In what alternate universe does David Frum = MILD provocation? If the goal is to increase the provocation factor, then I'm curious to see Ted Stevens on next week, leading up the final week of Jesse Helms. (Not that I am equating David Frum with either Mr. Stevens or Mr. Helms. Let no one call me hysterical.)

David says "the truth is the best defense." Are all conservatives this lacking in intellectual rigor? A couple of our own favorite conservatives recently treated the national enquirer story as virtually true, too, despite a complete lack of any evidence. Isn't that something? Chomsky made the point long ago that when you are saying stuff people want to believe, no proof is actually required. The only evidence required to "prove" a point is that it satisfy the wishes of the audience. Note: I am not denying Edwards has a love child. I'm also waiting for someone to provide evidence that he does. Isn't it interesting that the Nat'l Enquirer went to all that trouble to stake out Edwards in the middle of the night, hanging around the hotel for hours .... in 2008 .... and they didn't have a camera with them? Maybe one of the intellectually rigorous conservatives can explain that one.

It's true, there's been great strides in the homeless issue. But you know what, it's only possible now because if this happened under a Democratic administration, conservatives would be screaming bloody murder about giving drunks free housing. This is like how Nixon gets credit for going to China, when the reason no one else could go is because Nixon was around calling everybody a traitor.

Malcolm Gladwell's "Million-Dollar Murray" has the goods: http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html

I personally think I'd take issue with here. The section of the clergy that was anti-Mossadegh was not the proto-Khomeini wing, but rather the resolutely apolitical traditional ulema, analagous to modern-day Sistani types.

The next time a Republican (or Libertarian) makes the government-is-the-problem argument, play them this: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/132...7&out=00:05:54 I thought I was listening to Glenn Loury or Joshua Cohen for a minute.

David Frum discusses his colleagues at the National Review: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/132...3&out=00:03:26

Quoting claymisher: It's true, there's been great strides in the homeless issue. But you know what, it's only possible now because if this happened under a Democratic administration, conservatives would be screaming bloody murder about giving drunks free housing. This is like how Nixon gets credit for going to China, when the reason no one else could go is because Nixon was around calling everybody a traitor.

I didn't really find the homeless argument to be blood-pressure raising as advertised. David's assertion that this is a right/left dividable question doesn't resonate with me. I think I'm a "liberal," but I could be in error. The left wing that wants to re-engineer society strikes me as marginal and dilettante these days, and I see much more FDR-style "try different solutions till something works" pragmatism. Or at least that's the way the air feels. An emotional left/right axis--the one David is refering to from the 80s--exists on the level of "these bums should get a job" vs. "they are victims of circumstance." But building halfway houses to deal with the mental health problems of the homeless doesn't really fall on the "right" side of that axis. Any solution

Quoting TwinSwords: David says "the truth is the best defense." Are all conservatives this lacking in intellectual rigor? A couple of our own favorite conservatives recently treated the national enquirer story as virtually true, too, despite a complete lack of any evidence.

You don't think the circumstantial evidence is really strong? Two Enquirer reporters claim that they themselves saw and questioned Edwards at the hotel (we've already discussed in another thread the difference in terms of potential liability in a libel suit between the paper claiming an "unnamed source" said something happened and claiming that it's own reporters saw something happen). Fox News later interviewed the security guard who escorted Edwards out. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but it seems to me that if John Edwards is seen visiting a hotel at 2:30 a.m. where an alleged mistress is staying under the name of an Edwards associate, and he runs away and hides in a restroom when confronted asked what he's doing there, that's pretty strong evidence that something fishy is going on.

Isn't it interesting that the Nat'l Enquirer went to all that trouble to stake out

The Wilder effect was a result about 8 points below immediate pre-election poll numbers. On the other hand, Doug Wilder was elected governor of Virginia in 1989. It would be nice to think racial attitudes have advanced in 20 years.

I'm enjoying John M.'s posts, but I have a feeling this will get tiresome really quick if he's not careful (but what do I know? Allah in the House was gold for almost a year before burning out). Pace yourself, my friend, we've still got the conventions, the debates, and the election.

Quoting osmium: I didn't really find the homeless argument to be blood-pressure raising as advertised. David's assertion that this is a right/left dividable question doesn't resonate with me. I think I'm a "liberal," but I could be in error. The left wing that wants to re-engineer society strikes me as marginal and dilettante these days, and I see much more FDR-style "try different solutions till something works" pragmatism. Or at least that's the way the air feels.

An emotional left/right axis--the one David is refering to from the 80s--exists on the level of "these bums should get a job" vs. "they are victims of circumstance." But building halfway houses to deal with the mental health problems of the homeless doesn't really fall on the "right" side of that axis. Any solution other than praising social darwinism strikes me as good.

I agree, the left right divide has never been much more than one side that wants to make it more of a priority and one side that wants to make it less.

Bob & David argue over whether tax cuts at the top can cause people to lose their mortgage. Deficits can drive up interest rates, and if you have an adjustable rate mortgage, that translates to higher payments, conceivably beyond your ability to pay.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: The next time a Republican (or Libertarian) makes the government-is-the-problem argument, play them this:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/132...7&out=00:05:54

I thought I was listening to Glenn Loury or Joshua Cohen for a minute.

Yup. And you could also play them the section and show them the link to the purported improvement of the homeless situation. If true, it's thanks to the federal government taking over from a lot of local organizations.

I don't really want to get deep into this discussion right now, having several times previously forsworn internet discussion of this particular conflict and having never really seen much benefit from the discussion that has occurred in comments sections regarding it but I feel compelled to say this: I don't get Mr. Frum's contention that the Palestinians do not "lose" anything when they choose to go to war and "lose". First, I of course disagree completely with the notion that a state of occupation is not a state of war. There was no peace before the 2nd intifada. Putting that completely to the side however, and without even arguing about whether Palestinians have the moral or legal right to resist or whether violent resistance is the best strategic or moral option, etc. etc. but just engaging with Mr. Frum's claim that the Palestinians are incentivized to fight because "if they win they win and if they lose they stay at the same place" how can he ignore the following: (1) the Status Quo is a state of constant suffering for almost all Palestinians. Prolonging the status quo or even making conditions

Again, regardless of whether all of one's sympathies are with the Israelis or not, I find the attitude expressed by Mr. Frum that somehow there are no costs to the Palestinians of active resistance, despite the thousands of deaths, the almost universal economic misery, the daily humiliations, the thousands rotting away in prisons, the torture that so many have undergone at the hands of the Israelis to be utterly bizarre.

Yes, the sentiment is truly revolting. Thank you for the reality check. There is a segment of the American right for whom Arab suffering is always irrelevant or non-existent.

It is also, as Mr. Wright pointed out, ridiculous that Israel, a nuclear power with by far the most powerful military in the region, backed unconditionally by the world's lone so-called superpower is considered by itself or by someone like Mr. Frum to be some kind of underdog.

The myth of Israel as a tiny nation struggling to survive is a hard one to debunk. It's been a cornerstone of Israeli propaganda for decades, while Israel -- a rogue nuclear state that spends billions of US taxpayer dollars on defense annually -- has played a major role

The are-you-better-off analogy misses the mark. Reagan posed that question when challenging an incumbent president, whereas Obama is running against a fellow Senator who was one of the more vocal Republican critics of the Bush Administration.

I don't get Mr. Frum's contention that the Palestinians do not "lose" anything when they choose to go to war and "lose". First, I of course disagree completely with the notion that a state of occupation is not a state of war.

Shorter Frum: More Rubble Less Trouble. I would guess, based on previous diavlogs ( with Heather Hurlbert I believe ), that Mr. Frum believes that the only way the Palestians will understand that they have lost is if they are crushed just like any other opponent ( he chose WW2 shockingly enough ) so I guess the idea is there is an excess amount of Palestinians at the end of these conflicts. My question is how much of a reduction in the Palestinian population would get point across 5%, 10% or ... I basically agree with Abu/Wonderment about the Israel hardly being the underdog. They don't have much in the way of real estate so almost any Tactical mistake could quickly lead to a grave strategic problem. Pre-Nuke-Armed Israel did a more than competent job and I would guess that not only does their nuclear arsenal offer a substantial offset to their geographical deficit but

This is a classic Frum moment. As usual, he won't just admit the most basic of facts when they make his side look bad. Instead, he throws out something that, while not precisely a lie, comes as close as you can get and still walk away from it. It was not just "Jon Stewart who said that." Many rightwingers said it, and they weren't being satirical. For example, Charles Krauthammer said it, on Brit Hume's show. Ana Marie Cox said it, right here on BH.tv. And as Bob tried to point out before being Frummed, it was all over the wingnutosphere, whether stated explicitly, via wink-wink methods, or in pictures. Just to pick a few, see RedState, Pam Atlas, Gateway Pundit, and Melissa Clouthier. Google only knows how many posts there are out there with weaselly phrases like "while I'm not comparing Obama to Hitler, ..." and "I'm not saying Obama is Hitler, but ..." Toss in the associations with fascism, Mussolini, and brown shirts (the PUMA people love this one). And, for dessert, consider Ben Stein. While Obama's speech in Germany was fresh in everyone's mind, Stein, on Glenn Beck's show, compared Obama to Hitler because Obama plans to give his acceptance speech in a stadium instead of

Quoting Wonderment: More worrisome than the usual Frum anti-Arab/Muslim xenophobia, however, are two emerging factors: 1) Gazastan as a separate entity from the richer, more moderate and more secular West Bank and 2) the God-help-us-all likelihood of the election of Netanyahu as Israeli PM.

Even more worrisome. I didn't even get the slightest hint of humor here. He's serious. How is Frum's God is on our side, but we're still the underdogs attitude any different from the one held by those he so eagerly seeks to destroy?

I didn't even get the slightest hint of humor here. He's serious.

Naw. Much as I deplore Frum, that was just a bit of bad-taste humor. People who really believe that (like Bush) won't say it in public unless they are professiona suicide-cult nuclear holocaust-mongers:

Quoting JerseyBoy: The are-you-better-off analogy misses the mark. Reagan posed that question when challenging an incumbent president, whereas Obama is running against a fellow Senator who was one of the more vocal Republican critics of the Bush Administration.

Please. Don't swallow McCain's PR. He stopped criticizing Bush years ago. He has flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts and gone silent on the Bushian views of torture and extraordinary rendition. He has voted in the Senate the way Bush wanted him to 100% of the time in 2008, 95% of the time in 2007, and it wasn't much more mavericky the six years before that. (source | cached version) And the only way he's different from Bush on war is he likes it even more. Want some more info on this? Start here. He is McSame, no matter how much he'd like to pretend otherwise.

Quoting Wonderment: Naw. Much as I deplore Frum, that was just a bit of bad-taste humor.

