PDA

View Full Version : The Lecture


Bloggingheads
05-09-2008, 12:32 PM

osmium
05-09-2008, 12:41 PM
mickey with other people = awesome.

osmium
05-09-2008, 12:58 PM
p.s. a worse pander than the gas tax holiday: executing that retarded dude in arkansas.

Anyuser
05-09-2008, 12:58 PM
The reason Mickey is interesting is that he thinks for himself, whether you agree with him or not. The reason Alter is boring is that he collects and endorses clichés.

Joel_Cairo
05-09-2008, 01:07 PM
Boo-Yah Alter! (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10904?in=00:07:32&out=00:08:20)

Somewhere, Bob is grinning.

uncle ebeneezer
05-09-2008, 01:10 PM
I've always enjoyed Jon Alter when he's on cable shows. I'm glad he finally came to a "serious" political forum ;-)

PS though he's not as overtly obsessed with being contrarion the way Mickey is, Alter hardly seems like somebody who doesn't think for himself. I thought he was totally interesting. Good pairing.

uncle ebeneezer
05-09-2008, 01:15 PM
Thank you Jon Alter for giving Mickey a smackdown on his contarionism. (Although Bob's been hammering this point for years now.)

uncle ebeneezer
05-09-2008, 01:18 PM
Even worser pander: flag burning

graz
05-09-2008, 01:19 PM
These guys are friends. Jonathan did a risky thing, by publicly asking Mickey why he continues to call himself a neo-liberal. It was an intervention of sorts. Mickey rightfully got defensive but did not defend himself or counter Jonathan's charges well.
It was not a difference of opinions as much as being called out and shamed.
Mickey just happens to be shameless. Smart, funny and a democrat? Sometimes.
Bound against reason to contrarianism? Yes.
Convinced that his blog is valuable? Undoubtably.
Anti-immigration? Brown and Black averse? You bet.
Jon told Mickey to get off his hobby-horses and get to work.
Somebody had to do it.

Bloggin' Noggin
05-09-2008, 01:27 PM
Haven't heard any of this yet, but I have to congratulate whoever came up with "hypercontrarian crypto-conservatism". Strikes me as a wonderfully concise (albeit tendentious) definition of Kausism.

Anyuser
05-09-2008, 01:43 PM
PS though he's not as overtly obsessed with being contrarion the way Mickey is, Alter hardly seems like somebody who doesn't think for himself. I thought he was totally interesting.

Really? Have you ever read one of Alter's Newsweek columns and thought to yourself, wow, I hadn't thought of it that way; Alter's got some real insight here.

However, my purpose is not to slam Alter's writings, which don't interest me. These ritual spankings of Mickey for thoughtcrime are ridiculous, anti-intellectual. I don't know why he sits still for them. They're not "smackdowns," they're ostracization like you'd see among junior high school girls. Questioning conventional wisdom is what Mickey does. For me it's an end in itself. For Alter, it's anathema.

Freddie
05-09-2008, 02:05 PM
Here's why I can't stand it when conservatives (and Mickey is a conservative) complain about the victim mentality or the politics of aggrievement: they always play them themselves! Listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Read a Jonah Goldberg column. Follow the history of the last 20 years of conservatism in general. It's all complaints and whining about being excluded and being biased against and being in the minority and generally being deeply, deeply discriminated against. That's precisely the complaint that conservatives make against black people, women, gays, etc. You can't complain about minority politics when you make identical complaints yourself, or so it seems to me.

uncle ebeneezer
05-09-2008, 02:10 PM
So Mickey wants a leader and is upset that Obama made the race speech only when it was convenient politically for his candidacy. A real leader makes important speeches at times that aren't politically calculated, therefore Obama is not a leader. Ok, so by that logic, Obama making an important race speech before the Wright situation would have shown that he's a great leader. BUT then Mickey says he doesn't want to be "lectured" by Obama (at any point, I'm assuming). I'm confused. What "leaders" does Mickey have in mind who made grand speeches and showed forward-thinking vision, at times that were completely unrelated to the political landscape of the times. Lincoln? Kennedy? MLKing? I bet if Mickey had been around for Lincoln he would be saying "I agree that slavery is wrong, but I don't want to be lectured by this guy. He's only pandering to the abolitionist movement. Why did he serve with with pro-slavery Senators for all those years? Etc., etc."

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 02:12 PM
Probably the most appropriate title for a diavlog in some time. With such respectful friends who needs enemies. On how many issues in this diavlog did Mr. Alter essentially agree with Mr. Kaus; and then in the next two or three sentences goes back to excoriating Mr. Kaus. To me Mr. Alter came across as a leftest moralistic judgmental prig.

graz
05-09-2008, 02:13 PM
These ritual spankings of Mickey for thoughtcrime are ridiculous, anti-intellectual... Questioning conventional wisdom is what Mickey does. For me it's an end in itself. For Alter, it's anathema.

