i have to admit that i'm a sucker for match-ups like this. it's really enjoyable to see these guys discovering enough common ground to keep the greater debates constructive and intellectually engaging. eli, man, i'm sure you know we never would have guessed. if hip-hop culture could start bringing young liberals and conservatives together... nah, probably too far out to think of. as for the above criticisms of jeff chang, i think most folks can recognize windbaggery when they see it and don't feel too obliged at the moment to expend a whole lot of effort trying to extract whatever microscopic kernals of a relevant argument there might be buried in the overreactions of kidneystones or the vague and tangential philosophical evidence marshalled by gwlaw99. i have to wonder how much they really believe their claims and how sprung they get on provoking the left set (which, of course, includes their intellectual counterparts).

Quoting chucklefist: vague and tangential philosophical evidence marshalled by gwlaw99

At least I provided evidence to support my argument. Can you provide any evidence of anything Ayers has done to improve the actual education of students. His 50 million dollar Chicago Annenburg Challenge did not improve students education in any way. "The results of an August 2003 final technical report of the Chicago Annenberg Research Project by the Consortium on Chicago School Research "suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence." http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/downloads/p62.pdf The list of publications on his website also furthers my argument that he interested in ideology not teaching.
http://education.uic.edu/directory/f...s#publications

Eli is a big deal on the internet http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/154...0:17&out=30:27

gw, your point about the annenberg challenge's failure to bring about any improvement in the indicators used by the research project is much more germane to ayers' chops as an educational reformer, although not quite proof positive that his ideas are bunk. in an admittedly far from comprehensive perusal of the available downloads from the "teaching" section on www.billayers.org, i find perspectives that range from relatively thoughtful and compassionate to too laden with theory-speak for my weary brain to want to spend time deciphering them. despite his undeniable radical political outlook, i don't see a great balance of evidence to undergird the charges that the man aspires to usher in a new regime of revolution via brainwashing and intellectual intimidation. but, hell, i was probably wrong to call you out on this in the first place because i don't care all that much about bill ayers and, for all i know and am willing to look into it, you may be right about him. if so, congrats, chang would be wrong in his praises. i will say that i withdraw my concerns that you possibly weren't making

gw, your point about the annenberg challenge's failure to bring about any improvement in the indicators used by the research project is much more germane to ayers' chops as an educational reformer, although not quite proof positive that his ideas are bunk. in an admittedly far from comprehensive perusal of the available downloads from the "teaching" section on www.billayers.org, i find perspectives that range from relatively thoughtful and compassionate to too laden with theory-speak for my weary brain to want to spend time deciphering them. despite his undeniable radical political outlook, i don't see a great balance of evidence to undergird the charges that the man aspires to usher in a new regime of revolution via brainwashing and intellectual intimidation. but, hell, i was probably wrong to call you out on this in the first place because i don't care all that much about bill ayers and, for all i know and am willing to look into it, you may be right about him. if so, congrats, chang would be wrong in his praises. i will say that i withdraw my concerns that you possibly weren't making

gwlaw's argument's are hardly windbaggery. There is no reasonable defense of Ayers. In a society with free speech and and free elections he chose to endorse and use violence when his ideology didn't receive the attention he thought it merited. This is nothing but another form fascism--when you don't get the attention you believe your ideas merit use violence to extract that attention. He's like all the other fools that worship Che and the like -- only he'd like to instill that same revolutionary spirit into the education system.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/154...9:10&out=39:32 Ice Cube was on The View almost four years ago. (At least per IMDB -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001084/ )

great diavlog - I just ordered Can't Stop Won't Stop The trouble with BHTV is that I'm getting to like (most of) the conservatives.

Redefining the parties, Eli Lake style: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/154...9:04&out=29:13

bookofdisquiet, First of all, it's clear you want to talk about Ayers actions in the past but that's not even what gwlaw has been talking about in this thread. He's been talking about his work in educational theory. Second of all, it's fine to disagree with what Ayers did almost 40 years ago, but if you don't put it in context you ARE simply engaging in windbaggery. Or, to put it more kindly towards you if you really want to prove that there is 'no reasonable defense of Ayers' then make the best case for Ayers and show why even taking his actions in the most sympathetic light they are still not justified. Instead, you purposely decide to characterize his motives as being purely selfish (his viewpoint wasn't getting 'attention'). This doesn't prove anything or advance any discussion. But maybe that's not what you are interested in. So try this instead, in a time when his government was killing Vietnamese people by the hundreds of thousands in a war he thought was completely unjust and it seemed to him the killing would not stop through the 'democratic

Holy Crap I love Jeff Chang! I listened to Quannum Projects stuff in High School and just recently read Cant Stop Wont Stop. I really liked this, there was a lot of empathy between Jeff and Eli, which made for a great discussion and sorta shows the amazing universality of hip-hop. It would be great to see Jeff vrs. John McWhorter on the role of hip-hop in communities of color, and it's potential to impact politics. Bring Jeff Back!

The Freestyle Fellowship reduces the deficit through perpetual warfare.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: So try this instead, in a time when his government was killing Vietnamese people by the hundreds of thousands in a war he thought was completely unjust and it seemed to him the killing would not stop through the 'democratic process' he thought it would be justified to destroy government property in the hopes that he could bring a stop to the killing that way.

I was willing to listen to your argument as a reasonable case... right up to the point where you started to claim that the Weather Underground was not so bad because they were murdering innocent people for the sake of "peace." Your post proved better than anything else to come up in this thread that there truly is no rational defense for Obama's terrorist friend.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: So try this instead, in a time when his government was killing Vietnamese people by the hundreds of thousands in a war he thought was completely unjust and it seemed to him the killing would not stop through the 'democratic process' he thought it would be justified to destroy government property in the hopes that he could bring a stop to the killing that way. Now, you can still argue many things about why Ayers was wrong...you can say the War was justified (I hope you wouldn't say that at this point, but you could) you could say Ayers should have known that even if he started out just destroying property that people would end up getting killed and that should have been unacceptable to him, you can argue that government property is more valuable than Vietnamese lives or the lives of American soldiers (again I hope you wouldn't), you could argue that Ayers should have known that his actions would not bring an end to the war but could very well even backfire against the antiwar effort...you could even

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: bookofdisquiet,

First of all, it's clear you want to talk about Ayers actions in the past but that's not even what gwlaw has been talking about in this thread. He's been talking about his work in educational theory.

Second of all, it's fine to disagree with what Ayers did almost 40 years ago, but if you don't put it in context you ARE simply engaging in windbaggery. Or, to put it more kindly towards you if you really want to prove that there is 'no reasonable defense of Ayers' then make the best case for Ayers and show why even taking his actions in the most sympathetic light they are still not justified. Instead, you purposely decide to characterize his motives as being purely selfish (his viewpoint wasn't getting 'attention'). This doesn't prove anything or advance any discussion. But maybe that's not what you are interested in.

You're right, I failed to put it into context... of course, I would think we might want to consider why entrusting someone like Ayers with education policy (a man who advocated the use of violence to bring about social change when non-violent options were

Great diavlog-- just ordered Can't Stop Won't Stop and I'm looking forward to reading it.

Many people have observed that the election is a referendum on Obama, rather than an "ordinary" choice among candidates. Can the USA elect a black person president? The struggle since the beginning has been against residual racist elements among US voters. Hillary and Bill Clinton used the race card, while McCain (learning from their mistakes) became a master of innuendo and code words. He ostensibly rejected Rev. Wright, instead stressing code like "community organizer." McCain went negative early, attacking Obama as "the other", and remains negative in the final days of the campaign. Everything from socialist to "real American" to Bill Ayers to Rashid Khalidi has been nasty and not-so-subtly racialized. Including Joe the White Guy (plumber). The good news is that it's not working. When Obama is inaugurated in January we can all say with Michelle Obama that we are proud of the country. This is a referendum on racism. And racism has lost.

Quoting Wonderment: Many people have observed that the election is a referendum on Obama, rather than an "ordinary" choice among candidates.

Can the USA elect a black person president?

The struggle since the beginning has been against residual racist elements among US voters. Hillary and Bill Clinton used the race card, while McCain (learning from their mistakes) became a master of innuendo and code words. He ostensibly rejected Rev. Wright, instead stressing code like "community organizer."

McCain went negative early, attacking Obama as "the other", and remains negative in the final days of the campaign. Everything from socialist to "real American" to Bill Ayers to Rashid Khalidi has been nasty and not-so-subtly racialized. Including Joe the White Guy (plumber).

The good news is that it's not working. When Obama is inaugurated in January we can all say with Michelle Obama that we are proud of the country.

This is a referendum on racism. And racism has lost.

if you don't vote for Obama you're a racist. Great analysis.

if you don't vote for Obama you're a racist. Great analysis.

Not saying that. The question is whether there are enough racists out there to sabotage/undermine the election and tilt it to McCain. Answer: No. Obama wins on his merits; racism loses.

gwlaw, I didn't say that. Try reading what I wrote again. In fact I never said that what Ayers did was "ok." I do find it morally untenable to support the Vietnam War yet claim that what Ayers did was absolutely evil. I think it is perfectly possible to argue that both what Ayers did and the Vietnam war were wrong, but the Vietnam War was much worse in its effects. I also think its morally problematic to suggest that if one's government is killing hundreds of thousands of people simply casting a vote every four years is all one is morally required to do in response to that. gtownlaw98

Quoting gwlaw99: So terrorism is ok whenever you disagree with a war? Wow.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: gwlaw, I didn't say that. Try reading what I wrote again. In fact I never said that what Ayers did was "ok." I do find it morally untenable to support the Vietnam War yet claim that what Ayers did was absolutely evil. I think it is perfectly possible to argue that both what Ayers did and the Vietnam war were wrong, but the Vietnam War was much worse in its effects. I also think its morally problematic to suggest that if one's government is killing hundreds of thousands of people simply casting a vote every four years is all one is morally required to do in response to that.

gtownlaw98

It's certainly tenable. Let's say I agreed we should have stopped the hutus from killing tutsis in Rwanda and I think we should have bombed Rwandan hutus to stop the genocide of tutsis. In the process we kill 50 thousand hutus. Could I be for that war and against domestic terrorism to stop that war and not be a hypocrite? I think so. Look what happened after we left Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge committed genocide killing millions of people.

bookofdisquiet, thanks for further explaining your position. The majority of people here in the U.S. at least, I can't speak for Vietnam, think that the Vietnam War was a mistake. And even if you are right that the U.S. had noble intentions, which I don't agree with, it doesn't mean that what actually happened wasn't wrong. You can acknowledge that Bill Ayers might have thought he was acting in a noble cause, can't you? Even if he may have been wrong about the cause or wrong about the means he used to go about it? Again, I appreciate your call for me to think in a more complex full way about the issues and consider the plight of Vietnamese opponents or victims of the Communist regime. Keep doing so, but complicate your view as well. You're not claiming that the only people who fought against the U.S. were evil communists who wanted to oppress people, are you? In fact, weren't the majority of the people fighting against the U.S. motivated by a nationalist desire to remove foreign imperialist forces from their country? Over one million of these common everyday soldiers were killed in the War. Another million

Quoting Wonderment: Many people have observed that the election is a referendum on Obama, rather than an "ordinary" choice among candidates.

Can the USA elect a black person president?

The struggle since the beginning has been against residual racist elements among US voters. Hillary and Bill Clinton used the race card, while McCain (learning from their mistakes) became a master of innuendo and code words. He ostensibly rejected Rev. Wright, instead stressing code like "community organizer."