I dunno. Keep watching past the end of my original dingalink, and tell me where you see some indication of this. I call on David Frum to renounce and reject God. Okay, maybe that's asking a little too much. Still think he's serious about this, though.

Quoting bjkeefe: David Frum [should] not be allowed to appear on BH.tv

Damn point zero zero one percenter trying to get another conservative banned. BTW even some usually reasonable folks have forgotten about Godwin recently.

Quoting AemJeff: Damn point zero zero one percenter trying to get another conservative banned.

Not banned. Just subject to what strikes me as eminently reasonable conditions. Benign, one might even say.

BTW even some usually reasonable folks have forgotten about Godwin recently.

If I didn't think Ross was a pretty good guy, I'd be suspicious that he was pulling the old MSM stunt of writing about other people writing about something, purely so he could write about it.

Quoting bjkeefe: Not banned. Just subject to what strikes me as eminently reasonable conditions. Benign, one might even say.

Heh.

Quoting bjkeefe: If I didn't think Ross was a pretty good guy, I'd be suspicious that he was pulling the old MSM stunt of writing about other people writing about something, purely so he could write about it.

The deeply weird thing about Republicans trying to exploit this speech is the prior examples of Reagan and Bush as obvious counterweights. The first major party black American presidential candidate speaks at this location and you compare him to the Nazis? When your current standard bearer and most glorified icon have both done the same? Who devised this strategy, Jonah Goldberg?

Senator: I commend you on your ability to suppress any mention of "trollop" or That Other Word while you were demonstrating how you don't lose your temper.

Quoting AemJeff: Who devised this strategy, Jonah Goldberg?

No. He is a very serious, thoughtful person who would never devise such a strategy in such detail or with such care.

Quoting bjkeefe: No. He is a very serious, thoughtful person who would never devise such a strategy in such detail or with such care.

I'm speechless. There is no adequate response.

So much fun watching people being outraged after years of comparisons of Bush to Hitler. Priceless. While I certainly can't compare Obama to Adolf (I think it's ridiculous to compare anyone to Hitler and shows an ignorance of history, sort of like when BO said the 'world stood as one' to save Berlin), I will certainly compare him to race-baiters. His New Yorker moment came when he said: "So what they’re saying is, ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he’s... doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, you know, he’s got a, he’s got a funny name." If your opponent refuses to inject race into the discussion, you do it for him. Shameful.

David betrays the neocon's imperialist aims in Iraq when he defines success in Iraq as something resembling how the Philippine 'war' ended. Was that a freudian slip? If, as David asserts, we don't want to reward nations that start wars by returning lost territory, then we certainly shouldn't want the US rewarded with long term military bases in Iraq, not to mention a free hand in Iraq's oil industry, for its unbridled aggression.

Quoting harkin: "So what they’re saying is, ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he’s... doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, you know, he’s got a, he’s got a funny name."

If your opponent refuses to inject race into the discussion, you do it for him. Shameful.

Really? No accidental "Obama"/"Osama" confusions, no emphasis on the Church he attended, no repeated references to the at least two-degrees-of separation connection to Farrakhan through that church, no repetition of "race-baiting" charges, no "white people beware" whisper campaign, it goes on...? All of these things have occured. Has it ever been exaggerated by Obama campaign? How many potential arguments with this kind of potential potency, and so little downside for a candidate, haven't been used and abused? That's politics, Harkin.

Still think he's serious about this, though.

Well, he's certainly serious about demonizing Palestinians and clinging to a point of view consistent with the militantly right-wing minority of the Israeli Jewish population. So small wonder that the moronic Bush --influenced by the likes of Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Frum, Podhoretz (père et fils), Bolton, Cheney and Rumsfeld --- would end up being so thoroughly despised by the rest of the world that does not belong to the Likud Party. For permanently alienating the entire Arab/Muslim world how could you possibly beat 1) adopting the Likud position on Israel-Palestine, 2) invading and occupying Afghanistan, 3) invading and occupying Iraq, 4) Guantánamo, 5) Abu Ghreib. Oh, I know. Threatening to start a war with Iran.

And, to AemJeff's fine response, add this:

To understand the dynamics of this campaign you have to understand the role of Karl Rove and his proteges who've taken over McCain's campaign. Rove himself previewed the key messages of the campaign early in the year in two vignettes about Obama -- first, Obama as the "trash-talking" basketball player who's both cocky and "lazy", and second, Obama as the cocky black guy at the country club with a hot chick on his arm who's looking down at you.

You know how Frum would respond to that fine post? "I've been saying for years we won't attack Iran. Uh, uh, umm, let's segue into our next topic."

I think I can guess who does the finances in the Wright household (to be fair, David didn't really nail the issue either). You can blame Bush for running up the national debt, and for failing to adequately regulate mortgage originations and Wall Street. You can't blame him for high mortgage rates, for the simple reason that we've been enjoying record low rates for over a decade. The credit crunch we're experiencing now is part of the inevitable unwind of the most massive credit bubble in history. Easy credit (i.e., Greenspan, with an assist from Chinese mercantilism) is responsible for the bookends of the problem: cheap money on the front end and yield-hungry suckers willing to buy the sausage (CMOs, etc.) on the back-end. In the middle (where you Adminstration bears responsibility, along with others) are lightly-regulated originations, corrupt bond rating and insurance industries, under-capitalized banks and brokers, and the Fannie/Freddie clusterf*ck. Sub-prime is going to be a small fraction of the problem, whether measured as a fraction of household wealth destruction or losses to the financial system. Speculators were a significant part of run-up in select areas like South Florida and Vegas. It remains

Brendan and Wonderment, That moment of course drew my rapt attention upon viewing the diavlog as well and I spent some time thinking about it. I think you're both right. I think Mr. Frum knew what he was saying was something that basically is said with a wink and a smile among people who are generally secular or among those, who even if religious would find the connotations of such a remark offputting. Still, I think it's something that he is probably also willing to defend in an argument (I mean this is the axis of evil guy) and which he knows a lot of people on his side actually believe sincerely and I don't think he wants to make fun of their belief in such a thing even if he probably doesn't think about it exactly that way. (He's a utilitarian) Wonderment, I haven't seen that film... I will try to check it out.

Prediction: McCain dialed up a couple clicks today his very possibly successful strategy for bringing down Obama, both nicely nailed by BW as worrisome factors: 1): Race (15 seconds); 2): Patriotism (13 seconds); Just throwing these out there preparatory to my big Nov. 5th "I told ya so!" McCain has no prayer on the economy, Iraq, or frankly any other of the substantive issues. Add the fact that he's clearly stumbling into senility and can't string words together in a very fluid fashion (of course this wasn't an obstacle for Bush), and he has no choice but to go the low road. McCain only needs to play the race card and patriotism card consistently enough and unflagrantly enough, and he very likely will win. In fact, that's the only way he can win. I suspect both McCain and the Republican machine know this, have their barrage of "hit" stratagems lined up, and will start a dizzying barrage of corrosive and withering attack rhetoric starting very soon, going turbo in October. But the electorate's too smart for that, right? No. Wrong. Like Bush, they vote from their guts and are largely disdainful of facts. Done well, this strategy can erase even a 12-point Nov. 3rd Obama poll

i miss kaus, but frum will do for now.

for those who need their mickey kaus fix, he did an interview with pajamasmedia re the edwards lovechild scandal http://gg2000.cachefly.net/pjm/audio...JM-SG-lofi.mp3

Quoting bjkeefe: In my dreams, though, David Frum would not be allowed to appear on BH.tv unless Rick Perlstein gets to be in on the call. We need someone to deploy the buzzer. My thumb is tired.

Exactly. When you're right you don't have to make shit up.

Quoting johnmarzan: for those who need their mickey kaus fix, he did an interview with pajamasmedia re the edwards lovechild scandal

http://gg2000.cachefly.net/pjm/audio...JM-SG-lofi.mp3

The 80-second intro is not to be missed. If you like pathetic self-promotion, I mean. Rather? Still? Seriously? Why not just say "We at PJM haven't done squat in four years, so let's just start the show."?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: The next time a Republican (or Libertarian) makes the government-is-the-problem argument...

What you seem to misunderstand is that Frum is a BIG government conservative, a neocon. Of course he is going to try to justify (certain) federal government interventions. Unwittingly though, he makes the argument against government intervention. It is often very expensive with mixed results even when the parties involved are acting in good faith. I am not against government intervention in principle, I just wish people had a broader recognition of this point.

Quoting qwerty: What you seem to misunderstand is that Frum is a BIG government conservative ...

Or not.

Yeah, just like Obama supports public financing of campaigns.

Quoting qwerty: Yeah, just like Obama supports public financing of campaigns.

Indeed:

One thing that is clear is that Obama’s vast base of small donors – 1.7 million was the last public count — carries big clout. To date, Obama has reported raising $338 million for his campaign from individuals and 94% of his donations have come in amounts of $200 or less.

Unlike McCain, who was for it before he was against it, or against it before he was for it, or maybe something else altogether.

Indeed. Addendum: Interestingly, reading through the linked study, I was surprised to find even stronger evidence that what we have observed from Obama is not as remarkable as some in the media would have us believe.

The percentage of contributions from donors who gave $200 or less steadily increased through the summer of 2004, peaking in May for President Bush (when 65 percent of his contributions came from those who gave $200 or less) and June for John Kerry (47 percent).

Very good diavlog: Robert Wright and David Frum actually take the listeners somewhere new.

qwerty: Our story so far: You: Frum is a big government conservative.
Me: No, he's not. Here's proof.
You: But Obama doesn't believe in public financing of elections.
Me: Yeah, he does. Here's proof.
You: There's nothing special about Obama's fundraising style. Hah! I win again!
Me: (For reasons passing understanding, will attempt one more serious response.) There is a clear difference in small donor contributions: Obama: 45%, Kerry: 37%, Bush: 31%. If you were trying to make a point where you wanted your guy's numbers to be in the lead, you'd be jumping up and down right now. I suspect you'd have dropped the middle number and been crowing, "45-31! 45-31! Landslide!" And it's not just the percentages -- Obama is raising a lot more more in absolute terms, too, and doing it a way that's a lot less reliant on big money donors and the DNC. Just because some TNR bonehead is surprised that it's not "the order of magnitude I'd assumed" means what? Nothing. Apart from proving once again that TNR hires boneheads who make boneheaded assumptions instead of, you know, looking things up before blabbing about them. That is, if we can even believe that this isn't some straw man Zengerle made up after the fact to try to boost his lame-assumption point. You know what

Quoting Michael: Very good diavlog: Robert Wright and David Frum actually take the listeners somewhere new.

I agree. Even though I don't agree (usually) with much Frum utters, I don't think he was particularly off the wall this time. In fact, I think folks here are playing dumb a little, too earnestly insisting that there's no logic to his points when in fact I don't think he was being disingenuous here much at all. (Of course his views still involve beaucoup blind spots.) EW

Quoting harkin: So much fun watching people being outraged after years of comparisons of Bush to Hitler. Priceless.

