Lay Brings Out Some Honesty from Left

I'm always amazed when the folks on the left accidently lift the veil of what makes them tick just a bit and we get to see inside. Enron and Ken Lay (along with Bush and Cheney) are cases where they open that veil. As I heard on the NPR story, while the left has endless sympathies for terrorists and criminals of all stripes except Republican. Once their strange form of "morality", based on their own model of "what feels good is good" kicks in, they realize that revenge "feels good", so why not torture?

I know, some of you are thinking, he has to be making this up, but although the author decides to euphamize it as "chi-chi", he clearly comes to the conclusion that torture is what he would really have liked to see happen to Ken Lay.
Post:Ken Lay's Last Evasion

This quote shows that deep down, your average liberal understands. His own editorial should be more than enough to notice that yes, savagery isn't really below the surface at all when it comes to the folks that the liberals hate. They are ready to attack and torture as soon as they get their shot.

but so many people may well have responded to the news of Lay's untimely death by feeling cheated, by saying that death wasn't good enough for him, by sensing a frustrated craving for revenge burning in their backbrains like a fire in a tire dump.

Is it possible that a micron below the surface of our liberal and enlightened beliefs lurks savagery? Was the French Enlightenment wrong about our essential goodness, and were the medieval churchmen right about our innate depravity?

The liberal brain is focused on feeling. It is how things make them feel that counts as morality, and in general, the feeling impulse will take us back to childhood. They didn't like the idea that their parents, schoolteachers, or pastors had "power". Power to make them feel "less than perfect", or to force them to do things that didn't make them feel good. They also noticed that their parents and other in authority "had more". They built up feeling of resentment for people that they saw as "having more". Almost always they see however those people got more as "wrong". In a situation like Ken Lay, they find their feelings to be validated, so they are allowed to express their outrage.

Although liberals try to elevate feelings to the level of the spritual and sublime, feelings tend to be quite primitive. For the author of this piece to use the analogy of "a primitive tribe" to express his desire to torture Ken Lay is a pretty transparent symbol.

Note that the very same person would very likely abhor Abu Grahb, Guantanemo, the death penalty in the US, or any other treatment of other prisoners that they would find to be less than commendable. How can this be? They see Ken Lay (or Bush/Cheney) as "inhuman", but they don't assign that view to terrorists or other criminals. Why? The liberal is God, there is no higher power, and any inkling of someone that really is a "higher power" ... through political position, money, or something else, and isn't in agreement with the liberal is "evil" ... but a criminal or terrorist that isn't directly seen as attacking the liberal is not a threat. They are seen as "lower status", or even "victims" and thus worthy of good treatment, understanding, and compassion.

Liberalism is the essence of humanity. We are naturally liberals. We have to be somehow "saved" ... in some combination of a religous, intellectual, philisophical, or phycological way. Even then, we remain at core liberals and if left to our own devices will return to primitive feelings and rage, just like some "primitive tribe". Intellectual honesty is not a commoodity that is commonly associated with liberals, but cases like this column where the truth boils to the surface and is expressed directly allow us to understand why liberals behave the way they do.