that what you will. To your post.

Neutrality in the modern world is an impossibility, except maybe for minor, local based issues unrelated to humanity and international world politics. Perhaps the concept had utility when communications were not instantaneous, destructive capacity overwhelming and the peoples of the world largely separated, dispersed and non interactive.

Today, in U.N., N.A.T.O. and other regional organizations and governments everywhere, everyone, even small countries make decisions that affect every other one, every other where.

The archaism that is neutrality is an ostrich head in the sand. Its professed refusal to exercise power, favors the acceptance of whatever rules others employ and is a passive-aggressive effort to sway others by a role model of inaction. In its lowest form it decries any moral responsibility (ala Switzerland) by its failure to oppose evil. It’s an international cop out of the worse sort and easily used as a political tool of trickery by deceit.

We can no longer use the subterfuge of neutrality to avoid decision making and today not making a decision is, in fact also a decision in every way. It is known in the psychological literature as decision by indecision.

Mr. Auster misstates my “theory” and provides an example of the polarizing behavior I described in this very thread. When Mr. Kalb said something neutral and neglected to append to it a screed against anti-Semites to Mr. Auster’s liking, Mr. Auster ridiculed him with a chant of “ho, ho, ho Chi Minh”. Does Mr. Auster think that by doing so he has increased, or decreased the net polarization on the Right? That some of the people Mr. Auster ridicules seek the company of others who are at least like-minded as to what actions to take seems implausible to Mr. Auster. I am not going to take the bait and go seek out such people for a parade, though, as if that would satisfy Mr. Auster’s desire for “proof” that his own forced polarization is part of the problem. He has obviously decided that anti-Semitism is the sole explanation and has no intention of considering other possibilities; thus this discussion is obviously going nowhere.

Sandy expresses the modern neocon attitude perfectly: either you are with us neocons or you are an ostrich with its head in the sand, and we will bomb you until you submit.

I took a break from VFR to read Jeremiah and came back to find the problems in that part of the world are not only still there but spilling over everywhere.

I haven’t done more than skim the thread and don’t intend to read it further. This kind of argument is not my cup of tea. So far as I can tell though some of the trouble has to do with my failure in my extremely brief comments to assign blame.

If that’s indeed the objection, I would respond that I didn’t assign blame because assigning blame properly is work. I suggested the argument was bad and unprincipled but said that I would leave up to others the determination as to whether the conduct of those making was “utterly immoral.”

I don’t believe that saying that was avoidance of a moral duty. I don’t pay nearly as much attention to Israel or the antiwar right as Mr. Auster does, so it would take a lot of time and effort to put together a full-fledged position regarding who here in America is acting how badly in what respects. I don’t see that I have a special responsibility to do that.

It seems to me I didn’t need to go into all that for the very limited purpose of the comment that I made in direct response to Mr. Auster’s question. My purpose was to suggest another motive than antisemitism — aversion to foreign entanglements — for the anti-Israel sentiment and the willingness to entertain uncharacteristic arguments on the antiwar right. (Incidentally, by “anti-Israel side” I meant the side that opposes U.S. support for Israel.)

I don’t see what’s harmful about proposing the explanation in response to a question or what’s wrong with leaving it at that rather than go on to discuss moral culpability when I don’t know all that much about who said what when in what connection. Not every comment one makes is a full statement of everything one thinks should ultimately be said on an issue.

Matt:
I dont advocate bombing anyone.I do advocate that when war is broght to my homeland, as it recently was,the ideology that did so be eliminated by every means at our disposal, including bombing.
I think Mr. Auster erred when he attributed the “hard won gains” to the anti-war right. In my view the anti war right opposed all patriotic involvement and are not entitled to any credit for “hard won gains” category..Not the conservative right, mind, just the anti-war far right that has continually opposed American hegemony in the world.

To set the record right about my views re the anti-semitism thread:

I usually prefer to avoid personalities in debate, believing that our words should be our emissaries; clear as panes of glass, enabling the thoughts they communicate to be easily seen. American conservative political debate is what I was taught. It implies graciousness in losing and generosity in winning. It bespeaks the simplicity of one idea against another idea, cleanly, with agreed upon rules that allows the audience or judge to compare each side and its values, toward a decision. It implies goodwill among contenders. It should underpin and define civilized discussion between American conservatives.