While I certainly can't compare Obama to Adolf (I think it's ridiculous to compare anyone to Hitler and shows an ignorance of history, sort of like when BO said the 'world stood as one' to save Berlin), I will certainly compare him to race-baiters. His New Yorker moment came when he said:

"So what they’re saying is, ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he’s... doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, you know, he’s got a, he’s got a funny name."

If your opponent refuses to inject race into the discussion, you do it for him. Shameful.

Harkin, please quote the whole thing if you're going to do it. There's a sentence right before that indicates that Obama is referring to a nebulous 'they', but it pretty clearly can't be Bush and McCain (unless Obama's grammar is lousy). He's saying 'They say' meaning Republicans at large, in the media, etc. He is not accusing McCain or Bush of anything. And do you really not believe that Republican pundits and surrogates haven't been making a

Quoting claymisher: Ah yes, more insight from the author of "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush"!

... and he says we won't bomb Iran and we ( if we are honorable ) will defend Taiwan against any Chinese aggression. I feel safer now.

Anybody else suspect that the 'Mother Of All Provocations Edition' will feature (the utterly insufferable) James Kirchick?

Wow, I think I struck a nerve. The benign bjkeefe shows his true colors. First of all I don't claim to have any guys. Second, by "some in the media" I was specifically referring to the quote that you provided. I only brought up Obama to point out that people claim to hold certain positions even when there other actions would say otherwise. I could have used several examples from John McCain, but given the audience, I figured this would be more fun. By the way, if you are going to tell me that these small donors really justify unprecedented action shouldn't it be the case that we are looking at a novel situation? The only real change here is that Obama has a lot more money than candidates in the past. But let's return to the point at hand. When Frum writes "limited government" he is using an Orwellian trick. For evidence you could look at this interview, in defending prescription drug benefits he says:

I think that is a really important consideration, so if you believe in the principle of limited government, but the idea that we're always going to approach limited government in exactly the same

Quoting Eastwest: I agree. Even though I don't agree (usually) with much Frum utters, I don't think he was particularly off the wall this time.

In fact, I think folks here are playing dumb a little, too earnestly insisting that there's no logic to his points when in fact I don't think he was being disingenuous here much at all. (Of course his views still involve beaucoup blind spots.)

EW

Speaking as one of the likely dummies in question, I will say that I used to like Frum a lot more. He used to strike me the way, say, Eli Lake does now -- someone with whom I don't much agree, but who nonetheless displays evidence of smarts and independent thought, and who is therefore worth listening to closely. Frum's last few appearances, though, have presented a change in attitude -- he has shown much more of a tendency to try to slip in little bits of spin at every opportunity. This seems to have started around the time he began working for the Giuliani campaign, and got worse when it became clear that job wasn't going to go anywhere and he needed to hustle up another gig. It could be selection bias

Quoting bjkeefe: Speaking as one of the likely dummies in question, I will say that I used to like Frum a lot more. He used to strike me the way, say, Eli Lake does now -- someone with whom I don't much agree, but who nonetheless displays evidence of smarts and independent thought, and who is therefore worth listening to closely. Frum's last few appearances, though, have presented a change in attitude -- he has shown much more of a tendency to try to slip in little bits of spin at every opportunity. This seems to have started around the time he began working for the Giuliani campaign, and got worse when it became clear that job wasn't going to go anywhere and he needed to hustle up another gig.

It could be selection bias on my part; i.e., once I first noticed his consistent refusal to concede even the most basic of points that put his side in a bad light, I hit a tipping point, and from there, the rest of his sneaky little verbal tricks became much more prominent. But I really do think he no longer comes across as intellectually honest, at least here on

Quoting nikkibong: Anybody else suspect that the 'Mother Of All Provocations Edition' will feature (the utterly insufferable) James Kirchick?

That's a disturbingly plausible thought. Another possibility that has occurred to me: Jonah Goldberg coming on to pimp the soon-to-be-released paperback edition of Liberal Fascism (Featuring a new chapter titled "Why Obama is just like Hitler!!!1!"), with Jonah spending the entire hour complaining that he's taking heat for comparing Obama to Hitler, which he never did, and that anyone who says so obviously hasn't read his book. I also fret that we'll have an episode titled Never Mind the LHC, featuring the pairing of Althouse and McArdle, which will cause the entire Earth to be swallowed up by their powers of self-absorption. Or maybe it'll be Incoherency II: The Return of Matt Stoller. Or maybe Rod Dreher, coming on to tell us why PZ Myers should be burned at the stake and how the case of Jim Adkisson proves that Christians are under attack. But really? My biggest worry? Mickey comes back and spends the entire hour talking about John Edwards.

Quoting qwerty: But let's return to the point at hand.

(*faints*)

When Frum writes "limited government" he is using an Orwellian trick. [...]

Good points.

Quoting AemJeff: I can think of plenty of people on the left about whom I'd make the same judgment.

Any of them appear on BH.tv?

Not surprisingly Frum completely misrepresents liberals and homeless activists. Liberals and homeless activists love Mangano's approach. Resistance to this model is usually rooted in conservative impulses, "You mean we're going to give this alcoholic a permanent apartment and demand nothing of him? He doesn't even have to go to treatment for his addiction?" This new model also emphasizes prevention of homelessness--that it might cost a few hundred bucks to keep this person in their apartment, but that's a lot cheaper than getting them housing after they've become homelessness. I don't think there's anything cynical about this policy, but this is much more an example of a conservative co-opting a liberal issue than a conservative solution to this problem. This isn't to say that Bush doesn't deserve a lot of credit for this. It just is not a conservative solution that befuddles liberals.

Quoting bjkeefe: Any of them appear on BH.tv?

Maybe Arianna - but she's a special case and, from my viewpoint (I'm sure some of our conservative friends will disagree), she's a lot less insufferable on the left than she was on the right. The closest equivalent leftyhead would be Robert Reich, who is both more successful than Frum (having made it to a cabinet level position) and less apparently dogmatic in his public persona.

I think David has been eaten by his success. I can think of plenty of people on the left about whom I'd make the same judgment.

If by "the left" you mean Communists and advocates of violent revolution, I'd agree, but today few (if any) progressives have gone to the extreme of being a cheerleader and later an apologist for the shameful and idiotic invasion and occupation that pointlessly brought death and immense suffering to millions of human being. Frum has a lot of blood on his hands. Insulated by an ideology of US exceptionalism and neo-conservatism, he doesn't see it that way, so he and his co-conspirators are writing tons of books to try to avoid the inevitable judgment of history. Like the rigid Marxists of yesteryear, the neo-cons will go to their graves convinced only they understand the True Path to freedom, security and democracy by the sword, but it's a self-serving lie.

Stop listening to him and go sign this letter. We already have some BHeads signatories (Bravo, Jane!), but we need lots more. I don't see Bob's name (yet).

Quoting Wonderment: If by "the left" you mean Communists and advocates of violent revolution, I'd agree, but today few (if any) progressives have gone to the extreme of being a cheerleader and later an apologist for the shameful and idiotic invasion and occupation that pointlessly brought death and immense suffering to millions of human being.

Frum has a lot of blood on his hands. Insulated by an ideology of US exceptionalism and neo-conservatism, he doesn't see it that way, so he and his co-conspirators are writing tons of books to try to avoid the inevitable judgment of history.

Like the rigid Marxists of yesteryear, the neo-cons will go to their graves convinced only they understand the True Path to freedom, security and democracy by the sword, but it's a self-serving lie.

My only point is that Frum's feeling of being an important part of an elite seems to motivate him toward a particular kind of intellectual dishonesty. I don't think that personality attribute skews ideologically. I am uncomfortable with the "blood on his hands" formulation. Whatever my judgment, he has a right to believe what he believes. Had he been actively responsible for making

Quoting johnmarzan: for those who need their mickey kaus fix, he did an interview with pajamasmedia re the edwards lovechild scandal

http://gg2000.cachefly.net/pjm/audio...JM-SG-lofi.mp3

I wish to align myself with all those who miss Mickey. In keeping with his determined zeal to promulgate rumor as scandal, I offer the following (highlighted portion) as proof of his creepiness. I don't have the reportorial assets to plant myself on the Venice boardwalk to "snap" the damning peektures, but am hopeful that the MSM will run with it soon enough: I agree with "right." Slate suffers from a severe case of Kinsleyism: smart-ass, too-clever, debate-team contrarianism. They can feel at times "center-right" since they feel their audience is "center-left"; therefore, according to the dictates of Kinsleyism, "center-right" they must be.

It also shows how far the center has moved to the right, especially among "people in the business." Thirty years ago it would be considered a liberal Republican.

Lithwick, their Supreme Court reporter, is firmly center-left, the rest of the women writers are more or less center-left, except for that red-headed "advice" chick from DC, who comes across as a hipster Junior League member. Shafer is usually center-left, Dickinson is a DLC-style Democrat (would be a Rockefeller Republican if they existed anymore). Saleton and Weisberg

My only point is that Frum's feeling of being an important part of an elite seems to motivate him toward a particular kind of intellectual dishonesty. I don't think that personality attribute skews ideologically.

I agree with that.

I am uncomfortable with the "blood on his hands" formulation. Whatever my judgment, he has a right to believe what he believes. Had he been actively responsible for making decisions, I'd feel differently. I really don't think we ought to assign guilt based on opinions held or expressed, regardless.

True, he wasn't calling the shots like Bush and Cheney. But when you are a professional speechwriter for the Decider-in-Chief, you're doing more than just expressing your opinion. Frum was a participant in the Iraq holocaust, not just a writer who supported the war.

Humor is the best solution

Quoting piscivorous: Humor is the best solution

"..trite, trivial, partisan... nothing to see here.." handle, Go12 "...smacks of partisan hackery thinly disguised as some sort of parody, but due to the lack of resemblance to anything funny, it's hard to tell."
handle, Go12 "Two thumbs up your butt!...can I give this crap minus five stars?"" handle, Go12

OMG I just got it! it's ironic, because you called it humor, so that makes it funny in a slimy, creepy, attacky sort of way! hahhahahahahahahhaahhahaahh!

graz: Funny find. Thanks for sharing. BTW, I recommend reading MY's post itself, as well as his other one that he links to from it. I generally agree with his view of Slate. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, the fact that Slate is owned by the WaPo adds weight to MY's view. I think it's a convenient attack point for those on the far right to point to both of these as part of the so-called "liberal media," but the truth is, the WaPo has long since given up that ghost, and Slate seems to me moving rightward in its wake. I've stopped visiting Slate as much as I used to, because their drift towards MSM-style center-rightness is just not as interesting as their old POV used to be. I still listen to their Gabfest podcast, but even that's getting a little tiresome.