McCain went negative early, attacking Obama as "the other", and remains negative in the final days of the campaign. Everything from socialist to "real American" to Bill Ayers to Rashid Khalidi has been nasty and not-so-subtly racialized. Including Joe the White Guy (plumber).

The good news is that it's not working. When Obama is inaugurated in January we can all say with Michelle Obama that we are proud of the country.

This is a referendum on racism. And racism has lost.

I'm sorry but no, this is a flat out revision of the facts. The Clintons ran to african americans in the beginning and was winning for a time, so i can't see how they ran a racist campaign. What has McCain said

I also think its morally problematic to suggest that if one's government is killing hundreds of thousands of people simply casting a vote every four years is all one is morally required to do in response to that.

Exactly. In fact, many religious institutions were urging citizens to take more responsibility for the Vietnam Holocaust. Remember, in 1968 we were only 23 years past the Nazi Holocaust (Never again!), 20 years from the murder of Gandhi and in the midst of understanding the genius of MLK's civil disobedience. We were governed by a criminally corrupt administration (Nixon and Agnew), and Nixon secretly and illegally dropped 2,750,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia, slaughtering countless civilians. Catholic priests and other clergy were burning draft cards and going to prison for destroying government property. The Weather Underground emerged in this context of civil unrest, illegal war, corrupt-rogue executive abuse of power and failing democratic institutions. Yes, the Weather People crossed the line and engaged in deplorable violence. But to simply call Ayers a "terrorist," while voting for the heir to Nixon's tradition of mass murder and equating the historical context of 1969 to that of 9/11 is simplistic, misleading and immoral.

gwlaw99, I'm not sure I'm grasping your point. If the problem with Ayers is that he was against the Vietnam War then that's one thing. While many of Ayers' critics may think he was wrong on the Vietnam War, this is not actually the argument that is usually made. The argument that is made is that regardless of one's opinion on Vietnam it is supposed to always be absolutely morally wrong to use violence, even if only against property unless you are the govenrnment. If the problem with Ayers is that he was willing to use violence against property then I don't see how one could advocate massive violence resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of completely innocent people for a so-called noble cause when pursued by a government but yet say that violence by non-state actors in what they perceive as a noble cause is always completely absolutely out of bounds. As I said in my first post, I know that this idea that government sanctioned mass violence should somehow be subject to less moral scrutiny than individually carried out

My view doesn't need to be uncomplicated-- I have no illusions about how America conducted the war-- sometimes that is what happens when you have to draft soldiers--they are undisciplined and unmotivated. But make no mistake, the North Vietnamese were brutal and 100 times more oppressive than the democratic government offered by the South. The north used that propaganda about imperialism to indoctrinate fighters along with other more brutal methods of social control. Surely, you must know that the South Vietnamese fought for their freedom for three full years after the Americans were gone. They only lost the war when the U.S. government stopped its economic and military aid. To this day, people of the south don't get along with the north and are forced to live under northern oppression. There is no imperialism with democracy-- how can you force anyone to do anything with free speech and free elections-- no one stands in the voting booth with a gun in a democracy. Vietnam would be like Korea if we had won. If you want a perspective on why the war was lost you should read this. I don't know

Quoting bookofdisquiet: My view doesn't need to be uncomplicated-- I have no illusions about how America conducted the war-- sometimes that is what happens when you have to draft soldiers--they are undisciplined and unmotivated. But make no mistake, the North Vietnamese were brutal and 100 times more oppressive than the democratic government offered by the South. The north used that propaganda about imperialism to indoctrinate fighters along with other more brutal methods of social control. Surely, you must know that the South Vietnamese fought for their freedom for three full years after the Americans were gone. They only lost the war when the U.S. government stopped its economic and military aid. To this day, people of the south don't get along with the north and are forced to live under northern oppression. There is no imperialism with democracy-- how can you force anyone to do anything with free speech and free elections-- no one stands in the voting booth with a gun in a democracy. Vietnam would be like Korea if we had won.

If you want a perspective on why the war was lost you should read this.

I don't know

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: gwlaw99,

I'm not sure I'm grasping your point. If the problem with Ayers is that he was against the Vietnam War then that's one thing. While many of Ayers' critics may think he was wrong on the Vietnam War, this is not actually the argument that is usually made. The argument that is made is that regardless of one's opinion on Vietnam it is supposed to always be absolutely morally wrong to use violence, even if only against property unless you are the govenrnment. If the problem with Ayers is that he was willing to use violence against property then I don't see how one could advocate massive violence resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of completely innocent people for a so-called noble cause when pursued by a government but yet say that violence by non-state actors in what they perceive as a noble cause is always completely absolutely out of bounds.

They planned on killing people. They planned a bombing of a U.S. military non-commissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey in what Brian Flanagan said had been intended to

what about the 2 million people that were killed by the Khmer Rouge? or the two million who fled South Vietnam and the countless that have died under the oppressive communist regime. Maybe if Nixon would have dropped 4 million pounds of bombs and the 68ers weren't anything but selfish cowards those deaths wouldn't have happened. Maybe then, Vietnam would look like Korea with the communists in the north and free people in the south. Maybe that would have scared Russia away from invasion in Afghanistan-- we know well what came from that. Maybe the world would be a little better place than it is today. why don't you stop blaming an America that fights for freedom and start placing the blame where it belongs-- the forces of oppression. there is no oppression in a democracy-- you have free speech, free elections, opportunities for social change without the necessity of violence.

Could this mystery rapper referred to by Josh Marshall in April, 2003 be our Eli? "I think I can say with some certainty that Washington is the only city on the planet these days -- at least last night, it was -- where one can go to a party and hear someone do a Karaoke rap about regime change and the grand plan to democratize the Middle East. And, lest there be any question, no, the performer wasn't TPM. Actually, it was pretty good, though I was more than a bit inebriated at that point. So who knows? In any case, I still wasn't convinced, but I was entertained."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/147078.php

McNamara is a guilt ridden old man. He's part of the reason we lost the war-- his analytics of "body count" for signs of success were evil. People like Ayers, the intelligentsia, the media, all shaped a perception of American atrocity and this (in a democracy) led to a lack of will to win the war. I blame the military for allowing it to happen-- the media was much better managed in the Iraq war. The South Vietnamese (RVN) web site i linked to has a short primer on the reasons for losing the war. Very interesting.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: what about the 2 million people that were killed by the Khmer Rouge? or the two million who fled South Vietnam and the countless that have died under the oppressive communist regime. Maybe if Nixon would have dropped 4 million pounds of bombs and the 68ers weren't anything but selfish cowards those deaths wouldn't have happened. Maybe then, Vietnam would look like Korea with the communists in the north and free people in the south. Maybe that would have scared Russia away from invasion in Afghanistan-- we know well what came from that. Maybe the world would be a little better place than it is today.

why don't you stop blaming an America that fights for freedom and start placing the blame where it belongs-- the forces of oppression.

there is no oppression in a democracy-- you have free speech, free elections, opportunities for social change without the necessity of violence.

Why aren't you fighting for Iraqi freedom? If you have a physical excuse, then how much money have you given to the cause? How much volunteer work have you done? Why don't you come to the US and volunteer at

29 October 2008:

Quoting kidneystones: ... Ayers ... Ayers/Wright/Obama ... Ayers/Obama/Wright ... Ayers/Obama ... Ayers/Obama ... Ayers/Obama/Wright ...

28 October 2008:

Quoting kidneystones: ... Ayers ... Rezko ... Wright ...

Quoting kidneystones: ... Bill Ayers/Tony Rezko/Jeremiah Wright ...

Quoting kidneystones: ... Barack/Rashid/Ayers/Hussein/Rezko/Obama ...

But will you ever learn how to decompress?

bjk,
A serious question. Who were the major non-family influences on Obama's belief system and political views?

Quoting gwlaw99: bjk,
A serious question. Who were the major non-family influences on Obama's belief system and political views?

I don't really know anything close to a comprehensive list. I remember a couple offhand that were easy enough to Google: E.g.:

Out of the blue I asked, “Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?”

Obama’s tone changed. “I love him. He’s one of my favorite philosophers.”

E.g.:

JG: You’ve talked about the role of Jews in the development of your thinking

BO: I always joke that my intellectual formation was through Jewish scholars and writers, even though I didn’t know it at the time. Whether it was theologians or Philip Roth who helped shape my sensibility, or some of the more popular writers like Leon Uris.

(and related) I expect Emil Jones, Jeremiah Wright, Samantha Powers, and David Axelrod are four others who belong on the list, too. [Added] "Fierce urgency of now" is straight out of MLK, isn't it? And I can't imagine he didn't have a favorite professor or three.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't really know anything close to a comprehensive list. I remember a couple offhand that were easy enough to Google

Thanks that is very helpful, although I would like to know more. The Brooks interview was very interesting. Reinhold Niebuhr is certainly a positive as an influence. This to me is verylaudable

On the one hand, Obama hates, as Niebuhr certainly would have, the grand Bushian rhetoric about ridding the world of evil and tyranny and transforming the Middle East. But he also dislikes liberal muddle-headedness on power politics. In “The Audacity of Hope,” he says liberal objectives like withdrawing from Iraq, stopping AIDS and working more closely with our allies may be laudable, “but they hardly constitute a coherent national security policy.”

As is

If you ask him about the Middle East peace process, he will wax rhapsodic about the need to get energetically engaged. He’ll talk about the shared interests all have in democracy and prosperity. But then when you ask him concretely if the U.S. should sit down and talk with Hamas, he says no. “There’s no point in sitting down so long as Hamas says Israel doesn’t have the right to exist.”

This

bookofdisquiet, you're making my head spin with your alternating posts celebrating democracy and freedom as the noblest goals of humanity worth killing people over by the thousands with posts saying that people who oppose wars should "shut up" and applauding military "management" of the media. As for guilt, I say thank God for guilt and conscience. Its the people who don't experience those emotions that I worry about not the people who do. By the way, as for what McNamara did during the War it's not me or Bil Ayers who defends that, it's you.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: McNamara is a guilt ridden old man. He's part of the reason we lost the war-- his analytics of "body count" for signs of success were evil.

People like Ayers, the intelligentsia, the media, all shaped a perception of American atrocity and this (in a democracy) led to a lack of will to win the war. I blame the military for allowing it to happen-- the media was much better managed in the Iraq war.

The South Vietnamese (RVN) web site i linked to has a short primer on the reasons for losing the war. Very interesting.

kidneystones, You are a very disturbed individual, sir. Just for the record I am not an Obama supporter. I am an American and Israeli imperialism hater.

Quoting kidneystones: Eli and the rest of the gang have really missed the boat. As this thread has shown, a number of Obama supporters feel Ayers was fundamentally correct about the imperialist nature of the Viet Nam war. Ditto Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. Ditto America's invasion of Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq is seen as rewarding bad behavior by Chang and these American imperialism haters. Ayers/Wright/Obama want America to suffer a humiliating defeat in Iraq, an American defeat that will 'forever' teach 'American imperialists' the risks of attacking 'the people'. Meanwhile, the fabled 'family' cared for so deeply by BHO are living on welfare in Boston.

That's why Ayers matters. That's why Wright matters. That's why 'I've never been truly proud of my country' matters. Ayers/Obama/Wright will not do everything possible to secure American victory in Iraq. Success in Iraq would reinforce the notion that force can bring about positive change, which Ayers/Obama believe is fine, if the target is the US, but very bad if force is used against America's enemies.