But today there also exists a newer, little known but growing, group of linguists/debaters for whom winning control over the debate is the first and immediate goal. Mostly leftist radical, they infest the colleges and universities of America. They use the language techniques displayed by professor Noam Chomsky, political debater par excellence, master linguist by training and a left-radical who hates America above and before all else.

Their radical polemic can be identified by a preference for complex English grammatical structures. They use words and paragraphs, not to clarify, but as another tool to confuse and thus defeat conservative opposition. They feign neutrality in debate, deny applicability of common terms and phrases unless it serves their ideological posture of the moment, invoke moral equivalency arguments, use delay and distraction to avoid progress or solutions and parse every common sentence and word into twisted meanings that deny all objective truth and as aids to excuse their real beliefs and behaviors. And, no surprise , they lie about the facts and their motives as well.

The extreme radical right, feigning conservatism, is now using the same language polemic as a weapon of debate. If they cannot publicly support anti-Semitism they can, at the least, deny any rational meaning to the term ad infinitum. If they cannot extol the virtues of black segregation they can, at the least, deny its definition and its application.If they cannot oppose the just war against evil Islam, they feign neutrality and demand all use a definition they can agree with.
By parsing the meanings of these and other commonly accepted phrases (ala Clinton) they stifle and defeat rational discussion and destroy conservative discussion forums and conservative common sense. This is infinite hairsplitting in the vein of Chomsky at his best. And its just as malicious.

By inaccurately labeling the radical’s method of control in the debate ‘hair-splitting”,we accept it, excuse it, deny its destructive impact on ordinary discourse and treat it as a harmless “idiosyncratic” behavior of a “sensitive” and loyal VFR poster. In the real world words and phrases have consequences.

If I have misjudged your political sympathies in in appraising and opposing your radical method of critical analyses then I apologize.I would urge everone to the old lawyer’s reminder to KISS the jury: Keep it simple stupid.

I accept Sandy’s apology, and agree to disagree on discursive methods and objectives.

I am not sure how much of an apology Sandy made, though. Does Sandy say that the following:

“…deny all objective truth and as aids to excuse their real beliefs and behaviors. And, no surprise , they lie about the facts and their motives as well.” ?

applies to me?

If so, that is hardly an apology I can accept, and I would suggest that the issue has more to do with Sandy’s incomprehension of what is important and why (which indeed may have something to do with how I express it) than with anything objective. Given Sandy’s posture toward neutrality, as something that is always invalid, one wonders if Sandy has the capacity to grasp the objective.

I do grant forgiveness to Sandy, though, irrespective of the appropriateness and sincerity of the apology.

Not to mention that the idea that neutrality is impossible comes straight from the Chomskyites: who is Sandy kidding here?

“Neutrality in the modern world is an impossibility, except maybe for minor, local based issues unrelated to humanity and international world politics.” — Sandy

You seem to say a country can remain neutral if it deems a particular conflict does not threaten it enough. Of course, not only may it, but morally it MUST remain neutral under these circumstances — it owes that to itself and to its population: a government has a moral obligation not to bring unecessary war on its own head.

Maybe this is what some paleos deem. Maybe others are tinged with a bit of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism in today’s U.S. is hard to credit where one is dealing with educated, mentally balanced individuals. We all just saw an example of the real McCoy on this Forum who was an educated individual, but I believe that example clearly involved signs of mental imbalance. I do not think the real deal is likely to have infected very many on the anti-war paleo right. That being said, certain members of that faction’s criticism of Israel’s efforts to defend itself and others of their pronouncements call for explanation — from their own mouths, if possible.

As Mr. Kalb observed, not everyone follows the columns and comments of paleos closely, so not everyone is as attuned as are some, to catching inconsistencies in their positions. This may help explain why anti-war rightists like me haven’t ready answers to propose in regard to this mystery.