Quoting AemJeff: I am uncomfortable with the "blood on his hands" formulation. Whatever my judgment, he has a right to believe what he believes. Had he been actively responsible for making decisions, I'd feel differently. I really don't think we ought to assign guilt based on opinions held or expressed, regardless.

I gotta go along with Wonderment on this one (Dissension among the Go12! Oh noes!!!). I think Frum bears no small amount of responsibility. He was a big part of the sell-job for invading Iraq, from writing speeches to making the rounds on the TV yakfests, and he put a lot of effort into continuing to insist long after the fact on the correctness of the decisions (but for different reasons, natch). I also agree with Wonderment that there's an effort afoot to work the refs by Frum and friends, where, here, the refs are the historians. I'm not saying that they're not entitled to their own point of view, but the dishonest way they went about, and continue to go about, pushing it deserves much criticism.

I generally agree with his view of Slate.

I third that. Slate sucks. There's an occasional interesting article, and I like the Explainer feature, but I'd rather just read the less pretentious mainstream press -- the WAPO itself and the NYT. Plus, Slate has the xenophobic sex-gossip-freak Mickey, which is a major turnoff.

Quoting Wonderment: Stop listening to him and go sign this letter.

We already have some BHeads signatories (Bravo, Jane!), but we need lots more.

I don't see Bob's name (yet).

I had no problem signing that letter. In return, I ask you to read this, and keep it in mind, especially over the next three months. It's from a slightly different time, but the spirit still applies. To be clear, I am not saying that the Common Dreams letter goes too far. As I said, I was happy to add my name. I also understand, and sympathize with, the general point of view that worries about Obama drifting too far to the center. I am only asking that we keep some sense of balance.

Quoting piscivorous: Humor is the best solution

The question is, when will the McCain campaign offer anything, anything at all, besides a stream of attacks on Obama? Doesn't John McCain stand for anything? (Yes, yes, I know about the few banal homilies. Spare me.) Remember when the right made great hay out of John Kerry doing nothing but Bush-bashing in 2004? How they whined about Kerry not offering any ideas of his own? True or not (it wasn't), I challenge you McCain supporters to apply the same standards to McCain.

The Bush tax cuts actually made the federal income tax MORE progressive. The upper 10% of income earners now pay a greater share of federal income tax than at any point over the past decade, and the bottom half of income earners now pay a smaller share than at any point over the past decade.

Quoting JerseyBoy: The Bush tax cuts actually made the federal income tax MORE progressive. The upper 10% of income earners now pay a greater share of federal income tax than at any point over the past decade, and the bottom half of income earners now pay a smaller share than at any point over the past decade.

That's great! So if you can draw that conclusion, then what are the actual numbers showing exactly what percentage each bracket is paying now as opposed to before?

Yes, I get it. But I would point out the following: 1) Obama has boosted expectations in ways that Gore and Kerry never did, so there will be a harder fall if expectations are dashed. 2) The disastrous eight years of Bush-Cheney have raised the already high stakes enormously, so political passions have intensified. The progressive community knows two things: Obama must not lose to McCain and Obama must not sell out progressive bottom lines on the huge priority issues of global warming, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, torture, Supreme Court picks and healthcare. He also needs to pay attention to the crucial issues of his core constituencies. That means thing like drug law reform and prison reform, support for same-sex marriage, a living wage for poor people, a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrant families, a firm stand on abortion rights, etc. But ultimately, progressives are not expecting miracles from Obama. We're just demanding what he (and his party) owe us.

Wonderment: Very well said. One quibble. I remain unconvinced of the unanimity of the awareness of the first point here:

Quoting Wonderment: The progressive community knows two things: Obama must not lose to McCain and Obama must not sell out progressive bottom lines on the huge priority issues ...

Not you, specifically, but sometimes I wonder about others. There gets to be a point where voting for a candidate is not nearly as important as the damage done by feeding memes for months leading up to the election, especially if the sort of progressive I have in mind lives in a comfortably blue state. I'm not saying we all need to march in lockstep, eyes front, lips sealed 24/7, but it would be a relief to me to see a little less ammunition being offered to an MSM apparently bent on writing up every example of Democratic "dissension" they stumble across. I liked the tone of the Common Dreams letter. I'd like that to be the standard, if not the limit, for the time being. Party Unity Much Appreciated.

JerseyBoy:

The upper 10% of income earners now pay a greater share of federal income tax than at any point over the past decade, ...

Isn't that due to the fact that they have so much more money than they did before? That is, aren't they paying more dollars, but a lower percentage than they used to? And isn't that somewhat troubling to you?

... and the bottom half of income earners now pay a smaller share than at any point over the past decade.

Again, probably mostly due to the fact that that have less money than they used to. And I'm not sure I buy "bottom half," in any case. I might believe, say, "bottom 10%." Can you offer some references to back this up (and not just, say, an op-ed from the WSJ)? Thanks.

Wonderment, Brendan, I can't agree. To me, it's a fundamental First Amendment issue. This is about as basic a value as I have, and in my opinion it's the central, distinctive feature of what it means to be a citizen here. We hallow speech. So much so we don't quiet the KKK or the American Nazi Party. The exceptions are extremely narrow; and it seems to me that the very act of writing a political speech, no matter what is advocated, is incompatible with a notion of "guilt" specifically related to the act of writing the speech. The people who decided (had the authority to do so) and executed the policy are another matter. On the question of whether Frum falls into either of those latter categories, I have no data; but the position he held does not hold that implication. Without some other basis, I'm extremely reluctant to speak in those terms. Maybe I sound like a bit of an absolutist. I don't believe there are many topics on which that charge could reasonably be made, regarding me - but on this I'll happily cop to the label.

Quoting AemJeff: Wonderment, Brendan, I can't agree. To me, it's a fundamental First Amendment issue. This is about as basic a value as I have, and in my opinion it's the central, distinctive feature of what it means to be a citizen here. We hallow speech. So much so we don't quiet the KKK or the American Nazi Party. The exceptions are extremely narrow; and it seems to me that the very act of writing a political speech, no matter what is advocated, is incompatible with a notion of "guilt" specifically related to the act of writing the speech.

So we have a moral dilemma: freedom of speech vs disapproval of verbal manipulation and deception (conning) for political gains. How do you resolve this? Does freedom of speech include anything that someone says? Libel and perjury are examples of limitations to freedom of speech. So, what is the guiding principle?

AemJeff: You make a fair point. However ... I'd like to make clear that I'm not saying that Frum should suffer legal consequences. As I said before, and will emphasize here, he's entitled to hold and express his views, as are the KKK, the neo-Nazis, and people who like Kenny G, without fear of recrimination from the government. The key is the last phrase: from the government. It is not, to my mind, a violation of someone's First Amendment rights if he is harshly castigated, socially ostracized, shunned by polite society, cast from the mainstream, labeled as a crank, or otherwise subjected to a reaction from other private citizens for expressing or having expressed distasteful views. There is a world of difference between being made a criminal and being made unpopular for what you say. The first is unacceptable, the second is just how societies progress. Besides, if you carry your logic one step further, then isn't it reasonable to say my "First Amendment rights" are being violated if I can't criticize somebody?

Quoting Ocean: So we have a moral dilemma: freedom of speech vs disapproval of verbal manipulation and deception (conning) for political gains. How do you resolve this? Does freedom of speech include anything that someone says? Libel and perjury are examples of limitations to freedom of speech. So, what is the guiding principle?

It seems to me that's been answered by the courts. Certain narrowly defined categories of "hate speech," endangerment, incitement to violence (distinct from advocacy of some martial policy). The canonical example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It's not a perfect world. It almost certainly not possible to draw a bright line, on one side of which is speech that's harmful; on the other speech that isn't. We'd never even begin to come close to a consensus on those definitions. But a line there must be, and we seem to have chosen a standard biased towards tolerance.

Quoting bjkeefe: AemJeff:

You make a fair point. However ...

I'd like to make clear that I'm not saying that Frum should suffer legal consequences. As I said before, and will emphasize here, he's entitled to hold and express his views, as are the KKK, the neo-Nazis, and people who like Kenny G, without fear of recrimination from the government.

The key is the last phrase: from the government.

It is not, to my mind, a violation of someone's First Amendment rights if he is harshly castigated, socially ostracized, shunned by polite society, labeled as a crank, or otherwise subjected to a reaction from other private citizens for expressing or having expressed distasteful views.

There is a world of difference between being made a criminal and being made unpopular for what you say. The first is unacceptable, the second is just how societies progress.

I understand that, and I didn't hear either of you guys going there. But the language makes me uncomfortable. What might be a benign (sorry) expression in the first instance, could be interpreted literally in the next. My strong feeling is that it's best just not to go there.

Quoting AemJeff: I understand that, and I didn't hear either of you guys going there. But the language makes me uncomfortable. What might be a benign (sorry) expression in the first instance, could be interpreted literally in the next. My strong feeling is that it's best just not to go there.

Can you be more specific about what was said that made you uncomfortable?

Quoting bjkeefe: Can you be more specific about what was said that made you uncomfortable?

Sure, I quoted it earlier: the "blood on his hands" formulation sounds uncomfortably close to a call to arms to me. I don't want to blow this out of proportion. After all, I'm advocating for freedom of speech, and that applies as much to everybody else as it does to Frum.

Quoting AemJeff: I understand that, and I didn't hear either of you guys going there. But the language makes me uncomfortable. What might be a benign (sorry) expression in the first instance, could be interpreted literally in the next. My strong feeling is that it's best just not to go there.

I did talk about "disapproval of deception" to reflect one's right to have a negative opinion, express it publicly and question the morality of the strategy. I then mentioned libel and perjury in order to understand the general principle that explains the difference, if any, between these "illegal" actions and the deceptive speech case. In your explanation you seem to have seen a difference. I'm not sure I see it as clearly. Shouting "fire" in a theatre or "weapons of mass destruction", if inaccurate, and intentionally feigned, don't seem so different to me, in principle of course. When the shouting comes from government, the responsibility is greater.

Quoting AemJeff: Sure, I quoted it earlier: the "blood on his hands" formulation sounds uncomfortably close to a call to arms to me. I don't want to blow this out of proportion. After all, I'm advocating for freedom of speech, and that applies as much to everybody else as it does to Frum.

Thanks. I guess I see your point, but I still mostly think that criticism of Frum (even if histrionic) and calling for him to be held to account (in the court of public opinion) are still night and day compared to demanding that the new government come down on him. I do grant that at some point, the mob has a way of panicking the government into overreacting, so while I don't accept the Frummy Bloody Frummy example, I do agree with your larger thesis.

On an unrelated note, is anyone else seeing Google Ads related to the First Amendment all of a sudden? It makes sense to me that Google's Adsense spiders react to updates to a forum such as this, but I just cannot get over how fast they are to do so. Good thing I've never said anything I'll ever regret.