Ayers/Obama forces control our

Why is Alinsky "loathsome to you"? Is it just that he was a man of the left? You heard Mr. Lake say that Alinsky in terms of tactics and methods was a big influence on Grover Norquist. I, personally have my own issues with people like Alinsky and Reverend Wright and ACORN, but it's not the fact that they are on the left.

gwlaw99, You really want to put aside negative things you've read about Obama? Obama very publicly in September pushed Jones to let that Ethics bill pass. For a more nuanced and complete picture of the Jones/Obama relationship see this article http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...47_page2.shtml I wouldn't characterize it as one of Jones "influencing" Obama in terms of his thought or ideas, more of a political alliance to accomplish certain shared objectives.

Quoting gwlaw99:
Emil Jones
"For almost a year Jones has used his position as leader of the state senate to block anticorruption legislation passed unanimously by the state’s lower house. He has also become embroiled in ethical controversies concerning his wife’s job and his stepson’s business."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3602710.ece

So I guess what I am asking for is help in understanding Obama so I can try to put aside the negative things I have read about.

Quoting kidneystones: Eli and the rest of the gang have really missed the boat. As this thread has shown, a number of Obama supporters feel Ayers was fundamentally correct about the imperialist nature of the Viet Nam war. Ditto Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. Ditto America's invasion of Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq is seen as rewarding bad behavior by Chang and these American imperialism haters. Ayers/Wright/Obama want America to suffer a humiliating defeat in Iraq...

Kidneystones,
Can you tell me who wrote the following?:

Andrew Sullivan has finally realized the war for Iraq is lost. [...]

"I'm left with contrition at my own small contribution to the misunderstanding". The misunderstanding? The fucking misunderstanding? No WMD. No threat. No link to 9/11. Tens of thousands of Americans suffering from war wounds and PST, more than 2500 dead. No body count on the Iraqis, but that number is far greater.

It is true, however, that Andrew played but a small part; like Tom Friedman, Richard Cohen. An abatoir needs but one or two Judas Goats, black souls willing to sound the call for slaughter, lead others to their deaths while they slip past the whisper of the hammer and the ax.

Contrition?

Rather than recognize

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: gwlaw99,

You really want to put aside negative things you've read about Obama?

Obama very publicly in September pushed Jones to let that Ethics bill pass.

For a more nuanced and complete picture of the Jones/Obama relationship see this article http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...47_page2.shtml

I wouldn't characterize it as one of Jones "influencing" Obama in terms of his thought or ideas, more of a political alliance to accomplish certain shared objectives.

Well BJK cited him as one so I responded to it. Despite what you might glean from what I write on this board, I am still undecided and considering voting for Obama (if for the only reason that Sarah Palin is not ready to take over as president). I need someone to make the case for Obama by telling me who his actual real influences are, if Wright, Ayers, Alinsky, etc... are not. While I may not agree with Obama on everything, his current positions, while left of center, are not extreme. What is really stopping me from voting for him is that people who spend 20 years with radicals like Wright don't suddenly become moderates overnight unless they are just doing it to win an election (I would actually be

Quoting kidneystones: Eli and the rest of the gang have really missed the boat. As this thread has shown, a number of Obama supporters feel Ayers was fundamentally correct about the imperialist nature of the Viet Nam war. Ditto Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.

Wow. It sounds like someone else shares the Ayers view of Israel!

Following 9/11, however, an eerie convergence of events took place. Saddam Hussein's bid to shore up flagging support among the Arab community by paying bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers gave President Bush the "proof" he needed that Iraq sponsored international terror. The fact that suicide-bombings preceded and continued after the removal of Hussein confirms how little impact this financial bounty actually had. Israel, grateful that the US President took no active interest in building peace, continued apace building new settlements in the occupied territories, even as the run-up to the Iraq war proceeded on course.

[...]

[O]fficials in Tel Aviv and Haifa quickly realized there might be far more to be gained from remaining silent than from frustrating a US administration already committed to war, we now know from this post-invasion study conducted

Wow, gwlaw99 I had always taken you for a righty that would be McCain all the way in this election. Maybe I have a distorted view of you because a lot of our interaction has been around Israel/Palestine. I think this piece that was in Time gives an interesting perspective on Obama and some of the questions you have in your mind... "The Five Faces of Barack Obama" http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...4623-2,00.html I'm sure your and my ideas of what's "radical" might be different, but you must know that regardless of what is in Obama's heart of hearts or whether he even has such a thing or is a pure political animal, being President of the United States as much as running for President of the United States does not allow one to be a radical.

Quoting gwlaw99: Well BJK cited him as one so I responded to it. I am still undecided and considering voting for Obama (if for the only reason that Sarah Palin is not ready to take over as president). I need someone to make the case for Obama by telling me who his actual real influences are, if Wright, Ayers, Alinsky, etc... are not. While I may

TwinSwords, Since I haven't spent as much time on these forums lately as I did for a little while, I was wondering how much discussion had been had as to what happened to KidneyStones, rather than just What's wrong with Kidneystones? I made some attempts to search through old discussions because I was truly perplexed knowing that I used to have a very different feeling when I saw that name come up than I've learned to now. At some point, I actually just convinced myself that I was imagining something or confusing him with someone else from the past. Kidneystones, have you ever explained this journey? Is it just absolute blinding hatred of Obama? It is always fascinating to me why people change, although I do have to admit I take a lot more pleasure in reading about it when its in a positive direction, which I have to say I don't think yours has been.

PUMA.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Wow, gwlaw99 I had always taken you for a righty that would be McCain all the way in this election. Maybe I have a distorted view of you because a lot of our interaction has been around Israel/Palestine.

I think this piece that was in Time gives an interesting perspective on Obama and some of the questions you have in your mind...

"The Five Faces of Barack Obama"

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...4623-2,00.html

I'm sure your and my ideas of what's "radical" might be different, but you must know that regardless of what is in Obama's heart of hearts or whether he even has such a thing or is a pure political animal, being President of the United States as much as running for President of the United States does not allow one to be a radical.

Well, I probably would have voted for McCain the moderate of the last 20 years, but he lost me with Palin. That article wasn't too much help, to be honest, as it didn't really talk about his moderate influences; it just tried to refute some of his radical ones. In fact, I did not previously know about one of the other radical

Have you read this one? "Barack by the Books" http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2...7/obama_books/ Oh, and just to be clear I am just providing a couple of articles I found interesting on the question of Obama's influences...I am not suggesting that these articles should 'convince' you to vote for him.

Quoting gwlaw99: Well, I probably would have voted for McCain the moderate of the last 20 years, but he lost me with Palin. That article wasn't too much help, to be honest, as it didn't really talk about his moderate influences; it just tried to refute some of his radical ones. In fact, I did not previously know about one of the other radical influences mentioned in the article, Frank Marshall Davis. It only takes me so far for people to say "these 5 people he knew for years didn't really influence him." What I need to know is "if not them, who"?

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: TwinSwords,

Since I haven't spent as much time on these forums lately as I did for a little while

You've been sorely missed! And your recent posts have been enormously insightful and helpful, as always. But I know how busy life is, and it's hard to find the time to post here, especially when it feels like waging a fruitless battle against people who are determined to remain clueless.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: I was wondering how much discussion had been had as to what happened to KidneyStones, rather than just What's wrong with Kidneystones?

Gosh, no. But I have wondered. A lot of people hold far right views, but I don't have any good explanation for the pure rage and intense hatred he displays. My original assumption was that he was upset over Hillary's defeat in the primaries. But Hillary's defeat can't by itself explain the totality of his decline. The interesting thing is he's not even an American citizen. He's a UK/Candadian living in Japan. So why would he be so preoccupied, and so filled with anger, over the US presidential election? I understand US elections affect the whole planet, but still, that doesn't explain his depth of emotion and instability. I think there must have been some

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Have you read this one?

"Barack by the Books"

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2...7/obama_books/

Oh, and just to be clear I am just providing a couple of articles I found interesting on the question of Obama's influences...I am not suggesting that these articles should 'convince' you to vote for him.

I really do appreciate it and keep them coming if you can. Here are my thoughts on this one. The first half of the article talks about how he was influenced by Alinsky and ACORN, not the moderating influences I was hoping for. The second half does mention Reinhold Niebuhr as an influence as BJK already mentioned and that is certainly laudable and is a plus for me. However, he was not a person who was actually involved in Obama's life. Lastly the article Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. This book certainly explains Obama's political acumen, but says nothing to his belief system. Anyway, I appreciate the link!

Quoting kidneystones: I opposed ... both Iraq wars.

I guess so!

Quoting kidneystones at DailyKos: Fact is, as long as Bush is in the driver's seat there's SFA Dems can do to stop the attack, the clock is ticking and ONLY IMPEACHMENT can stop this war... (source)

Quoting kidneystones: The US refusal to square up to the illegal nature of the war

Did you get that, conservative forum dwellers? Illegal war...

Quoting kidneystones: I'm for a full accounting and believe all who played a leading role deserve their day in court.

This is Kidneystones' follow-up on his earlier suggestion that American journalists be prosecuted for writing pro-war editorials. You can tell that kidneystones is not an American citizen because he apparently does not value the First Amendment. Just the other day, kidneystones was promoting Daniel Pipes, who would be among the first in the dock if kidneystones fantasies of prosecution were realized. Total intellectual dishonesty; but if that's what it takes to curry favor with far-right smear-merchants like mvantony, so be it.

Quoting kidneystones: I do not, however, wish to see Iraq fall under the control of Iran and the mullahs. Nor do I wish to see Israel's enemies acquire nuclear weapons.

Neither does anyone else. But your new position doesn't square very well with this:

Quoting kidneystones at DailyKos: Dems

Quoting TwinSwords: Total intellectual dishonesty; but if that's what it takes to curry favor with far-right smear-merchants like mvantony, so be it.

Just out of curiosity, has anybody here called you anything like what you called mvantony? And by calling mvantony a smear-merchant, do you think he knowingly says false things, or that he just repeats false things because he doesn't do the requisite background checking? And do you think KS is trying to curry favor? Why? He hasn't shown himself to be much concerned with what others think. And what would be the benefit of this favor? Like, he'd get promoted to mvantony's right-hand man?

Quoting Bobby G: Just out of curiosity, has anybody here called you anything like what you called mvantony?

Of course.

Quoting Bobby G: And by calling mvantony a smear-merchant, do you think he knowingly says false things, or that he just repeats false things because he doesn't do the requisite background checking?

I think he says the stuff he does because he's a rightwing extremist eager to use whatever ammunition he can get his hands on, and yes, I don't think he does the requisite background checking. He was recently promoting Debbie Schlussel, for goodness sakes, who is a vile hatemonger and bigot. Sorry, I know I should be polite and respectful, but I have a hard time concealing my contempt for people who promote hatred for people based on their race or religion (like Daniel Pipes and Debbie Schlussel). Mvantony was also recently defending Corsi, then confessed he knew nothing about him. So that provides you with the answer to your question about whether he does the necessary checking. Corsi has smeared Catholics as "boy buggers." I was raised a Catholic. My mother and grandmothers are Catholics. 90% of my extended family is Catholic. By promoting Corsi, mvantony is promoting hatred for me, my family, my church, and

I'm a practicing Catholic. I was recently saying defensive things about Corsi, like that I thought Hamsher's treatment of him was inappropriate and that many of her questions showed she hadn't paid any attention to his answer. Is that all mvantony was doing? And do you think Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Maher promote hatred of Christians based on their religion? I just looked up Debbie Schlussel. This is the first I've heard of her, I think. Who the hell is she? Is she famous?