Every country, once engaged in a war, is potentially fighting for its life. That’s extremely serious. Completely apart from that, there is also the guarantee — I said GUARANTEE — of visiting holocaust of the worst conceivable sort on another people. (Wars aren’t fought cleanly. I’ll leave the rest to everyone’s imagination. Terms like “rape, plunder, pillage, and death of men, women, children, and old people” — yes, by ALL sides including by our own but of course if we win it gets hushed-up where it was done by our side — such terms weren’t just dreamt-up by some fiction writer somewhere.) Some of these neocons act like war is a game or like preparing the set for a Hollywood movie.

Every year world-wide about two hundred wars are being or have been fought and this has been the case since the most remote antiquity without interruption. We can’t pick and choose the ones we get involved in? Can little Israel stay neutral in some of these? Does Israel send troops to the war in East Timor? I have no idea what that war is about but Prof. Chomsky speaks and writes very poignantly all the time about the unjust slaughter and suffering being borne by those poor Timorese. Maybe Israel should fulfill “its moral obligation” to send a couple of divisions, instead of endeavoring to remain neutral in that conflict? After all, “issues related to humanity and of international world politics” seem to be involved. Should our country and Israel get directly involved in all two hundred hot wars that rage in the world each and every year?

I think there is a way to continue to defend Israel without declaring war on Iraq.

“I do advocate that when war is brought to my homeland, as it recently was, the ideology that did so be eliminated by every means at our disposal, including bombing.” — Sandy

I agree. That was the war in Afghanistan. That war is over.

When we speak here on VFR ,it must be as Americans,the only remaining democratic super power, not as inhabitants of East Timor or as a 3rd world nation.For us there can be no neutrality.What is good for us is not necessarily “good” for anyone else.

Our attitudes must always reflect our nation’s world position.Our brave war dead war demand this.Thus:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
by John McCrae
Only we living are left to take up the quarrel with the enemy for our dead of 911.
The war on our attackers, has just begu and must never be limited to the Afghan tribes and homeland.These are Persians by heritage and were never more than the hosts for the attackers, who have since fled Afghanistan, circled the globe and spread the infection to many many islamic nations.There they wait like poisonous spiders ready to bite and kill.
This war was begun by the Arabic Islamic adherents of Wahabbi-ism in tribal Saudi Arabia, and has been spread by them across Islam.

Hair splitting nit-pickers refuse to take up the torch.

Which torch? There are literally an infinite number of torches to choose from.

For the record, I am in favor of eliminating Iraq’s WMD capabilities by force; that has nothing to do with Israel though, or with wiping out all the Arab states in some massive secular crusade.

For the record, if you dont know which torch, your opinions regarding Iraq’s are an irrelevancy.

Matt warmly welcomed my proposal of attempting to delineate rational boundaries that define racism and anti-Semitism, but then, as soon as I began to do so, he got angry at me, accusing me of being a polarizer and of “ridiculing” Jim Kalb. Well, if one says that certain things are or are not racist or anti-Semitic, how can that be done without “polarizing” those who don’t agree with those definitions or feel that they may threaten their political affiliations and friendships? To attack me for being “polarizing” is to place me and what I’m saying outside the bounds of acceptable discussion; so Matt is being at least as polarizing as I am.

As for Matt’s charge that I ridiculed Mr. Kalb, it is ridiculous. The “ho ho ho chi minh” was one of several historical examples I gave to make the point, pace Mr. Kalb, that there have been people who were neutral without supporting one of the sides.

Unadorned says that anti-Semitism may exist on the anti-war right but is rare. Then he adds that “certain members of that faction’s criticism of Israel’s efforts to defend itself and others of their pronouncements call for explanation—from their own mouths, if possible.”

Un, accept the fact that they’re not going to provide an explanation of their attacks on Isreal for defending itself. Which means that the ball is back in your court. In the absence of an explanation from them, what do you conclude about their motives for those attacks?

As I’ve said before, for years I dismissed the idea of anti-Semitism being a serious problem on the right. The last couple of years have been a deeply disturbing shock. I wish I wasn’t seeing what I see, but I do see it. And by the act of seeing what I see, I become, in Matt’s words, polarizing.