You make a fair point about the phrase "blood on his hands." The metaphor may be a little over the top and suggest Frum bears the same kind of legal responsibility that Bush does. He doesn't. However, one might argue that Frum bears greater moral responsibility. Bush was neither smart enough nor articulate enough to persuade a critical mass of Americans that the policies he wanted to pursue in the "war on terror" were legitimate. He needed hired help for that: Frum. Plus, the question of "free speech" is somewhat dubious here. Of course, Frum can say anything he pleases. But by political free speech we normally mean the right to express your own opinions. A professional speechwriter, however, is simply shaping the arguments and the discourse that he's told to shape. For the purposes of the official utterance of the speech, the author is George W. Bush. The opinions are GW Bush's. History records what Bush said that day, not Frum. We only know that Frum is the source of "axis of evil" after the fact, as a footnote. So when Frum did his dirty work he wasn't doing it in exercise of his own free speech; he was

Quoting bjkeefe: Thanks. I guess I see your point, but I still mostly think that criticism of Frum (even if histrionic) and calling for him to be held to account (in the court of public opinion) are still night and day compared to demanding that the new government come down on him.

I wouldn't let this kind of "collaboration" get away so easily. I'm less concerned with the "punishment" of an individual than with raising awareness of the shared responsibility that all the contributors to mass murder have. Public humiliation would do.

Quoting Ocean: Shouting "fire" in a theatre or "weapons of mass destruction", if inaccurate, and intentionally feigned, don't seem so different to me, in principle of course. When the shouting comes from government, the responsibility is greater.

"Intentionally feigned" in the case of official pronouncements would seem to require a high standard of proof. Even of the principle is the same (and I think that's an open question) the lack of a fire in the theater is a lot easier to prove (and the case a lot easier to mount) than an iffy interpretation of intelligence data, e.g. And while the responsibility is a lot greater when the shouting comes from the government, so is the latitude granted.

Quoting Ocean: I wouldn't let this kind of "collaboration" get away so easily. I'm less concerned with the "punishment" of an individual than with raising awareness of the shared responsibility that all the contributors to mass murder have.

Public humiliation would do.

I'm all for public humiliation! I'm just cautioning about the scale of the rhetoric we use.

Quoting bjkeefe: On an unrelated note, is anyone else seeing Google Ads related to the First Amendment all of a sudden?

It makes sense to me that Google's Adsense spiders react to updates to a forum such as this, but I just cannot get over how fast they are to do so.

Good thing I've never said anything I'll ever regret.

Heh. I'm betting it's a coincidence. I'm currently looking at an ad for "Audiologist Liability." Or is there a thread here I haven't seen yet?

Quoting Wonderment: However, one might argue that Frum bears greater moral responsibility. Bush was neither smart enough nor articulate enough to persuade a critical mass of Americans that the policies he wanted to pursue in the "war on terror" were legitimate. He needed hired help for that: Frum.

I'd argue against this on the same basis that I'd argue against holding the carpenter responsible for the hanging.

Quoting Wonderment: Plus, the question of "free speech" is somewhat dubious here. Of course, Frum can say anything he pleases. But by political free speech we normally mean the right to express your own opinions. A professional speechwriter, however, is simply shaping the arguments and the discourse that he's told to shape.

For the purposes of the official utterance of the speech, the author is George W. Bush. The opinions are GW Bush's. History records what Bush said that day, not Frum.

This is exactly right. And I think it's consistent with my original argument. George Bush is culpable, legally, morally, in every way for the actions of his administration. Frum certainly shares some of the moral responsibility. There's no question that he was one of the intellectual architects of the policy that lead to the current war in

Quoting AemJeff: Heh. I'm betting it's a coincidence. I'm currently looking at an ad for "Audiologist Liability." Or is there a thread here I haven't seen yet?

Maybe you are not listening...

Quoting Ocean: Maybe you are not listening...

What?

Quoting bjkeefe: Good thing I've never said anything I'll ever regret.

You have already, Brendan. Don't you see the ads about treatment centers for sexual perversions? Or was that another thread?

Quoting AemJeff: What?

You said "audiologist liability" ads...

Quoting Ocean: You said "audiologist liability" ads...

Sorry, I couldn't quite hear you the first time.

Maybe if we all keep typing "Frum is a boob" we can get a better class of ads. Or, "Frum seems cocky." I'm not here to mandate preferences, at least not in that area.

Quoting Ocean: You have already, Brendan. Don't you see the ads about treatment centers for sexual perversions? Or was that another thread?

Hey, I'm not going to let the hang-ups of those puritans at Google change my way of life.

Quoting bjkeefe: Hey, I'm not going to let the hang-ups of those puritans at Google change my way of life.

If you say so...

Quoting Wonderment: You make a fair point about the phrase "blood on his hands." The metaphor may be a little over the top and suggest Frum bears the same kind of legal responsibility that Bush does. He doesn't.

However, one might argue that Frum bears greater moral responsibility. Bush was neither smart enough nor articulate enough to persuade a critical mass of Americans that the policies he wanted to pursue in the "war on terror" were legitimate. He needed hired help for that: Frum.

Plus, the question of "free speech" is somewhat dubious here. Of course, Frum can say anything he pleases. But by political free speech we normally mean the right to express your own opinions. A professional speechwriter, however, is simply shaping the arguments and the discourse that he's told to shape.

For the purposes of the official utterance of the speech, the author is George W. Bush. The opinions are GW Bush's. History records what Bush said that day, not Frum.

We only know that Frum is the source of "axis of evil" after the fact, as a footnote.

So when Frum did his dirty work he wasn't doing it in exercise of his own free speech; he was

I'm reading back through this thread, and I've come to the conclusion that my argument isn't entirely consistent. I think the First Amendment justification overreached and wasn't really called for. I stand by my original discomfort with the phrase I highlighted, but if I had to argue this over again, I'd probably stick to a an argument based on culpability and "infalammatory-ness" without all of the constitutional horsecrap.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm reading back through this thread, and I've come to the conclusion that my argument isn't entirely consistent. I think the First Amendment justification overreached and wasn't really called for. I stand by my original discomfort with the phrase I highlighted, but if I had to argue this over again, I'd probably stick to a an argument based on culpability and "infalammatory-ness" without all of the constitutional horsecrap.

Do you mean these discussions do work? Is it possible that people may reach some agreement? Let the sun shine!

Quoting Ocean: Do you mean these discussions do work? Is it possible that people may reach some agreement? Let the sun shine!

I might be an irascible, opinionated loudmouth (just ask my wife...) but if this was just a soapbox, even I'd get tired of hearing my own voice. I don't deny a gladiatorial impulse, a testosterone-driven desire to win every argument; but what's great about this "place" is that there are a lot of smart people in the room, as it were. Say something that doesn't make sense, proffer a weak argument, it's pretty likely you'll get called on it. If you don't bother to consider what other people say in response, if you don't bother to monitor the quality of your tiny portion of the discourse, what fun would there be in making the effort to participate in the first place?

Quoting AemJeff: I might be an irascible, opinionated loudmouth (just ask my wife...) but if this was just a soapbox, even I'd get tired of hearing my own voice. I don't deny a gladiatorial impulse, a testosterone-driven desire to win every argument; but what's great about this "place" is that there are a lot of smart people in the room, as it were. Say something that doesn't make sense, proffer a weak argument, it's pretty likely you'll get called on it. If you don't bother to consider what other people say in response, if you don't bother to monitor the quality of your tiny potion of the discourse, what fun would there be in making the effort to participate in the first place?

True. That's the beauty of this forum.
Besides the "testosterone-driven desire to win every argument", which, if I share, it wouldn't be testosterone-driven, there is a legitimate desire to challenge your ideas. While making your case, you organize your own thoughts, then you get feed back from others and perhaps, at least some of the time, realize that some assumptions you had weren't justified. By the way, generally, you don't come accross as irascible or loudmouth. In terms of opinionated, aren't we all?

Again, regardless of whether all of one's sympathies are with the Israelis or not, I find the attitude expressed by Mr. Frum that somehow there are no costs to the Palestinians of active resistance, despite the thousands of deaths, the almost universal economic misery, the daily humiliations, the thousands rotting away in prisons, the torture that so many have undergone at the hands of the Israelis to be utterly bizarre.

Frum never asserts that the Palestinian Arabs have it peachy. If he uses the word “costs,” he means it only from the standpoint of negotiations: repeatedly, a) the Arabs choose war, b) lose, and then c) demand that they be given what they had before they chose war. In 1948, Israel was content to be a thin Jewish sliver in the desert. The Arabs set out to annihilate the Jews (and here I use the terminology that these Arabs would’ve used), but the Arabs failed -- and they lost ground. The PLO was formed to “liberate Palestine” and Arafat began his legacy of terrorism against Israel -- before 1967. In 1967 the Arabs chose war again, and again they lost. In 1973, again, the Arabs went to war, but the contest basically ended in a stalemate. In

Quoting Ocean: there is a legitimate desire to challenge your ideas. While making your case, you organize your own thoughts, then you get feed back from others and perhaps, at least some of the time, realize that some assumptions you had weren't justified.

And that's really the nut of it. There aren't many real-life, meat-space opportunities to accomplish those goals. If it weren't for fora like this, that would be an itch most of would have very few chances to scratch.

Quoting Ocean: By the way, generally, you don't come accross as irascible or loudmouth.

Darn, and I've tried so hard! (Thanks.)

Quoting AemJeff: And that's really the nut of it. There aren't many real-life, meat-space opportunities to accomplish those goals. If it weren't for fora like this, that would be an itch most of would have very few chances to scratch.

Darn, and I've tried so hard!

(Thanks.)

De nada.

I guess no one really pays attention to the flow of campaigns. It's before the conventions with both presumptive candidates chosen. We are in the period of candidate definition. Issues are secondary at this point in time. It is not until the conventions have passed that issues will come into play, if they ever do in this election cycle. Issues will be stressed more after the conventions. For now it is a matter of "defining/describing" the candidates in terms that the candidates think will either help themselves or injure the their opponent. From the polling trends I would have to say Senator McCain is winning the definitional issues, or is it that Senator Obama is blowing it?

Quoting In a word: Barnacles: Frum never asserts that the Palestinian Arabs have it peachy. If he uses the word “costs,” he means it only from the standpoint of negotiations: repeatedly, a) the Arabs choose war, b) lose, and then c) demand that they be given what they had before they chose war.

In 1948, Israel was content to be a thin Jewish sliver in the desert. The Arabs set out to annihilate the Jews (and here I use the terminology that these Arabs would’ve used), but the Arabs failed -- and they lost ground.

The PLO was formed to “liberate Palestine” and Arafat began his legacy of terrorism against Israel -- before 1967.

In 1967 the Arabs chose war again, and again they lost.

In 1973, again, the Arabs went to war, but the contest basically ended in a stalemate.