Quoting gwlaw99: Thanks that is very helpful ...

You're welcome.

Axelrod seems to be a very good campaign consultant and a smart guy, but he is more of a nuts and bolts campaign operative than someone who influences your world view.

Sure. I don't claim Obama was totally formed by him, any more than I believe he was singularly formed by any other individual. As with most people, especially those with a healthy intellectual curiosity, I am sure that Obama has been influenced in his thinking by hundreds of colleagues and authors. Everything that I've ever read about him suggests that he is a listener, a questioner, a sponge for new perspectives.

So I guess what I am asking for is help in understanding Obama so I can try to put aside the negative things I have read about.

To be asking this, now, is ridiculous. You've had the better part of two years to get to know Barack Obama. The man has written two books, participated in numerous debates and interviews, and has given countless speeches. (To my mind, perhaps the most illuminating was the one he gave in Philadelphia in March. You should watch it in full. Or watch it again, if

Quoting Bobby G: I just looked up Debbie Schlussel. This is the first I've heard of her, I think. Who the hell is she? Is she famous?

She has been called "the Wal-Mart Coulter." Start here.

I would LOVE to recommend to you that you vote for McCain on the grounds that Obama is the leftie you're afraid he is. However, I'm afraid -- paranoia aside -- there is no there there. Obama is a mainstream liberal. Among the early candidates, Dodd, Edwards and were slightly to the left; Clinton and Biden slightly to the right; Kucinich considerably to the left (which is why the rest of them treated him like a child).

Are you not an Obama supporter because Barack Hussein Obama is going to be killing lots of Taliban and other radical Muslims while President of the United States?

Quoting bjkeefe: You're welcome.

Sure. I don't claim Obama was totally formed by him, any more than I believe he was singularly formed by any other individual. As with most people, especially those with a healthy intellectual curiosity, I am sure that Obama has been influenced in his thinking by hundreds of colleagues and authors. Everything that I've ever read about him suggests that he is a listener, a questioner, a sponge for new perspectives.

To be asking this, now, is ridiculous.

You've had the better part of two years to get to know Barack Obama. The man has written two books, participated in numerous debates and interviews, and has given countless speeches. (To my mind, perhaps the most illuminating was the one he gave in Philadelphia in March. You should watch it in full. Or watch it again, if applicable.)

You've been on this board for more than a year, and you've had the opportunity to observe and participate in countless discussions among a wide range of people, the overwhelming majority of whom are above average in intelligence, education, and news awareness. These discussions have often featured links to articles on Obama, written from all perspectives. And there is an entire Internet out

Quoting Bobby G: [...]

Thanks for asking the questions Bobby G. TwinSword doesn't like the fact that I have concerns and doubts about Obama, and express them. Even though I'm not an American, he likes to think of me as a Republican, and treat me in the way he thinks Republicans ought to be treated. This all started in the context of my speculations about Obama's lipstick-on-a-pig remark:

Quoting TwinSwords: If you behave as the functional equivilent of Republican, you will be treated, by me, at least, as a Republican. If you carry water for smear merchants and liars, you will be regarded as a smear merchant and liar. I did review some of your posts after posting my response above and determined that you do not appear to have a history of wingnuttery (and therefore I removed that part of my post), but I'm not going to undertake a research project every time I post a reply, and as I said: If you mouth Republican talking points and advance a Republican smear campaign, responses to you will be made as if you are a Republican. I think this is eminently fair.

And he likes to think of me as a right

Lyle, I understand that this is directed towards me but I am not sure if it is a real question or a rhetorical question/attempt at witty insult. In either case there are a lot of aspects to the question as well as underlying assumptions which I not only do not accept, but which in fact contradict each other. So, if it is a sincere question I would suggest rephrasing....although now that I think about it as much as I like to give people the benefit of the doubt it's hard for me to conceive of a sincere questioner choosing to refer to "Barack Hussein Obama."

Quoting Lyle: Are you not an Obama supporter because Barack Hussein Obama is going to be killing lots of Taliban and other radical Muslims while President of the United States?

Quoting mvantony: Oh, while on the topic of TwinSwords, let me mention to Bob, in case he sees this, that, in my opinion, having the title 'Moderator' associated with a user who regularly insults others in the crude, thuggish, and unjustified manner in which TwinSwords does reflects as badly on BhTV as Hamsher's pathetic drinking gestures do. I realize that the moderator's role is limited to removing spam. I'm talking about what people who are unfamiliar with the site might conclude about BhTV on the basis of the kinds of behavior BhTV is apparently willing to accept from people to which it gives (what appear to be) special responsibilities.

I think you're exaggerating the extent of Twin's responses to you, and that you're being thin-skinned. You make a lot of provocative statements, often, it seems, by design, and you should expect some harsh responses. As for your concern(-trolling?) about the "Moderator" title, you should give others the credit you demand when you link to wingnuts like Pipes -- that people can make up their own minds and form their own impressions from the content. To anyone new who is reading this: The title itself is an unfortunate limitation of the forum software. Feel free

Quoting gwlaw99: I am trying to find some proof that people in his life who shaped his political world view were other than Wright, Ayers, Alinsky and (as I learned from an article suggested above) Frank Marshall Davis so I can figure out who he really is as his political record is so brief.

Yeah, sure you are. You're not at all just rehashing the same old fearmongering that's been going on for the past year. I totally believe in your sincerity.

I guess I mistakenly assumed that people who support Obama might have a clue about who his major influences were considering they are categorically denying that Wright, etc...were.

We do. You've been offered those clues. You refuse to accept them as sufficient. You're either looking for someone to hold your hand, wipe your nose, kiss your boo-boos, and tell you that the monsters under your bed have been chased away, or you're just trying to peddle the same tripe that kidneystones is, albeit more subtly.

As neither you nor anyone has yet to come up with good examples, either don't respond if you don't want to or try to be less of a condescending asshole.

Oh, please. Recall that

Quoting bjkeefe: Yeah, sure you are. You're not at all just rehashing the same old fearmongering that's been going on for the past year. I totally believe in your sincerity.

I also can't help if you don't believe my sincerity. I am not trying to hide anything. As I said before, I admit that I am pretty much a McCain supporter who has become more troubled by the prospect of Sarah Palin as a potential president than Obama as President so I am trying to assuage the misgivings I have about Obama that I consider most serious.

Oh, please. Recall that you just thanked me for some of my examples.

I thanked you for citing one person whose book Obama had read which Obama said influenced him. I do appreciate that, and it gave me a small insight, but it did not answer my question: Which moderate people in Obama's life influenced Obama's political views. I mistakenly assumed that since you seemed to find it so outlandish that Wright etc... were his main influences that you would have some clue as to who was. All I asked for was a few names of people in Obama's life that influenced him that I could do

Quoting bjkeefe: [...]

Brendan, I'm certain that you can distinguish the kind of harsh response you've just made from the sort I was talking about. There was no reason to mention your moderator link since I said what moderators do. It is because I do give people credit to make up their minds from the content that I think many (who have not clicked your "moderator?" link) would reasonably conclude that BhTV is entirely undiscriminating about who they entrust with site responsibilities. And I think that is bad for BhTV. Again, just my opinion.

Quoting gwlaw99: I am trying to assuage the misgivings I have about Obama that I consider most serious.

I don't think you should bother. You're really quite far over to the right. Even if Obama's not as bad as the lunatic blogs make him out to be, he's still, likely, far too liberal for you. I don't think the Democratic Party has anything to offer you. I can't say I know comprehensively everything you believe in (obviously), but having read many of your posts, I'd be astonished if there were 3 things you had in common with the Democrats.

Quoting mvantony: Brendan, I'm certain that you can distinguish the kind of harsh response you've just made from the sort I was talking about.

I don't think it's a binary thing. It's a continuum. I can't swear that I've read every last one of Twin's replies to you, but I can't think of anything particularly egregious he's said to you. The example you quoted above strikes me as entirely within bounds.

There was no reason to mention your moderator link since I said what moderators do.

I felt it necessary to add some clarifying remarks because what you said sounded like FUD and/or concern-trolling, just as this does:

... I think many (who have not clicked your "moderator?" link) would reasonably conclude that BhTV is entirely undiscriminating about who they entrust with site responsibilities. And I think that is bad for BhTV. Again, just my opinion.

Here, you're acknowledging that without a clear statement, there may be some misapprehension on the part of those new to the site. This pretty much contradicts your previous statement, doesn't it? Once more, for the record: the criterion for appointing various people as moderators was, apparently, that they could be trusted to delete only spam. There was no test for how willing they'd

Quoting Bobby G: I'm a practicing Catholic. I was recently saying defensive things about Corsi, like that I thought Hamsher's treatment of him was inappropriate and that many of her questions showed she hadn't paid any attention to his answer. Is that all mvantony was doing?

I think the issue back then, though I can't recall precisely, was that he jumped to Corsi's defense over Jane's "Corsi is boozing it up" gesture. Mvantony failed to provide or acknowledge the context in which Jane made the gesture; It was a satirical reference to Corsi's unfounded suggestions that Obama has an ongoing problem with addiction to cocaine and other drugs, a meme mvantony was happy to see promoted while attacking the person (Jane) standing up to it. What concerns me is that a guy living in Israel has for weeks been carrying water in the effort to defame and smear one of our political candidates, associating himself with the most divisive and extreme elements of the far right: Daniel Pipes, Debbie Schlussel, kidneystones, Jerome Corsi, et al., all because (I assume) he feels it is in Israel's interests to see McCain elected. Though I passionately defend mvantony's right to free speech — a

It's not just one blogger that supports McCain because of a very real difference in background in terms of middle east policy. A majority of Israelis support McCain over Obama. When your pastor calls Israel a "dirty word" and an Apartheid state, when you cavort with a man who advocates murdering Israeli soldiers, when a high ranking left leaning commentator makes a "the Jews are done" comment about your election and when you continue to pressure the LA Times to not reveal what you said at a bash for said advocate of murders of Jews, likely because it is in the paranoid anti-Israel column, then it's really no wonder.

The only reason I know Schlussel is because they used to have her on the Howard Stern Show, where she generally seemed like the stupidest person in the room.

Quoting gwlaw99: I also can't help if you don't believe my sincerity. I am not trying to hide anything. As I said before, I admit that I am pretty much a McCain supporter who has become more troubled by the prospect of Sarah Palin as a potential president than Obama as President so I am trying to assuage the misgivings I have about Obama that I consider most serious.

The longer you go on like this, the less I believe you and the more I think you're not doing anything else besides trying to contribute to the down-the-stretch desperation smear tactics that characterize the McCain campaign and most of the rest of the far right. It is not realistic to expect that you're going to be delivered some magic URL that will remove all uncertainties. You should know that. You've been to college and law school. You know how information works. You can never be sure about something as complex as a human being. You're not going to get the definitive answer you claim to be seeking by asking the same question over and over again.

First you say it should be easy to look

the LA Times to not reveal what you said at a bash for said advocate of murders of Jews, likely because it is in the paranoid anti-Israel column, then it's really no wonder.

The LA Times, which I'm been a subscriber to for 20 years, is one of the most pro-Israel newspapers on the planet.

A majority of Israelis support McCain over Obama.

Odd, if true, since an overwhelming majority of US Jews support Obama. Perhaps the 75% of American Jews voting for Obama are anti-Israel?