In any case, it seems that nothing further is to be gained by pursuing this subject in this forum.

Mr. Auster did not merely observe something objectively. He INSISTED that Mr. Kalb had a DUTY to condemn something as “utterly immoral”. He also is still breathtakingly silent on the question of whether the polarization has any additional causes beyond utterly immoral anti-semitism.

Mr. Auster also says once again that there has been no explanation. That is not true. There has been no explanation _to his satisfaction_, but there has been plenty of explanation.

Matt has been overwrought throughout this discussion and that is continuing. First Matt said I was trying to “coerce” Mr. Kalb into saying something, and now he is saying I “insisted” that Mr. Kalb do something. Such words paint a melodramatic and false picture of what happened.

In my first reply to Mr. Kalb those many moons ago, I wrote:

“It’s not clear whether Mr. Kalb’s intent is to defend the antiwar right or condemn them. Objectively, the behavior he describes—of not caring about the truth, not caring about the fact that they are making excuses for evil killers, not caring about the consequences of their words—are utterly immoral. I hope Mr. Kalb is not suggesting that people are justified in such immorality if they “don’t want to be there in the first place.” “

Clearly I was concerned (whether correctly or incorrectly) that Mr. Kalb might be condoning the behavior he was describing, and I expressed my hope that he was not doing so.

In my second reply to Mr. Kalb I wrote:

“Why does Mr. Kalb feel exempt from the duty to come to moral conclusions in this one particular area, but not in other areas, where he commonly expresses moral judgments about all kinds of things? To think reasonably is to think morally. You can’t do the first and then try to avoid the necessity of the second.”

Here I was saying, clearly and strongly, that if one is describing immoral behavior one has a duty not do it in such a fashion as to suggest that one is condoning it. I was not “insisting” and certainly not “coercing,” with everything those words imply. I was stating my views about what I think our moral duties are when engaged in public discussion. People are free to disagree. But Matt’s personal attack on me as a “coercer” escalated any disagreement that was there and distracted us from the substantive matters we were discussing.

Matt is correct that I wasn’t simply defining things. I was saying, once we have defined something as wrong, we have a duty (at the very least) not to describe them in such a way as to appear to condone them, which I felt Jim had done. That’s where I crossed the line of permissible discussion as far as Matt is concerned. Clearly my approach was not tactful in that it set off an unusual amount of criticism of me from Matt and others. But I nevertheless believe that what I said was right, and I’m not persuaded that I was wrong to say it, even if everyone else says I was wrong.

Is this the part where I jump up and down and yell “I am not overwrought!!!” ?

To Larry;

I suspect that you are beginning to find that radical rhetoric ala Chomsky can be both painful as well as ensnaring.One of the items I omitted to mention in my description of radical rhetoric above is a distraction device to control debate called seizing the high ground. It can be claiming communal neutrality.In this black panther tactic accusations of polarizing behavior that disturbs the “peaceable community of believers” is used to keep the members of the community distracted and contained.

Where radicals cannot win they sow discord, mistrust and confusion in their wake. Eventually all people of goodwill disengage and move away from them. Ultimately, they are often left standing on the stage alone victorious by default. This polemical form of radical debate is on the move everywhere to the cost of conservative ethics and behavioral norms.

Ive had little to do with the radical left or right in my lifetime parameters but I know that segregation against American blacks and anti-Semitism against American jews is part and parcel of the radical phenomena. As an experienced and principled conservative why should I be surprised that those on the radical right practice the same unprincipled form of debate?

I think that like many people when Sandy is confronted by something he can’t deal with rationally, things like conspiracy theories and charges of anti-semitism are trotted out.

Gosh Matt:

It looks like you tried on a shoe without being asked to.

Just as a personal opinion, I felt with my last comment and then with Matt’s semi-humourous follow-up which seemed like a peace-making gesture, this very long and sometimes contentious discussion had reached a convenient point of closure, which I frankly thought would be a relief for all of us. Of course, if others feel differently, they are free to continue the debate.

[… tipping glass of Talisker and water to Mr. Auster …]

O.K. with me.Im ready to move on How bout you Matt?