In 2000, after Israel had made the most generous offer it had ever made -- and probably ever will make -- the Arabs chose war again. This time, the putative goal was to return to the 1967 borders. It’s fair of Frum to conclude that this effort failed, too.

Today, if you take them at their word, the Palestinian Arabs continue to prolong this conflict to get back what they had in

It's hard to believe that you haven't seen the numbers as the are all over the WEB unless you only stay with in your comfort cocoon. Oh I forgot that describes you to a T.

Quoting piscivorous: From the polling trends I would have to say Senator McCain is winning the definitional issues, or is it that Senator Obama is blowing it?

you mean this "polling trend"?

Here is something that is a little more interesting.I don't consider one poll to be trends

Quoting piscivorous: It's hard to believe that you haven't seen the numbers as the are all over the WEB unless you only stay with in your comfort cocoon. Oh I forgot that describes you to a T.

Aside from the obvious burden of proof issue, which is on him, or you, since you are so smug about implying my ignorance, I was really curious to see how the breakdown had changed demographically. But you are right, and I should drop what I'm doing, and redo what ever research he did, and hope that I'm even in the same ballpark, and not all "over the WEB". Or do you not provide them because of some grotesque discrepancy between tax rates that dwarfs the point?
I guess I'll have to shed my comfort cocoon and go out into the big scary internet because you don't love me enough to provide a link.... sniff....

Quoting piscivorous: Here is something that is a little more interesting.I don't consider one poll to be trends

Thanks for the link, I appreciate it.

I knew it was coming, and if you are honest with yourselves so did you Considering new energy plan, Obama softens stance on drilling . It all seems rather irrelevant as the Interior Departments funding is up in September and it is this legislation that contains the Congressional ban on drilling and will have to be specifically renewed. What do you want to bet it doesn't get renewed. Yet once again the left has been out maneuvered by the "dummy" President Bush.

After this I think you start advocating an approach the effect of which I'm arguing would difficult to distinguish from genocide.

My bad! To clarify: ideally, I don’t what anyone to die, much less for a genocide to take place. But it’s not genocide to strike back at enemies that have declared war on you, that have carried out countless attacks on you, and that have never acknowledged your right not to be exterminated. Look, if the Palestinians (or the Syrians) actually sought peace with Israel, my position is that they should be given it, immediately. (Just like how Imperial Japan and the Confederate South, once they agreed to surrender, no longer came under withering attack by the United States.) Indeed, if the Arabs agreed to lay down their weapons, I’d be horrified -- just aghast -- if the Israelis kept attacking. That’s not the situation in which we now find ourselves. In the meantime, Israel ought to consider a tougher, General Sherman-esque approach. Ironically, that may lead in the long run to less fighting and fewer deaths. I’m not just saying this to make a clever rhetorical point. I honestly believe that the humanitarian position might be for Israel, credibly, to say something

Quoting bjkeefe: Speaking as one of the likely dummies in question, I will say that I used to like Frum a lot more.

... once I first noticed his consistent refusal to concede even the most basic of points that put his side in a bad light, I hit a tipping point, ...

There is a argument to be made, which I think is the one you're driving at, that the listeners have some responsibility to separate out the obvious partisan hackery from the potentially respectable ideas, and I try to bear that in mind every time someone not squarely on my side does a diavlog. But there does come a point at which the signal-to-noise ratio gets too low, and it becomes perfectly justifiable to remark only upon the static.

First, I'm not calling anybody a "dummy." Just noting that, on his better days, Frum has a way of framing his arguments in a fairly tight set of logical progressions which really do require an equally "tight" counter-argument to sink his propaganda ship. There's something to his line on the Palestinians always figuring they can go back and have another run from the same starting

Of course he fails to mention [the Palestinians’] moral high ground: They had their land flagrantly stolen and have been subjected to essentially genocidal treatment for 60 years . . . .

Three quick points. First, the borders of Israel in 1948 were carefully carved out of majority-Jewish areas. Israel, at that time, was pretty puny: its territory would grow by something like 500% only because the Arabs repeatedly set out to destroy it. And you talk about high ground: the (physically) high ground -- the Golan Heights -- is held by Israel only because the Arabs tried to eradicate Israel in 1967. Second, there’s that whole unending Palestinian campaign of murder and terror directed against Israelis. To me, it’s more of a “decades-long death-cult modern pogrom” than any kind of high ground. Third, “essentially genocidal treatment”? You do know that the population of the Palestinians has exploded, right? (Hence Israel’s so-called demographic challenge.) If it’s a genocide, it’s a spectacularly ineffective one.

Quoting Eastwest: First, I'm not calling anybody a "dummy."

I didn't really think you were. I was just goofing around.

Just noting that, on his better days, Frum has a way of framing his arguments in a fairly tight set of logical progressions which really do require an equally "tight" counter-argument to sink his propaganda ship.

In a way, yes, but there just seems to be so much slipperiness lubricating those progressions. He's good at it, no doubt about it, but when he's talking with someone like Rick Perlstein, who knows as much about the topic as he does, he seems to be easily derailed. (I should have said sunk -- I apologize for breaking your metaphor.)

There's something to his line on the Palestinians always figuring they can go back and have another run from the same starting point. Of course he fails to mention their moral high ground: They had their land flagrantly stolen and have been subjected to essentially genocidal treatment for 60 years, so Frum's "flawed war-game theory argument" is actually fatally faulty, but only in that limited population of people with open minds amenable to listening to the whole story.

This part was a good example

Quoting In a word: Barnacles: Three quick points.

First, the borders of Israel in 1948 were carefully carved out of majority-Jewish areas....

etc, etc.

Your response gets the disingenuous-answer-of-the-day award. If Israel hadn't stolen the land in the first place, this problem wouldn't exist. Unfortunately, having been on the receiving end of one genocide, they chose to initiate another. Tragically, this will never go away. (BTW, they would have been justified in "carving out" homelands in Germany, Poland, France, Austria, and other locations wherein they were themselves subjected to genocide (and I would be willing to donate half of Texas), but they had no justification for what they did in "carving out" Israel. EW

It's not really productive to compare grievances in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Both sides will carry their narratives from cradle to grave. True, it's a bad idea for Israelis to engage in Nakba denial and denial of the horrors of 40 years of occupation that entailed routine torture, home demolitions, collective punishments and myriad other human rights abuses. On the other hand, the current leadership of Gaza (Hamas) blames the Jews for the French Revolution and freemasonry, while a hostile Iranian president wonders if the Holocaust actually occurred. Peacemakers have to look to the future to create a viable, sustainable and mutually acceptable resolution of the conflict. Leaders like the late Yitzchak Rabin and the current Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas had (have) the character necessary to look forward and let go of the past. Unfortunately, the right-wing takeover of Israel (Sharon and Olmert) has bumped up against the triumph of Hamas radicals in Gaza, all in the context of the stupidity and ineptitude of Bush. The current danger, as the corrupt Olmert finally is forced out of office, is that his replacement will be someone far worse: right-wing extremist, Benyamin Netanyahu. However, if a Netanyahu victory

Quoting In a word: Barnacles: say something like: “Hey Palestinians, if you keep murdering our people, and you reject our right to exist, we just might have to flatten Nablus. Might you instead consider peace?” OK, maybe not flatten Nablus, but you know what I mean.

Actually the problem (as I see it, of course) is that I really don't see what you mean. As you acknowledge, Nablus, e.g. can't or at least, oughtn't, be flattened. Whatever you try to do like that is going to kill civilians, and that just strengthens Israel's enemies. That the real bind, and it's what makes the situation there intractable.

Fascinating stuff, more please. I have to agree with Frum on the Tiergarten stuff. A guy getting himself acclaimed in that setting reminds me, as a European (actually whether I like it or not, it's just too profound) of bad things. Just the word "Tiergarten" means Nazi to me. I think the German rally was a mistake. The only point to it I can see was nice photo ops. You go to a Nazi symbol to do what exactly? I don't understand what he thought it would do of any substance. I get the crowning rally in a baseball or whatever it is stadium, it's "fun", pleasure, happiness a party, but the rally in a Nazi symbol? Why? Oh and I really fancy Bob Every time I see him, I just want to kiss his "frazzled" look away ... lol

What he means is they don't lose enough to make them think it isn't worth it. The EU spends billions of Euros on the territories. This reminds me of Northern Ireland. In the end NI stopped because the conflict stalemated and people got sick of being poor. The fighting was no longer worth it to enough people. Also the Balkans. Mitterrand believed we should let the Balkans happen. He thought that it needed to get sorted out by fighting. The fighting happened and the Serbs lost. The situation is clear. The Serbs wanted Kossovo et al, the answer is no, you can't have them. and the current signs are that Serbians are thinking that Kossovo is more hassle than it's worth to them. Sometimes when you're wrong you just have to accept it and move on. The Palestinian conflict can stop tomorrow, all it needs is for the Palestinian leader to say, OK, Israel is our neighbour, and for them to stop attacking it. End of story. Personally I think we should all stop spending so much time on this. The Palestinians want to fight for more? That's fine by me. But then the consequences will be what they are.

Quoting AemJeff: I also agree that the Israelis ought not make any land concessions beyond the borders of the West Bank and Gaza

I think there maybe a few more settlement to dismantle, but I think the borders seem more or less to have settled themselves. This bears out what Frum said, basically in the end, the Israelis lost on the settlements, and they cut their losses. I think Jerusalem will remain Israeli, I'm thinking that may be the price Arafat paid for refusing the agreement. Why o why did Arafat blow it? Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

Quoting Eastwest: Your response gets the disingenuous-answer-of-the-day award. If Israel hadn't stolen the land in the first place, this problem wouldn't exist.

Unfortunately, having been on the receiving end of one genocide, they chose to initiate another. Tragically, this will never go away. (BTW, they would have been justified in "carving out" homelands in Germany, Poland, France, Austria, and other locations wherein they were themselves subjected to genocide (and I would be willing to donate half of Texas), but they had no justification for what they did in "carving out" Israel.

EW

I'm sorry, but I think this is rubbish. There is no genocide. There have been atrocities on both sides, the war is dirty, but the Palestinians are no angels, remember Munich? Remember the guy in a wheelchair on the Achille Lauro, remember the eye doctor? They invented blowing up people on planes remember? Yes we can discuss the foundation of Israel till the cows come home, but at the end of the day Israel exists; and is the size it is because the Arabs went to war on it and lost.
I'm sorry, but I have lost patience with the Palestinians. Plus frankly since most Palestinians have never been near Israel proper for two generations now, the

Quoting PandoraHope: I'm sorry, but I think this is rubbish. There is no genocide. There have been atrocities on both sides, the war is dirty, but the Palestinians are no angels, remember Munich? Remember the guy in a wheelchair on the Achille Lauro, remember the eye doctor? They invented blowing up people on planes remember?