Quoting cognitive madisonian: It's not just one blogger that supports McCain because of a very real difference in background in terms of middle east policy. A majority of Israelis support McCain over Obama.

When your pastor calls Israel a "dirty word" and an Apartheid state, when you cavort with a man who advocates murdering Israeli soldiers, when a high ranking left leaning commentator makes a "the Jews are done" comment about your election and when you continue to pressure the LA Times to not reveal what you said at a bash for said advocate of murders of Jews, likely because it is in the paranoid anti-Israel column, then it's really no wonder.

And a vast, overwhelming majority of American Jews, including every last one of my own Jewish friends, are supporting Barack Obama, and will vote for him in droves next Tuesday, thankyouverymuch. That fact alone disproves your argument, doesn't it? (I'll answer for you: Yes, it does.) Oh, and who is this you say is "pressur[ing] the LA Times not to reveal what you said at a bash for" Khalidi?

The LA Times, which I'm been a subscriber to for 20 years, is one of the most pro-Israel newspapers on the planet.

All the more a wonder why they won't release the video of Obama at the Khalidi dinner. The story on Israel's support of McCain was on hotair. I'll try to find it. I believe it is different than this story: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...ael-McCain.php Another survey found that older Jewish voters are more supportive of Obama than younger Jewish voters. Make of that what you will.

Perhaps the 75% of American Jews voting for Obama are anti-Israel?

I'm not arguing that everyone who supports Obama is anti-Israel. Far from it. But I think any pro-Israel Obama supporter should take a hard second look at the man.

And a vast, overwhelming majority of American Jews, including every last one of my own Jewish friends, are supporting Barack Obama, and will vote for him in droves next Tuesday, thankyouverymuch. That fact alone disproves your argument, doesn't it? (I'll answer for you: Yes, it does.)

My argument is a series of factual statements about friends and supporters of Obama, along with Obama's own history. Need I remind you that Obama compared the United States to Nazi Germany and said that "no one in the world is suffering more than the Palestinians." My argument is not that more American Jews support McCain, because that is rather easily disprovable.

Oh, and who is this you say is "pressur[ing] the LA Times not to reveal what you said at a bash for" Khalidi?

The Obama camp. Do I have any proof? No. But I'd love an explanation of why they aren't doing the responsible thing.

Quoting Wonderment: Perhaps the 75% of American Jews voting for Obama are anti-Israel?

Maybe they have a better understanding of Obama than their Israeli counterparts?

And maybe they don't

His name is Barack Hussein Obama is it not? I don't think there's anything wrong with his name. It's quite cool actually. ... and under his leadership the U.S. will be in Afghanistan fighting a War against the Taliban and al Qaeda. No?

Quoting bjkeefe: Here, you're acknowledging that without a clear statement, there may be some misapprehension on the part of those new to the site. This pretty much contradicts your previous statement, doesn't it?

I'll try one more time. I'm not talking about any need for statements. l'm simply saying that BhTV looks bad if people come to the site and see Moderators often calling commenters or guests 'racists', 'extremists', 'human pigs', 'smear-merchants', 'liars', etc. It looks bad, in my opinion, if that kind of behavior by anyone is tolerated on the site; but certainly by BhTV-selected Moderators, who will undoubtedly be perceived by many to be representatives of the site (no matter how limited the Moderator's role is). Note, Brendan, that I'm talking about cases in which you aren't there to make an explicit statement, so making another one now won't help (not that I think they'd help anyway).

Quoting cognitive madisonian: And maybe they don't

Nice comeback. But, if foreign media are providing a better basis for that judgment than what's available domestically, the world is a lot stranger than I believe it is.

Obama shows a disturbing, and Bush-like, I must say, propensity to determine a policy choice and then stick to it, facts be damned. He embraced failure in Iraq, opposed the surge, and then refused to admit it worked. When he finally conceded it worked, he said he'd still vote against it(!). What does that say about the man? Like Bush, it's all about holding to your guns. And Obama's guns will get more Americans and Afghanis killed. The plus side is that David Petraeus, the greatest military mind of the last 50 years, may become so disenfranchised with a president Obama that he would run against him in 4 years. And then you can kiss president Obama goodbye.

I don't follow the Israeli media but I have a fairly low opinion of the US media. Incidentally, our trust of the media is really low, compared to other nations, at least according to a 2000 Pew study.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: My argument is a series of factual statements about friends and supporters of Obama, along with Obama's own history. Need I remind you that Obama compared the United States to Nazi Germany and said that "no one in the world is suffering more than the Palestinians."

My argument is not that more American Jews support McCain, because that is rather easily disprovable.

That argument (your last sentence above) is not the one disproved by the fact that 3 of 4 American Jews are voting for Obama. The argument you made was that Obama's scary history makes it logical and clear why Jews don't support him. If this argument were valid, American Jews wouldn't support him, either. But they do, overwhelmingly, and this fact disproves your argument.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: The Obama camp. Do I have any proof? No. But I'd love an explanation of why they aren't doing the responsible thing.

You don't accept the LA Times explanation that they don't have permission from their source to release it. I read the right wing blogs, too. You'll say "why would the source give it to a newspaper if they didn't want it to be released?" I will respond by asking you, if the

The argument you made was that Obama's scary history makes it logical and clear why Jews don't support him.

Well, let me repost what I originally said.

A majority of Israelis support McCain over Obama.

Now, I found a poll about Americans living in Israel (it stands to reason many of them are Jewish). I'm fairly sure that's not the initial survey that I saw. And it's not what you claimed it was.

You don't accept the LA Times explanation that they don't have permission from their source to release it.

You're right, I do not. Not when Politico and others say they would release it. Why do you think they want to keep it hush hush?

Quoting TwinSwords: I think the issue back then, though I can't recall precisely, was that he jumped to Corsi's defense over Jane's "Corsi is boozing it up" gesture. Mvantony failed to provide or acknowledge the context in which Jane made the gesture; It was a satirical reference to Corsi's unfounded suggestions that Obama has an ongoing problem with addiction to cocaine and other drugs, a meme mvantony was happy to see promoted while attacking the person (Jane) standing up to it.

I don't recall Corsi saying this, at least not in the diavlog. Instead, I remember Corsi saying that people who use hard drugs often lie about the degree of their current or past use of drugs, and that he, Corsi, had done ten years of research on this, so he knows whereof he speaks. Hamsher made a drinking gesture to insinuate that Corsi was on the stuff. I thought it was pretty unbecoming myself.

Though I passionately defend mvantony's right to free speech — a value he evidently deplores, anxious as he is to sanction me for daring to talk back to him — I won't just ignore his constant attempts to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt by transmitting the discredited

Quoting cognitive madisonian: When he finally conceded it worked, he said he'd still vote against it(!).

Your verb tense is off here. The right way to phrase it would be "When he finally conceded it worked, he said he still would have voted against it." That's important because the point is that given the basis for decision that existed at the time of the vote, it was the right vote. The Administration had been floundering, shifting tactics and strategies - serially embarrassed by the facts on the ground in Iraq - there was no reason to give this plan any greater credibility than any of the countless failures that preceded it. You seem to be trying to imply that Obama claimed that even with foreknowledge he'd have voted against it. That's a hard case to make.

You're correct about the verb tense (doh!), but he wasn't basing his statement on existing intel at the time. He was basing it off knowing that the Surge would work. Also, it wasn't Bush's plan--for quite a while, he sided with Rumsfeld's terrible light footprint model. It's really the doing of Petraeus, McCain, Lindsey Graham, etc. that we have a surge, not George Bush. Bush was dragged screaming, metaphorically speaking.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Now, I found a poll about Americans living in Israel (it stands to reason many of them are Jewish). I'm fairly sure that's not the initial survey that I saw. And it's not what you claimed it was.

I never said a thing about Americans living in Israel. I was referring to American Jews, 75% of whom will vote for Obama, despite what you mistakenly believe are compelling reasons not to.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: You're right, I do not. Not when Politico and others say they would release it.

Let's see the links to Politico and all of the others who have said they would release it.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Why do you think they want to keep it hush hush?

I'm not like you; I don't pretend to have information I don't actually have. All I can tell you is what the LA Times itself claims: They don't have permission from their source to release the tape. Let me ask you a direct question and we'll see if you can provide a direct answer: If the source who gave the tape to the LA Times really did want it released, why doesn't he release it to someone else? I'll be here waiting while you think of an answer.

I never said a thing about Americans living in Israel. I was referring to American Jews, 75% of whom will vote for Obama, despite what you mistakenly believe are compelling reasons not to.

Again, considering that I never said that American Jews don't, overall, support Obama, I don't see where your point has relevance. Instead of addressing my actual points, you're just citing basic, accepted polling data. For your second point,
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/2...-khalidi-tape/ I will ask you again: Why is there an effort to keep this Khalidi video hush hush?

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Again, considering that I never said that American Jews don't, overall, support Obama, I don't see where your point has relevance. Instead of addressing my actual points, you're just citing basic, accepted polling data.

For your second point,
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/2...-khalidi-tape/

I will ask you again: Why is there an effort to keep this Khalidi video hush hush?

Because the people who have it made an agreement they feel bound by? That doesn;t seem so hard to understand, Politico's risk free assertions aside.

Quoting mvantony: I'll try one more time. I'm not talking about any need for statements. l'm simply saying that BhTV looks bad ... [blah blah blah blah].

Your concern is noted, though not believed. Repetition is not helping.

You're dodging the issue here. What in the world would motivate anyone to want to hide it? They can provide a transcript, independently verified, without releasing the video itself. To NOT do so is entirely irresponsible. If Barack Obama is on tape calling Israel a genocidal state, a racist state, or making any other comments that his close associations and own comments suggest he might have made, then it is imperative that we learn it before we elevate such a man to the Presidency.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: You're dodging the issue here. What in the world would motivate anyone to want to hide it? They can provide a transcript, independently verified, without releasing the video itself.

To NOT do so is entirely irresponsible. If Barack Obama is on tape calling Israel a genocidal state, a racist state, or making any other comments that his close associations and own comments suggest he might have made, then it is imperative that we learn it before we elevate such a man to the Presidency.

Jeeze. You're using your own preferred narrative to attempt to illuminate something about which it's not possible for you to have knowledge. "Hide it?" LA Times announced they have it. They've stated a perfectly plausible explanation for not releasing it. Without evidence contradicting that statement, everything else is speculative nonsense.

The LA Times has provided a shifting explanation while rejecting responsible, legitimate means to do their job. Their job is to report news to the American people, and what is on that tape is news. The very fact that there is a concentrated effort to hide what is on the tape suggests that there is something there. Again, what reasonable objection would one have to providing a transcript? Why do you not want to know?

Quoting cognitive madisonian: The LA Times has provided a shifting explanation while rejecting responsible, legitimate means to do their job. Their job is to report news to the American people, and what is on that tape is news. The very fact that there is a concentrated effort to hide what is on the tape suggests that there is something there.

Again, what reasonable objection would one have to providing a transcript? Why do you not want to know?

I would guess the same reason as not releasing the video, since its an equivalent act.

Except that there is a reasonable, widespread outcry to release that information. And there is no reasonable objection to not releasing that information.

Quoting AemJeff: Because the people who have it made an agreement they feel bound by? That doesn;t seem so hard to understand, Politico's risk free assertions aside.

Yes, and I'd like to hear cog. mad.'s answer to this:

Quoting TwinSwords: Let me ask you a direct question and we'll see if you can provide a direct answer: If the source who gave the tape to the LA Times really did want it released, why doesn't he release it to someone else?

Seems to me like you're ducking the question, cog. Also seems to me that you, like Whatfur, have no idea how the news business really works.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Except that there is a reasonable, widespread outcry to release that information. And there is no reasonable objection to not releasing that information.

Same argument could be said of the demand to Woodward and Bernstein that they reveal the identity of "Deep Throat." Do you think they were right to stick to the bargain they made with him?

When you have Politico, the leading source of online election coverage, saying that they would release the information in question, I suggest you not feel the urge to lecture me on the media business.

You are conflating the matter of identity vs. information. What if Woodward and Bernstein instead decided to suppress the information about Nixon's crew's malfeasance? That is what the LAT is doing.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: You are conflating the matter of identity vs. information. What if Woodward and Bernstein instead decided to suppress the information about Nixon's crew's malfeasance? That is what the LAT is doing.

No. You are trying to exaggerate the differences to obfuscate the bottom line: a reporter or reporters made a deal with a source, and they're honoring the terms of their agreement.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: When you have Politico, the leading source of online election coverage, saying that they would release the information in question, I suggest you not feel the urge to lecture me on the media business.

Nice attempt at pomposity. Failed, though. Your saying that Politico has some special authority doesn't make it so. And, as I think Jeff pointed out above, it's easy for someone who doesn't have the tape to say they'd release the tape. That and four bucks gets you a latte. Politico isn't doing anything different from the mouth-foaming wingnutosphere -- trying to put pressure on the LAT with empty rhetoric because it's the latest shiny object the McCain campaign has dangled in front of them. I'll tell you this much, if what you say about Politico is true: they're hurting their chances with potential confidential sources down the road.

There is no revelation of the source. There is only revelation of the substance. It is a crime against Democracy to not reveal what could be a revealing of the type of bigotry that should disqualify anyone from gaining elected office.

So now Politico is lumped in the same category as the 'mouth-foaming wingnutosphere' because they would be responsible and release the tape. Hmmm... For the record, do you consider all bloggers right of yourself to be 'mouth-foaming wingnutosphere' members? Because this is hardly on the fringe, unlike the truly absurd lines against Obama. This is a mainstream issue.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: There is no revelation of the source. There is only revelation of the substance. It is a crime against Democracy to not reveal what could be a revealing of the type of bigotry that should disqualify anyone from gaining elected office.

You think you're going to convince me by sheer repetition and hyperbole? Not to mention an asinine attempt to say that Obama is a bigot because of something someone else may or may not have said? Do you wingnuts ever think before you type?

Quoting cognitive madisonian: So now Politico is lumped in the same category as the 'mouth-foaming wingnutosphere' because they would be responsible and release the tape. Hmmm...

They are on this one, yup. And your premise that it would be "responsible" to release the tape is absurd. What is responsible for a news organization is honoring the commitments they make to their sources. I acknowledge that this does not extend to covering up crimes, but I hardly think that's what's at play here.

For the record, do you consider all bloggers right of yourself to be 'mouth-foaming wingnutosphere' members?

Nope. But then, most non-foaming bloggers to the right of me aren't doing anything except laughing at (or uncomfortably looking to distance themselves from) the wingnutosphere.

Because this is hardly on the fringe, unlike the truly absurd lines against Obama. This is a mainstream issue.

Empty assertion. Try typing it in all caps. That usually helps.

Well, I find it a far more interesting endeavor to probe your political compass than convince you of the responsibility of releasing information about a candidate's positions. If Barack Obama gave a toast praising Pol Pot, and extolling his brand of collectivism, and this was given to the LAT, but then magically, after a series of other excuses, the source claims that they don't want it released, would you side with that phantom source? I certainly hope not. This is a bogus excuse and you know it. Why you are comfortable with NOT knowing about your candidate, I know not. But what I would like to know is who precisely you consider to not be a "wingnut". Considering this has popped up on NRO, Hotair, and other rather mainstream conservative blogs, I think your judgment of the blogosphere is rather off.

Ad hominem doesn't win you arguments.

Quoting TwinSwords: What concerns me is that a guy living in Israel has for weeks been carrying water in the effort to defame and smear one of our political candidates, associating himself with the most divisive and extreme elements of the far right: Daniel Pipes, Debbie Schlussel, kidneystones, Jerome Corsi, et al., all because (I assume) he feels it is in Israel's interests to see McCain elected.

Though I passionately defend mvantony's right to free speech — a value he evidently deplores, anxious as he is to sanction me for daring to talk back to him — I won't just ignore his constant attempts to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt by transmitting the discredited lies of the most extreme elements of the right wing.

Yes, I'm concerned about Obama, and have been speaking out because of the possible implications the realization of my worst fears about him could have for my country. I've always presented arguments for my (honest!) concerns, and have always formulated my positions as carefully as I could to reflect the level of confidence I felt. At no time have I been trying to "spread lies," "smear" Obama, or be in any other way dishonest. In fact I've said many

I remember an Ann Althouse BH in which she noted that the left seems to exhibit a bit more bile than the right, on the blogosphere. The BH forum illustrates this (apologies to non-bile spewing lefties).

Quoting mvantony: Bob decides what kinds of content he wants. He can decide whether and how much he willing to put up with angry, insulting, ad hominem attacks directed at commenters by his Moderators. It has nothing to do with free speech.

Good luck with this appeal to Bob's conscience. Our forum complaints, while not falling entirely on deaf ears, are often repeated and obviously ignored or unaddressed. Wouldn't you include your pal kidneystones in the ad hominem attack group? He also seems to be concerned about the quality control of the site. Although he focuses on the business model more than the quality of comments.
Also, aren't you overplaying the moderator card? You seem to want it both ways - having conceded you understand the spam monitoring role - you return to the concern for hypothetical viewers? In the end it is about free speech.

This diavlog was awesome! Eli Lake, You're the man. I'm a big big John McWhorter fan but I would love an Eli v John on Hip Hop. This diavlog had two guys who knew what they were talking about and there was no shortage of details. As a huge hip hop fan I was in heaven, Blogginghead & Hip Hop what could be better. PS:Eli, you're definitely climbing the ladder toward my favorite head. Keep it real.

I agree with gregman4 We need a Jeff Chang /John McWhorter debate about the last issue. Mainstream Gangster-Rap, is now being celebrated in the media and academic world. (This became evident when 3-6 mafia received an academy award for the song 'Hard Out Here For a Pimp.' ) Is the pugnaciousness posturing of mainstream gangster-rap actually harmful to minorities at this point as 1. a self-inflicted alienation and 2. encouraging minorities to take part in less-than-redeemable behavior : pimping/drugs/gangs/murder, or even innate materialism. Is a comparison to punk-rock or clint-eastwood movies valid? I'm leaning towards John McWhorter at this point, but Jeff Chang seems like the most qualified to offer an alternative point of view. Please set up this Jeff Chang/John McWhorter debate!

It's not an insult... Barack Obama will kill a lot of Taliban and radical Muslims while he's the President of the United States. You said you don't support him. I am asking you is this why you don't support Barack Obama for President?

Quoting thornybranch: Please set up this Jeff Chang/John McWhorter debate!

Seconded!

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I remember an Ann Althouse BH in which she noted that the left seems to exhibit a bit more bile than the right, on the blogosphere. The BH forum illustrates this (apologies to non-bile spewing lefties).

Boo fucking hoo. Look, I'll tell you why. Our side is debating about stuff like taxes, energy, the economy, and the future. Your side is calling our side fake Americans, socialists, traitors, and terrorist sympathizers. So try to understand why we're a little pissed off. It's not like we're alone in this.

Quoting claymisher:

Quoting some troll: I remember an Ann Althouse BH in which she noted that the left seems to exhibit a bit more bile than the right, on the blogosphere. The BH forum illustrates this (apologies to non-bile spewing lefties).

Boo fucking hoo.

Look, I'll tell you why. Our side is debating about stuff like taxes, energy, the economy, and the future. Your side is calling our side fake Americans, socialists, traitors, and terrorist sympathizers. So try to understand why we're a little pissed off. It's not like we're alone in this.

Good points, clay. But I can't stop giggling at the thought of Althouse griping about other people's bile. Bonus.

Look, I'll tell you why. Our side is debating about stuff like taxes, energy, the economy, and the future. Your side is calling our side fake Americans, socialists, traitors, and terrorist sympathizers. So try to understand why we're a little pissed off. It's not like we're alone in this.

In case you missed it, "my side" (I voted for Kerry in '04, mind you) is also talking about taxes, energy, the economy, and the future. Quite a bit, actually. When Barack Obama was running ads talking about McCain's shoes, we were talking about the need to open up offshore drilling. When he attacked McCain for his houses, we talked about his plans to raise taxes. When he lambasted McCain for having foreign-made cars, we were talking about the need to have pro-growth, not pro-welfare state, policies. So, please spare me this little soap opera. I won't speak for you, but there is an anti-Democratic sentiment growing in the Left. The kind that produces Accountability America, a blatant Brownshirt organization. The kind that desires to put the previous administration on trial. The kind that does not intellectually engage, but rather demonizes their opponents. The kind that looks the other way as ACORN engages in systematic registration fraud, with assistance from the Obama campaign, as Obama

Quoting cognitive madisonian: ... desires to put the previous administration on trial. ... longs for a 60 seat majority so they can disregard the rest of the country.

It is to dream, isn't it? Not to worry, though. I never get what I wish for.

Thanks for confirming my point about the dictatorial leanings of some on the New Left You appear to like the idea of a banana republic. One side massively and furtively outspends the other, puts the previous administration on trial, and silences its critics.

cogmad, you're playing the false equivalency game, and you're losing. A couple of Obama's ads have strayed into triviality. McCain has stayed squarely in bullshit territory. WTF is "The American president Americans have been waiting for"? What is that supposed to mean? Read some of Obama's and Biden's speeches and compare them to McCain's and Palins's. If you're measuring on bullshit there's no comparison. McCain/Palin is the clear winner. It would really, really suck to be a McCain supporter. It takes a lot of cognitive effort to maintain that level of denial. It would really, really suck to have to defend "drill baby drill", "pallin' around with terrorists", and "You can see Russia from Alaska." I guess that's why so many Republicans have jumped ship. He's made it awful hard on them. It is easy to support Obama. He sticks to the issues. He keeps his priorities straight. He's making the case. It was not always easy supporting Kerry, or Gore, or Clinton. Especially Clinton. Both Clintons come to think of it. Those guys had problems. Obama strikes me a guy who knows what his job is, and tries to do that job as well as he can. If wingers could just take of their

For example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X3eE18dfmE#t=7m54s

Thirded!! Although a Jeff Chang/Ta-Nahisi Coates diavlog would be off the hizook, as well!

Do you think Chang and Coates would disagree about much?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Thirded!!

Fourthed. And Bobby G has a point about the value of counter-point that McWhorter/Chang might offer.

Quoting handle: Why aren't you fighting for Iraqi freedom? If you have a physical excuse, then how much money have you given to the cause? How much volunteer work have you done? Why don't you come to the US and volunteer at the VA hospitals? Nature has a way of limiting the numbers of ideological zealots... it's called war.