Yes we can discuss the foundation of Israel till the cows come home, but at the end of the day Israel exists; and is the size it is because the Arabs went to war on it and lost.

I'm sorry, but I have lost patience with the Palestinians. Plus frankly since most Palestinians have never been near Israel proper for two generations now, the "right to return" is becoming academic.

As much as it might appear so to you and others, I'm not really taking sides in this one and, no, I don't see much moral righteousness on either side of this dispute, especially given the way it has evolved in the last couple spasms of Palestinian "pushback." I'm simply making a set of simple observations about some very simple facts. (All the "complexity" comes later in the wake of what appears to have been

Quoting PandoraHope: I think there maybe a few more settlement to dismantle, but I think the borders seem more or less to have settled themselves. This bears out what Frum said, basically in the end, the Israelis lost on the settlements, and they cut their losses.

I think Jerusalem will remain Israeli, I'm thinking that may be the price Arafat paid for refusing the agreement.

Why o why did Arafat blow it? Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

By "beyond the borders" I intended to exclude the settlements from my assertion. All of the settlements should be abandoned by the Israelis. I should have been more explicit.

Quoting piscivorous: ... I would have to say Senator McCain is winning the definitional issues, or is it that Senator Obama is blowing it?

Isn't it really the case that McCain is the one blowing the "definitional issues?" The longer this race goes on, the more Obama looks like a man who can keep his cool under pressure, and the more McCain looks like a befuddled and mean-spirited geezer. McCain's attempts to define himself in any sort of good way are falling apart. It's becoming increasingly clear even to the casual observer that he has no ideas, no plans to do anything except emulate Bush, no understanding of economic and other domestic issues, and an at-best tenuous grasp of foreign affairs, recent history, and geography. His campaign is a disaster, especially if what you're looking for is executive ability. How many times has it been completely revamped in the past few months? And now that the folksy grandpa image has stopped selling, he's handing the ball to erstwhile Bush operatives, like Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt. It's also becoming obvious that McCain's pledge to run a clean campaign is just another one of

The candidate that is of two minds on just about everything August 2 2008 New York Times

The Democratic candidate has tackled the drilling question on two levels, as bad policy and as fundraising politics.

“It won’t lower prices today. It won’t lower prices during the next Administration,” he said. “While this won’t save you at the pump, it sure has done a lot to help Senator McCain raise campaign dollars.”

International Tribune Herold

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

. Reporter: Whats my position on the issue today.
Senator Obama: Let me toss a coin and I'll get back to you.

Quoting PandoraHope: Fascinating stuff, more please.
I get the crowning rally in a baseball or whatever it is stadium, it's "fun", pleasure, happiness a party, but the rally in a Nazi symbol? Why?
lol

How about dancing on the grave of fascism, and any possibility, real, or imagined, intentional, or unintentional, conscious, or unconscious, of it's return? To forget, often allows the potential for reopening doors closed with much pain and suffering. Not to mention a great photo op. It will be nice to have a leader who can talk and chew gum at the same time, or just form a sentence, or just read an f'n memo, but I digress (in a big way), sorry.
As a European, you might want to help us change course in a positive way, or not... it's entirely up to you.

Quoting piscivorous: Yet once again the left has been out maneuvered by the "dummy" President Bush.

Out maneuvered? or backed up against the wall by one shit-for-brains energy policy after another?

Generally when a politician or party adopts what is obvious that both parties are going to have to do they have out maneuvered their political or party opponent. The part I find most interesting is that the Democrats will have to sooner or latter vote to sustain the ban, something that apparently a good majority of the populace supports, or let it expire. They will now have to do this in a very charged political atmosphere of the 2008 election cycle. I don't really see any up side there for the Democrats do you?

piscivorous: This is a particularly feeble effort by you to feed the phony flip-flop meme. All that's going on here is that Obama is, once again, indicating a willingness to reach out to the other side. This is what he has been all about since day 1 of this campaign -- real unity, not empty Bush-style sloganeering. I hope he stays very strict on this particular issue, as I'm sure do others on the left, but in general, this recent statement is merely the placing of a card on the table, as part of a negotiation process. It doesn't even begin to compare to the many, many night and day changes in position adopted by John McCain. Let me put it to you this way: If Obama got Republican support for a big new program supporting alternate energy sources, and in return, allowed just a few new sites along the Florida coast to be opened up for drilling, I'd call that a win. As the man said, politics is the art of the possible.

Quoting piscivorous: The candidate that is of two minds on just about everything

August 2 2008

New York Times

International Tribune Herold.

Reporter: Whats my position on the issue today.
Senator Obama: Let me toss a coin and I'll get back to you.

So do you think that this is such an easy decision to make that any "sound" candidate should have it all worked out and ready for public delivery? If you were the presidential candidate would you know what to do? Do you have all the information that would be needed to make a responsible decision? Or is it about "creating the impression" that you know what you are saying, when in fact you would be BSing for the effect? Perhaps I would have preferred Obama saying that it's a complex issue and he doesn't have all the elements needed to have a definitive position. I personally want the people who decide the destiny of this country, and for this matter, the destiny of this planet, to be somewhat thoughtful. But, of course, had he said that, we can all imagine the criticism that gut-driven Republicans would come up with.

Quoting piscivorous: Generally when a politician or party adopts what is obvious that both parties are going to have to do they have out maneuvered their political or party opponent. The part I find most interesting is that the Democrats will have to sooner or latter vote to sustain the ban, something that apparently a good majority of the populace supports, or let it expire. They will now have to do this in a very charged political atmosphere of the 2008 election cycle. I don't really see any up side there for the Democrats do you?

Wow, so you admit that promoting the wasting of fossil fuels (huge tax breaks for over 6000 lb. vehicles, for example) was a political maneuver to embarrass the Dems in an election year? I guess I have to give your guys the prince of darkness award for slimy, premeditated manipulation of the electorate. I am not surprised, given the long track record of deceptive practices. Pulleaaase feel free to refute me on this as I have already ventured out of my metaphorical cocoon and found lots of data to support this claim.
The up side as I see it, is that the

Finally, piscivorous, I note that you failed to address any points that I made in my response to the "definitional issues" question that you yourself raised. All you could come up with was a repetition of the same lame attack on Obama. You have epitomized the emptiness of the McCain campaign admirably.

I'm not interested in debating about opinion on this issue. I have made my point you have made yours what further benefit will come from polemic debate?

Quoting piscivorous: I'm not interested in debating about opinion on this issue. I have made my point you have made yours ... what further benefit will come from polemic debate?

Exactly the question I ask myself every time you go off on one of your I-hate-Obama-and-here's-an-off-topic-post-to-prove-it rants.

Quoting piscivorous: I'm not interested in debating about opinion on this issue. I have made my point you have made yours what further benefit will come from polemic debate?

But you are all about opinion aren't you? You see trends in data graphs, and in your mind's eye you draw more data points that form a straight line to what ever conclusion you want to draw. On the recent developments in Iraq you pretty much have taken those lines and penciled them all the way to stability, and eventual troop withdrawal, and "victory"? After all that's happened there, and the back pedaling on the reasoning behind it, I would call that a bit of a stretch. One that I find very annoying, especially when you try to give the impression your conclusion was arrived at empirically.

Quoting piscivorous: Re: Victory: too good to be a coincidental?
Well the data show that it seems to be for real.

Mccain gets a poll bump that doesn't look to me like it was at the expense of Obama's numbers, and you say:

Quoting piscivorous: I would have to say Senator McCain is winning the definitional issues, or is it that Senator Obama is

Show me once where I have even insinuated the hate. Just because I tend to point out Senator Obama's negative and you hate that in no way implies I hate Senator Obama. You need to grow up and deal with the fact that one can disagree with a candidate, and by extension those that support him/her, without hating being involved.

Nice rant. All I have said is I do not see any benefit of a polemic debate about this issue. I wished to make a point, I made. You wish to disagree with that point fine. Will my presenting dozens of links witch support my opinion in this manner, rebutted with dozens of links of your choosing going to change either of our respective positions? I highly doubt it. I will continue to make points I wish to and you are free to rebut them this does not mean that I wish to participate in a convoluted chain of claim counter claim on any particular issue.

Quoting piscivorous: Nice rant. All I have said is I do not see any benefit of a polemic debate about this issue. I wished to make a point, I made. You wish to disagree with that point fine. Will my presenting dozens of links witch support my opinion in this manner, rebutted with dozens of links of your choosing going to change either of our respective positions? I highly doubt it. I will continue to make points I wish to and you are free to rebut them this does not mean that I wish to participate in a convoluted chain of claim counter claim on any particular issue.

You put this tripe on the forum:

Quoting piscivorous: Humor is the best solution

And then you can't stop defending your smear campaign without getting the last word? Your move....

Quoting piscivorous: Nice rant. All I have said is I do not see any benefit of a polemic debate about this issue. .

Forgot to thank you for the critique on my "rant". But "all you have said" is less than accurate, in fact it was the subject of my "rant":

Quoting piscivorous: I'm not interested in debating about opinion on this issue. I have made my point you have made yours what further benefit will come from polemic debate?

Quoting piscivorous: Show me once where I have even insinuated the hate. Just because I tend to point out Senator Obama's negative and you hate that in no way implies I hate Senator Obama. You need to grow up and deal with the fact that one can disagree with a candidate, and by extension those that support him/her, without hating being involved.

Touchy, touchy! I dunno, pisc. You are way beyond "tend[ing] to point out" negatives. Here's how it looks to me. You appear to spend an inordinate amount of time searching the Web for anything you can find to support your predisposition to dislike Obama. You very often post what you find without any regard to the context of the threads on this forum. You do this a lot. Additionally, you make an effort to spin or stretch every one of those posts as much as you possibly can to paint Obama in the worst possible light. Your tone is unswervingly smarmy in all of them. The sum and substance of your efforts in this regard are nothing short of a concentrated effort to smear Obama. This sounds to me like you have a

Shorter piscivorous: I will rant, rave, and dump links until I box myself into a corner. Then the rest of you need to grow up.

Quoting bjkeefe: This sounds to me like you have a very strong dislike, which is what I mean by "hate."
However, if the word upsets you that much, I apologize, and I'll try not to use it again.

Maybe we could all agree to call it an "anger issue" though I have a feeling the hippie-head-shrinker-speak might be disagreeable to the damn, had the best play on his handle but... gentleman from the Great State of Florida. I now yield the floor, as I wish to pay full attention to "science saturday", whilst painting the french doors I installed during last weeks stimulating discussion on string theory

Quoting Eastwest: (Even though I don't really take sides on this one, I can't help but notice how pro-Israel commenters always just "sweep this under the rug," and move onto self-righteous justification based on the viciousness of the Palestinian "resistance" which has ensued wherein they feel no compunction about slaughtering innocents.
EW

I'm not pro-Israel, I'm someone who feels they can no longer "excuse" Palestinian atrocities.
Israel has calmed down and is acting more or less ok at the moment, I give it credit for that. Frankly, I can't remember a time when Palestine did, apart from that brief window when the PLO came back from Tunisia. As for the re-hashing of old atrocities, in that way lies madness. It has to stop. No good can come of it. And you seem to forget that Israel is Israel, there are no "native" guys against invaders here, that is the tragedy.