To my great shame, I am not fighting for Iraqi freedom. Although, two members of my immediate family have. I would chalk that up to my age, although close -- i am not beyond enlistment age-- I have no excuse. I would say that I would enlist if our government resorted to conscription in order to guarantee a democracy there-- this of course means nothing unless conscription happens-- so it is an unprovable point for me in this argument. Besides I would never want take credit for some courage that I had not earned-- those men and women fighting over have earned it, not me. Criticizing me for my lack of service and the types of arguments I make by questioning what I have done does not invalidate my arguments-- its kind of rude. What exactly are your "bonafides" in this regard?--actually don't answer that I don't care. Know that

I wasn't thinking so much about ideological differences, but a more knowledgable discussion on hip hop.

Yeah, one place where I see an interesting discussion developing is with regard to Coates's gradual disenchantment with rap and his moving to alternative indie rock. Though I don't think he'll get static from Chang for that. Not that argument is the only way a discussion can get interesting.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: bookofdisquiet,

you're making my head spin with your alternating posts celebrating democracy and freedom as the noblest goals of humanity worth killing people over by the thousands with posts saying that people who oppose wars should "shut up" and applauding military "management" of the media.

As for guilt, I say thank God for guilt and conscience. Its the people who don't experience those emotions that I worry about not the people who do. By the way, as for what McNamara did during the War it's not me or Bil Ayers who defends that, it's you.

Well, I told you I had no illusions about the conduct of the Vietnam War. And, I think McNamara's use of "body count" to frame success in a war was a mistake on a lot of levels. But still, undoubtably the South Vietnamese would have fought for their freedom without U.S. soldiers and did so until the Congress pulled support. My point about shut-up wasn't to shout anyone down-- and any citizen conscripted into that war should have objected to the usurping of their freedom-- so there were elements of that era's resistance that were noble. But ultimately, an objection to supporting

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Thanks for confirming my point about the dictatorial leanings of some on the New Left

You appear to like the idea of a banana republic. One side massively and furtively outspends the other, puts the previous administration on trial, and silences its critics.

To tell you the truth, I really don't. I think we all have our fantasies about putting our political opponents into reeducation camps, but that's all they are for me -- fantasies. And thanks for the smiley -- I think we are really not so far apart here. But, as far as "puts the previous administration on trial" goes, ahem. I am not looking for a Soviet-style pogrom directed at the previous group in power, but I do think there needs to be some serious investigation into the probable excesses of the past eight years. As I have said elsewhere on this forum, I think the most attractive approach would be something along the lines of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Much as I like to imagine Dick Cheney and cronies spending the rest of their days in Gitmo -- there's one of those fantasies again -- I am not especially thirsty for vendettas. Nor do I think it

I can understand the frustration that some have had with the Bush administration. I don't really disagree with it, but I can at least understand the concerns from a civil libertarian perspective. But let's put this in historical context:
George Washington had deserters executed during the American Revolution
Abe Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War
Woodrow Wilson jailed political rivals and squelched dissent.
FDR put Japanese Americans in internment camps And then we could also get into all of the spying done on anti-war groups during the Vietnam war. The idea that certain adjustments aren't made during times of war doesn't stand up to historical analysis. Just imagine if Wilson had been president during an attack on American soil. Bush has been incredibly lenient in this regard. I see no 'crimes' worth pursuing. I share Ann Althouse's philosophy on this--if you think he's guilty of something, impeach him. If not, unless the President has killed people, been rapist, etc. then it is not worth it to pursue investigations.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I can understand the frustration that some have had with the Bush administration. I don't really disagree with it, but I can at least understand the concerns from a civil libertarian perspective.

Glad to hear that.

But let's put this in historical context:
George Washington had deserters executed during the American Revolution
Abe Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War
Woodrow Wilson jailed political rivals and squelched dissent.
FDR put Japanese Americans in internment camps

And then we could also get into all of the spying done on anti-war groups during the Vietnam war.

Yes, but we now view all of those actions as wrong, or at least excessive, or at the very least, that even if we could grant the circumstances, we should not repeat these things, and we should build mechanisms to ensure that. We only make progress by learning from mistakes. We should not use the existence of earlier mistakes to justify repeating them.

The idea that certain adjustments aren't made during times of war doesn't stand up to historical analysis.

Who said it did?

Just imagine if Wilson had been president during an attack on American soil. Bush has been incredibly

To be honest, I find the very use of the term 'truth and reconcilliation comission' to be galling at the very least. Let's not kid ourselves: We know the term because of post-Apartheid South Africa. Do you honestly mean to draw allusions to South Africa? A big problem is that you don't appear to have charges. Rather, you're wanting to establish a committee to look for charges. If you don't have charges, and if you don't have a sufficient movement for impeachment, I think that really says something about the need to have such an action. Many people condemned some of Clinton's late pardons. I think some of them were blatantly unethical, to say the least. But I don't even care if a few of them were actually illegal, I hate the idea of bringing up the past administration on charges. Madeleine Albright sabotaged every effort to stop the Rwandan Genocide; because of she and Mitterand, the radical Hutu militias were able to turn what would've been several thousand deaths into roughly 1 million deaths. Surely this sabotage of international action, resulting in a genocide on par with the worst of human history, is worse than anything you can

Quoting cognitive madisonian: To be honest, I find the very use of the term 'truth and reconcilliation comission' to be galling at the very least. Let's not kid ourselves: We know the term because of post-Apartheid South Africa. Do you honestly mean to draw allusions to South Africa?

In the sense of them having had a very mature way of dealing with a very messy situation, sure. One could argue about where South Africa is today, but at the time, I thought they avoided the very real possibility of a bloodbath. I believe the term has been used in other countries, as well. But if you want to appoint yourself branding consultant, I'm all ears. ;^)

A big problem is that you don't appear to have charges. Rather, you're wanting to establish a committee to look for charges. If you don't have charges, and if you don't have a sufficient movement for impeachment, I think that really says something about the need to have such an action.

Fair enough. I should have been clearer -- I've talked about this often enough that I slurred over some of the details. There should be investigations first, before there is a response to the results, T&RC or otherwise. Sure. I am confident -- just about

At the risk of picking at a healing scab:

Quoting cognitive madisonian: When you have Politico, the leading source of online election coverage, saying that they would release the information in question, I suggest you not feel the urge to lecture me on the media business.

And later:

Quoting cognitive madisonian: But what I would like to know is who precisely you consider to not be a "wingnut". Considering this has popped up on NRO, Hotair, and other rather mainstream conservative blogs, I think your judgment of the blogosphere is rather off.

I knew I should have followed your even earlier link to the Hot Air post quoting Politico before now. Could have saved some squabbling. Where Hot Air's quote of Politico leaves off:

The answer to that question is yes — Politico and most news outlets constantly make available videos and documents, after describing them in part, which is why the Times’ decision not to release the video is puzzling. My instinct, and many reporters’, is to share as much source material as possible.

From that same Politico post, the very next paragraph:

Critics have suggested that the Times is witholding the video for political reasons, but there are other possibilities: competitive reasons, or simply out of

In the sense of them having had a very mature way of dealing with a very messy situation, sure. One could argue about where South Africa is today, but at the time, I thought they avoided the very real possibility of a bloodbath.

I'm not arguing against the T&RC in South Africa; on the contrary, I think it was necessary and was positive. Of course, it moreso delayed the trouble that we're seeing now. But I don't see where this is a 'very messy' situation. Not at all.

I am confident -- just about certain -- there is lots to find, though. I point to the number of Bush appointees who have refused to testify before Congress and/or under oath, even when served subpoenas. Clearly, they're afraid of the right questions. Ditto the larger number who have been there, but said nothing more than "I don't recall."

A similar thing happened under Clinton--there were people involved with the Clinton administration who refused to testify in Congress. The real wingnuts said "they're afraid for their lives!" Furthermore, folks on the fringes of the right always talked about the need to bring up Clinton administration officials for charges or investigations. Reno for WACO. Albright for some other things. The

people-of-color, one of my favorite code words. kinda like a rainbow coalition with a sliding gray-scale! agh, U.S. urban-contemporary thought!

bookofdisquiet, No one's defending Saddam. You ask whatever happened to Saddam? He was executed, if you didn't hear. If you really still believe that Abu Ghraib or other U.S. abuses in the War on Terror/Islam were about a few "bad apples" who have all been punished then you are simply not looking very hard and instead choosing to just accept the Bush administration line. That's not a good idea if you want to know what's really been going on. Balance and context is good and I agree with you its sometimes hard to find...but a lot of it lies in the eyes of the beholder. I actually think it's a very interesting discussion how to compare the injustices of natives versus foreigners and how does one real put that into the proper context, but its well beyond what we can accomplish in a comments thread. Similarly if you have actual questions about Qutb I've no problem discussing them with you, if you want to have a long debate and prove to me that Qutb is wrong or evil, I'm probably not that interested...right now, at least...maybe some

(Same two pre-apologies as in my last reply to you. [Added] Turned out I had less to say this time, but I'd already pruned the quotes. Sorry.)

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I'm not arguing against the T&RC in South Africa; on the contrary, I think it was necessary and was positive. Of course, it moreso delayed the trouble that we're seeing now.

But I don't see where this is a 'very messy' situation. Not at all.

My take: the ongoing problem of the imperial presidency has gotten to the point where "unitary executive" is now within the Overton Window. Scary. Other probs, briefly: US image worldwide in the toilet. Citizen respect and trust in gov't at record lows, domestically.

A similar thing happened under Clinton [...]

My sense of Clinton's pardons compared to my deep suspicions of the Bush Administration is that we're talking petty larceny compared to crimes against the Constitution. Potentially. I don't at all accept that because you aren't convinced that we therefore shouldn't pursue a comprehensive investigation. Few initially thought the Watergate burglary amounted to anything until Woodward and Bernstein started digging, don't forget.

For Albright, I'd recommend Philip Gourevitch's We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will be Killed with Our Families. It's very good, devoted

Quoting Uhurusasa: people-of-color, one of my favorite code words. kinda like a rainbow coalition with a sliding gray-scale! agh, U.S. urban-contemporary thought!

Long time ago, when I still watched SNL, they had a funny bit about the evolution of the preferred terminology: colored people -> Negros -> blacks -> Blacks -> Afro-Americans -> African-Americans -> people of color.

Quoting bjkeefe: My take: the ongoing problem of the imperial presidency has gotten to the point where "unitary executive" is now within the Overton Window. Scary.

Now? As opposed to when? It didn't have the catchy names in WW1 or WW2 but it was there. I know we've been through this, but establishing that the President in time of war through the course of American history has exercised expanded use of power, you can not then claim that this is somehow unique. Anyway, there are quite a few things that I would argue are being introduced into the Overton Window with Obama that I find very disturbing.

Other probs, briefly: US image worldwide in the toilet. Citizen respect and trust in gov't at record lows, domestically.

Citizen trust in the media is also in the toilet, should we investigate the big media, too? It helps to have comparison and context here. For instance, when you say "worldwide", what do you mean? The Muslim world? That's not going to change, unless the US disavows its link with Israel, a decision that I find to be entirely unacceptable. Western Europe? What real relevance does this have? What about Colombia? Obama hurled a reckless and untrue charge against Uribe in the third debate. Think that

colored people -> Negros -> blacks -> Blacks -> Afro-Americans -> African-Americans -> people of color.

Mexicans > Chicanos > Mexican-Americans > Hispanics > Latinos > Mexicans. The concentric circles of pride and prejudice.

people-of-color, one of my favorite code words. kinda like a rainbow coalition with a sliding gray-scale! agh, U.S. urban-contemporary thought!