Dear My Friends, Here's some straight talk: I have to be very careful what I say here because the Comments Nanny has already thrown me a couple of hard punches, so I'll just add what Gramps McCain always said whenever I had trouble with my homework: "Stick to your guns, Johnny." Now, whenever I'm asked to do something hard -- like think -- I remember Gramps, I put on my dress whites, listen to some John Philips Souza on the Victrola, pour myself a double Scotch on the rocks (I like to use my sidearm for a stirrer) and I groove for a while, as my young voters like to say. Try it! You'll love it. Here's my favorite verse from Anchors Aweigh, so you can sing along.

Stand Navy out to sea
Fight our battle cry:
We'll never change our course
So vicious foes steer shy-y-y-y
Roll out the T. N. T.
Anchors Aweigh
Sail on to victory
And sink their bones to Davy Jones, hooray!

Quoting PandoraHope: Israel has calmed down and is acting more or less ok at the moment, I give it credit for that.

Bibi is waiting in the wings, and Olmert just quit. Olmert has been far from ideal (I never thought I'd miss Sharon) but Netanyahu is an incipient disaster.

Quoting PandoraHope: As for the re-hashing of old atrocities, in that way lies madness. It has to stop. No good can come of it.

Israel is a fact and isn't likely to cease to exist. The circumstances of its creation were ugly, although calling it an atrocity doesn't doesn't strike me as helpful. However I generally agree with EW on this: choosing other real estate would have been far wiser. But, who on the planet doesn't occupy land that was taken by force from someone else? The distinction in the case of Israel is that the land-grab occurred within living memory - but, two or three generations have elapsed since. In any real sense, that battle is long done.

Many, many stars for you JohnM! What an adorable display of clean language! Now we can lovingly disagree with you... Your friend, Ocean

Quoting graz: I wish to align myself with all those who miss Mickey. In keeping with his determined zeal to promulgate rumor as scandal, I offer the following (highlighted portion) as proof of his creepiness. I don't have the reportorial assets to plant myself on the Venice boardwalk to "snap" the damning peektures, but am hopeful that the MSM will run with it soon enough:

Mickey Kaus is a creepy douchebag who hits an any Venice Beach female with two legs (not sure if he's still passing out his "mix tapes", but man, eh sure did creep pout some women).

Posted by Shine | August 1, 2008 12:42 PM
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c...omment-2530627[/i]

Further evidence: A non-denial denial "They were selected by me."
Obviously they didn't choose him.

This is at least the second diavlog in the last few days to touch upon the "real" reason for the Iraq war. I'd love to see an entire diavlog on the subject.

Or is there Iraqis no longer ask, 'Are you Sunni or Shiite?

Quoting piscivorous: Or is there Iraqis no longer ask, 'Are you Sunni or Shiite?

Always worth reading more than just the headline:

Most Iraqis, however, aren't convinced that the drop in sectarian violence, now at its lowest levels since March 2004, according to the U.S. military, will last.

Instead, they think that the violence will continue to swing like a pendulum along with the security situation. Indeed, periodic spurts of violence remind residents that Sunni and Shiite extremist groups are still warring. On Sunday, a truck bomb killed at least 12 people in northern Baghdad, and a roadside bomb killed six more south of the capital. Last month, a string of bombings in Baghdad and Kirkuk killed more than 50 people in one day.

"The situation is better, but how much better? And is it real?" asked Muhenned Nebeel, a 29-year-old Sunni from western Baghdad. "My maternal uncle is Shiite, and before, they were unable to visit us at all. Now they do visit us, regularly. But at the same time they have to be careful not to make themselves conspicuous — just in case."

[...]

"We used to be terrified of the forces manning checkpoints because they had the authority to question us, and we just

Oh yes you cherry picked that one nicely. But then again your gardening is irrelevant to the other that might go read the whole thing. I don't feel like I should have to spoon feed, with such sweet delights, the minds of individuals that are capable of deciding things for themselves. I find it strange that I am accused of being so partisan yet offer links with information that you quote to what you think is your nonpartisan presentation. I am not afraid of balance for this is not the first nor will it be the last link I present which offers balance to let other judge. You on the other hand offer only ones that conform to rigid ideology and prejudices.

Buzz kill!

Quoting piscivorous: Oh yes you cherry picked that one nicely.

You post a naked headline which trumpets a sound bite you'd like others to accept uncritically, and add a little editorial sarcasm to boost the flavor. I post excerpts from the same article, and suddenly you're crying about cherry-picking.

But then again your gardening is irrelevant to the other that might go read the whole thing.

But then again, there are lots of people who don't click links, but who instead read only what's on the current screen. As you well know. From long observation, I know your habits -- you give just the headline text, if it says what you want it to say. If it doesn't, you instead quote sections of the article itself. Sure, anyone who wants to can go read the whole thing. (You'll note I even quoted your link in my reply.) But for those who don't, I am here to remind them that it's not all candy and flowers in Iraq, no matter how much you might like to pretend it is.

I find it strange that I am accused of being so partisan ...

Calm yourself. Take off your victim robe for just one minute. No

Quoting piscivorous: . I don't feel like I should have to spoon feed, with such sweet delights, the minds of individuals that are capable of deciding things for themselves.

But you felt the need to dish up a heaping helping of your "Iraq is peachy, so vote for geezy" then if someone counters, you try to get on your high horse, not realizing you already beat it to death. Do your transparently partisan links, and cowboy up to the consequences, there's nothing "balanced" about your right wing campaigning. Crying "unfair" is a little silly, under the circumstances.

Quoting PandoraHope: I'm not pro-Israel, I'm someone who feels they can no longer "excuse" Palestinian atrocities.
Israel has calmed down and is acting more or less ok at the moment, I give it credit for that. Frankly, I can't remember a time when Palestine did, apart from that brief window when the PLO came back from Tunisia.

As for the re-hashing of old atrocities, in that way lies madness. It has to stop. No good can come of it.

And you seem to forget that Israel is Israel, there are no "native" guys against invaders here, that is the tragedy.

Fair enough. (Sort of.) Your right on not excusing atrocities, especially where they involve slaughter of innocent bystanders. I change my mind every other day (based on the news) as to which side is being most egregious on this topic. The Palestinians really don't seem to know when to experiment with giving it a break, it's true. Well, actually, there are "native" guys and "invaders" and the Palestinian memory is long (unfortunately). However, they are not being overly realistic. Not quite as unrealistic as, say, native Americans trying to rise up against the white man, but not far from it. Basically, unless and until the West Bank is "scrubbed" of settlements, there will be

It’s a pleasure to deconstruct a comment that confirms the claim I made that is trying to dispute

Quoting piscivorous: … I am not afraid of balance for this is not the first nor will it be the last link I present which offers balance to let other judge. You on the other hand offer only ones that conform to rigid ideology and prejudices.

.

Quoting bjkeefe: You've probably done this at least a hundred times -- …

might probably be enough said but what the heck. You then go on to attribute the tendency I have of linking to stories that contain a more than a one sided presentation to

Quoting bjkeefe: … You didn't read the story to the end. Or if you did, you hoped no one else would make the effort. And now that you've been hoisted with your own petard, you're switching tactics and bleating about being "balanced." Sorry, but your long history precedes you. It won't wash.

If there is any disingenuousness here it is yours not mine. I deliberately didn’t quote the article so as to not present its content in a false light. I could have very easily cut copy and pasted

pisc: Noted, and filed under "Protests Too Much." Stop pretending that you're some kind of elevated being presenting only "balanced" material for the edification of all. You have a point of view that you never stop pushing, and you're living in a dream world if you think I can't see it and won't push back against it. As I said before, we all have our partisan leanings, and there's nothing wrong with that. You post links to stuff that you think helps make your case, as do many of us, and there's nothing wrong with that, either. However, if you think you're going to get away with conducting a propaganda campaign without experiencing dissent, well, you're sorely wrong about that.

I have never made the claim of being without a point of view. However to impart to me the characteristics that you tried to do in you last reply is disingenuous, which you knew from the start, and you couldn't even due it in such a manner so as to not contradict your argument. So I suggest you put some new shoes on that stallion you are ridding to due you push back because the ones yo are currently using are worn and tired.

[emph. added]:

Quoting piscivorous: I have never made the claim of being without a point of view. However to impart to me the characteristics that you tried to do in you last reply is disingenuous, which you knew from the start, and you couldn't even due it in such a manner so as to not contradict your argument. So I suggest you put some new shoes on that stallion you are ridding to due you push back because the ones yo are currently using are worn and tired.

Whoa. Last time I read prose that purple, it was written in crayon. You should change the page on your Word-of-the-Day calendar. I am being completely candid about where I'm coming from. I'm sorry if you think that I'm wrong about your motives, but that's the way I see them, and in any case, stating my impression of your behavior is not being disingenuous. I have observed for some time your frequent habit of posting links, most of which have nothing to do with the thread where you post them, and all of which seek to promote your view of the world. I view your efforts as little more than

What are you running for job of content monitor or is that content sensor in your case.

Quoting piscivorous: ... or is that content sensor in your case.

His sensitivity to your tactics has been noted, and also handle(d) by others. Keep up the rhetorical fight, but stop your whinin' soldier. imho. You don't really want a truce, do you?

I do not like it when the basis of someone argument is either a direct attack on my character nor do I appreciate it when an indirect emotional appeals is used to try and besmirch the argument by the slight of hand of of he is just a hater so therefor his opinion is not credible. That is the context in which BJ uses the word and that is the context I object too. As long as these tactics are used I shall continue to "whine" about them. I may in the near future adapt this style of argumentation as I think the needs dictate. If that implies unwillingness to cow to his scatology so be it.

Quoting piscivorous: I do not like it when the basis of someone argument is either a direct attack on my character nor do I appreciate it when an indirect emotional appeals is used to try and besmirch the argument by the slight of hand of of he is just a hater so therefor his opinion is not credible. That is the context in which BJ uses the word and that is the context I object too. As long as these tactics are used I shall continue to "whine" about them. I may in the near future adapt this style of argumentation as I think the needs dictate. If that implies unwillingness to cow to his scatology so be it.

Pisc, I used the word "hate" once in reply to you. The use was casual, I was unaware what it connoted to you, and I apologized for it in the next reply. I have not used this word in reply to you, or in reference to you, since. Of course I think your opinions are not credible. If I did, I wouldn't be a liberal, I'd be a conservative. NB: saying that I think they're not credible is not at all the same thing as saying you shouldn't