I have a friend, a teacher from Argentina, who teaches at an elite prep school. The school sent her to a conference for teachers and students "of color." Major culture shock for her, since at age 45 it had never occurred to her before that she was a person of color. Live and learn. I figure it was just the school trying to inflate their numbers of minority hires. But yes, we Americans sometimes get carried away with our diversity demarcations.

Quoting Wonderment: Mexicans > Chicanos > Mexican-Americans > Hispanics > Latinos > Mexicans.

The concentric circles of pride and prejudice.

Nice.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Now? As opposed to when? It didn't have the catchy names in WW1 or WW2 but it was there. I know we've been through this, but establishing that the President in time of war through the course of American history has exercised expanded use of power, you can not then claim that this is somehow unique.

Good point. I'd say, however, that there is still (mostly always has been) this creep towards an ever-stronger executive branch, and not just in matters of war. Think DHS, for a recent example. Think of the toothlessness that Congressional oversight and inspectors-general have shown lately. Think of the repeated acquiescence of the courts whenever the "matter of national security" card got played, since late 2001. And as far as war goes, remember when we used to obey the Constitution and require that Congress declare war before the president could start ordering attacks? Granted, things aren't as cut and dried in the use of military force as they were when that document was drawn up, but I'd like to see better effort to get back to the spirit of that law, anyway.

Citizen trust in the media is also in the toilet, should

Quoting bjkeefe: Good point. I'd say, however, that there is still (mostly always has been) this creep towards an ever-stronger executive branch, and not just in matters of war. Think DHS, for a recent example. Think of the toothlessness that Congressional oversight and inspectors-general have shown lately. Think of the repeated acquiescence of the courts whenever the "matter of national security" card got played, since late 2001.

Ya know, sometimes that 'toothlessness' is because there aren't reasonable objections, and the issues with so called oversight just show a wild goose hunt. When Ken Starr failed to produce actionable evidence in his investigations of Clinton, some on the right whined of toothlessness, of caving in, of acquiescence. If you do not see the parallel then stop and hit rewind

And as far as war goes, remember when we used to obey the Constitution and require that Congress declare war before the president could start ordering attacks? Granted, things aren't as cut and dried in the use of military force as they were when that document was drawn up, but I'd like to see better effort to get back to the spirit of that law, anyway.

That's really an antiquated

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Just out of curiosity, you aren't a fan of the FAIRNESS doctrine, are you?

Correct. I am not.

So does LGF pass the 'not a wingnut' test?

No. As with my other response, sorry: just not up for continuing either of these threads, and wanted to let you know that I'd read your responses. ttyl.

Ah, a stalemate it shall be then.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Ah, a stalemate it shall be then.

Or perhaps just adjourned.

I prefer stalemate. Adjourned entails a sense of closure or decisiveness

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I prefer stalemate. Adjourned entails a sense of closure or decisiveness

I was thinking in chess terms, where an adjourned game is, IIRC, one that is stopped for the moment, and resumed later if needed (as in a multigame match that is too close to call).

That actually does make sense then. I loathe chess almost as much as I loathe voting D this year, so the term was lost on me.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: That actually does make sense then. I loathe chess almost as much as I loathe voting D this year, so the term was lost on me.

Oh really? Why? I loved chess when I was a kid and through my mid-teens, and I only stopped playing when I went away to school and couldn't find anyone good to play. I haven't the patience to pick it back up to the point where I could play seriously, but I'm still up for a game anytime. Is it the time thing? Have you ever played with a clock? That makes things a lot more fun. Doesn't have to be speed chess. Just enough to keep people from trying to win by fatigue; say, 15 min per side, or if online, 10 mins per side, with 10 secs added back to your clock after every move made. [Added] What did you do to fill the void where chess would have lived?

Quoting bookofdisquiet: To my great shame, I am not fighting for Iraqi freedom. Although, two members of my immediate family have. I would chalk that up to my age, although close -- i am not beyond enlistment age-- I have no excuse. I would say that I would enlist if our government resorted to conscription in order to guarantee a democracy there-- this of course means nothing unless conscription happens-- so it is an unprovable point for me in this argument. Besides I would never want take credit for some courage that I had not earned-- those men and women fighting over have earned it, not me.

Criticizing me for my lack of service and the types of arguments I make by questioning what I have done does not invalidate my arguments-- its kind of rude. What exactly are your "bonafides" in this regard?--actually don't answer that I don't care. Know that my job requires me to wear a pistol on my hip everyday -- now, that certainly is not Fallujah or anything like it-- but at least I'm willing to risk my life to stop one group of people preying on another.

As for what am I doing? I donate money when I can to wounded soldiers

Quoting bjkeefe: Oh really? Why?

Because I was never any good at it I much prefer poker. Still a strategy game, but one where I can get a greater feel for the opponent's psychological mindset and adjust my game off it.

Is it the time thing? Have you ever played with a clock? That makes things a lot more fun. Doesn't have to be speed chess. Just enough to keep people from trying to win by fatigue; say, 15 min per side, or if online, 10 mins per side, with 10 secs added back to your clock after every move made.

A timer would make it better, though it probably wouldn't evelate my terrible chess game.

[Added] What did you do to fill the void where chess would have lived?

Poker.

I see your point and I agree-- I wouldn't have wanted my relatives to have to have fought in Iraq under the same types of constraints as Vietnam without a supportive public. Protesters (not all) in the sixties were spitting on vets and calling them baby killers-- that's what I meant by cowardice. That anti-war movement is part of what caused those constraints in Vietnam. I'm not gung-ho on war, I just know that soldiers who are fighting and dieing in Iraq right now are making sure my children won't have to go there in their lifetimes. Just like how the soldiers in Vietnam fought so that my generation didn't have to go fight the communists in Singapore or Indonesia. War is horrible, but necessary if it saves more lives in the future. The militant Islamists aren't going to go away.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Because I was never any good at it

Heh. Yeah, I've abandoned more than one game in my life for the same reason. I guess it depends on being lucky enough to have opponents of the right skill level available at the time when you're just dipping your toe into the water.

I much prefer poker. Still a strategy game, but one where I can get a greater feel for the opponent's psychological mindset and adjust my game off it.

Poker has always appealed to me in the abstract in this way, but I never liked it in real life. Felt like I was taking advantage of friends, or they me, and the money part of it just made it feel that much more ugly. It's no fun at all to play unless the stakes are high enough, but as soon as they are, too many hard feelings are generated. That was my experience, anyway. I still wish I had a group of poker buddies, though, and I love reading books where poker playing is a central theme.

Ever see the Star Trek NG episode that begins with the crew playing poker? Over...and over...? One of my favorite episodes (although poker isn't really central to the plot.) The idea of losing $ (like I did last weekend in Vegas) makes me ill. The idea of my friend rubbing it in my face only increases the violence of the illness. Never been a big poker player for that reason.

I guess you either need too much money to not care about it or too little money to bet anything beyond a pittance.

Well argued and I agree with your previous post.

Totally true... militant, anti-democratic Islamism is going to be with us for the rest of our lives.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Ever see the Star Trek NG episode that begins with the crew playing poker? Over...and over...? One of my favorite episodes (although poker isn't really central to the plot.)

Never got into TNG. I was a diehard TOS fan, to the point of loving the first Star Trek movie, but by the time TNG came along, I had grown out of Star Trek enough so that TNG became just another TV show. I saw a few, and liked some of the characters, but it never became must-see TV.

The idea of losing $ (like I did last weekend in Vegas) makes me ill. The idea of my friend rubbing it in my face only increases the violence of the illness. Never been a big poker player for that reason.

Exactly, on both counts.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Ok so where are Woodward and Bernstein? I'll make a deal with you: when an eager reporter uncovers a big scoop, then we can talk about an investigation.

Belated follow-up, from a piece on Seymour Hersh (via) late last month:

... he is hopeful that Obama will pull it off, and if he does, for Hersh this will be a starting gun. 'You cannot believe how many people have told me to call them on 20 January [the date of the next president's inauguration],' he says, with relish. '[They say:] "You wanna know about abuses and violations? Call me then." So that is what I'll do, so long as nothing awful happens before the inauguration.' He plans to write a book about the neocons and, though it won't change anything - 'They've got away with it, categorically; anyone who talks about prosecuting Bush and Cheney [for war crimes] is kidding themselves' - it will reveal how the White House 'set out to sabotage the system... It wasn't that they found ways to manipulate Congressional oversight; they had conversations about ending the right of Congress to intervene.'

Know hope.

Hersh, the guy who was peddling a silly scare about Bush starting WWIII if he got reelected back in '04. He basically ruined whatever credibility he had left with that. So now we have the "Wait till then" line. If I'm not mistaken, Larry Johnson or whatever his name is did that with the Michelle Obama tape-that-did-not-exist. "Just wait."

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Hersh, the guy who was peddling a silly scare about Bush starting WWIII if he got reelected back in '04. He basically ruined whatever credibility he had left with that.

For you, perhaps. He still commands a lot of respect with a lot of other people.

If I'm not mistaken, Larry Johnson or whatever his name is did that with the Michelle Obama tape-that-did-not-exist. "Just wait."

Idiotic comparison of the month.

So it's ok that he spreads ludicrous and unfounded conspiracies? That puts him in wingnut territory. Yes, wingnuttery is not limited to the right, though you may find this shocking to believe.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: So it's ok that he spreads ludicrous and unfounded conspiracies?

That puts him in wingnut territory. Yes, wingnuttery is not limited to the right, though you may find this shocking to believe.

Don't think you're characterizing SH's writings exactly right. Also, I don't doubt for a second that Bush, and especially Cheney, were actively planning to pick a fight with Iran. I think they were kept from carrying these plans out by several factors, one of which was Hersh's writing.

Quoting bjkeefe: Don't think you're characterizing SH's writings exactly right. Also, I don't doubt for a second that Bush, and especially Cheney, were actively planning to pick a fight with Iran. I think they were kept from carrying these plans out by several factors, one of which was Hersh's writing.

Wow. And maybe Michael Savage's inane fear mongering about the Dubai ports deal stopped the eeeeevil Arab takeover.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Wow. And maybe Michael Savage's inane fear mongering about the Dubai ports deal stopped the eeeeevil Arab takeover.

Don't know what Savage said, specifically, but probably he was a contributing factor, sure. (I don't know whether stopping the deal was itself a good thing or bad thing, just to be clear.)

The deal was fine and the objections were absurd. And, claiming that Sy Hersh has secret info and stopped an invasion of Iran without a shred of evidence beyond the words of a washed up hack is pretty irresponsible.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: The deal was fine and the objections were absurd. And, claiming that Sy Hersh has secret info and stopped an invasion of Iran without a shred of evidence beyond the words of a washed up hack is pretty irresponsible.

Your stridency is boring me. ttyl.

Quoting Uhurusasa: people-of-color, one of my favorite code words. kinda like a rainbow coalition with a sliding gray-scale! agh, U.S. urban-contemporary thought!

how many ways does people-of-color decode? who does it include? who does it exclude? who is the we, who is the they, and why? who is the arbiter? people-of-color equals non-europeans maybe?? Colored is a North American euphemism once widely regarded as a polite description of black people (i.e., persons of sub-Saharan African ancestry; members of the "Black race"). It should not be confused with the more recent term people of color, which attempts to describe all "non-white peoples", not just blacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Hersh, the guy who was peddling a silly scare about Bush starting WWIII if he got reelected back in '04. He basically ruined whatever credibility he had left with that.

Credibility this.