I think most people grant Mickey his right to flout convention. What irks his friends (Bob, Jon, etc..) and would be fans is his inability to be an honest broker for his positions. Maybe because his book hailed him as a brilliant neo-lib he feels compelled to maintain the facade in name only.
He strikes me as a guy who fancies himself as an iconoclastic thinker... but rarely offers any ideas. Or as Jon highlighted, he maintains a steady drumbeat on the few hobby-horses that belie original thinking or liberalism. Lately his thinking is channeled into gossip and innuendo, denigrating the only hope for regime change in Washington and defending a label - neo-liberalism- that seems to exist in his mind only.

DWAnderson
05-09-2008, 02:14 PM
There is at least one person who offers a (roundabout) defense of the gas-tax holiday idea. See Bryan Caplan's piece in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/opinion/08caplan.html?_r=5&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login).

The reason that unions may favor more immigration (as I do BTW) may have nothing to do with the welfare of the workers they represent and everything to do with increasing union membership numbers and therefore the power and compensation of the union (in the form of its leadership and administration). That form increased power of the union does not necessarily translate into better compensation for its members.

graz
05-09-2008, 02:21 PM
So Mickey wants a leader and is upset that Obama made the race speech only when it was convenient politically for his candidacy. A real leader makes important speeches at times that aren't politically calculated, therefore Obama is not a leader. Ok, so by that logic, Obama making an important race speech before the Wright situation would have shown that he's a great leader. BUT then Mickey says he doesn't want to be "lectured" by Obama (at any point, I'm assuming). I'm confused.

Count me in the club of the confused.
This is the case in point. Mickey's greatest appeal is that he puts him self in indefensible positions. I guess he has found a marketable niche. Hmmm... maybe he is smarter than I thought.

uncle ebeneezer
05-09-2008, 02:30 PM
Anyuser, i confess that I don't read Newsweek that often because, usually it is difficult to find original thoughts in wide circulation weekly magazines such as Time and Newsweek. But Alter usually has interesting points when I see him on tv and he was great on this.

In his defense: Mickey is very good at taking a ribbing and still keeping a good sense of humor. And sometimes he even raises interesting points. This was a great diavlog.

travis68
05-09-2008, 02:35 PM
Alter is unbearably tedious. He needs to learn when to stop droning on. Alter wants Mickey to be more like Alter. Big surprise!

I fail to see why Mickey should blog about stuff that he doesn't find interesting or doesn't feel that he has anything to say. Basically, Alter wants Mickey to become more like the MSM: to repeat what everyone thinks is obvious. Has Alter stopped to consider that what he thinks is 'right' is actually wrong? Take this union issue. Alter wants unions to focus on raising wages. Perhaps he should study economics a little more and learn what happens when a union raises wages beyond what the market will bear. Surprise: fewer people are hired! Explain to me how that is going to help the bottom half of our society.

In regards to Hillary dropping out, if Hillary had won Indiana and NC by 10 points, Obama would likely have been mortally wounded. If she had continued to win the remaining states, super delegates likely would have switched to her. Obama might have had a lead in actual delegates, but he would have shown himself to be a weak candidate in the end. So Hillary was *right* to stay in. She had a shot to win, despite what this 'Slate Delegate Counter' said.

Alter is a living, walking, breathing caricature of the MSM. If Mickey ever becomes like him, it will be a sad day indeed.

David Thomson
05-09-2008, 02:36 PM
Mickey Kaus actually knows something about economics! Miracles do happen. He apparently was not completely damaged by attending Harvard University. Unions are a disaster for the overall economy. They prevent the creation of wealth. Poor people are helped by the "trickle down" impact of a growing economy. The evidence is abundantly clear on this point. Our poor live far better than most other human beings on the planet.

Kaus is also right concerning the harm caused by illegal aliens in the labor market. Our own poor are forced to compete with them for jobs. This inevitably lowers their pay.

uncle ebeneezer
05-09-2008, 02:52 PM
I thought Alter also hinted at a good analogy that again illustrates Mickey's ill-logic.

Obama claims to not be an angry/black, yet he listened to Wright's sermons, therefore Obama's failure to denounce Wrights views makes one skeptical of the claim that his attitudes are different than Wrights. Makes logical sense (although it's an EXTREMELY simplified, sound-bite view.)

Mickey Kaus claims to be a Democrat, yet he has endured 7 years of a president who has performed actions that go COMPLETELY against every principle that a "Democrat" should care about, and Mickey has been far less critical of Bush than almost every other Democrat-blogger. So it would be logical to question whether maybe Mickey shares ideology closer to Bush than to fellow Democrats.

I respect the fact that Mickey is independent and doesn't take the party line on every issue, but when you consistently take the GOP party-line on several major issues (immigration, welfare, unions etc.) AND you just sit back and let Bush administration activities go un-mentioned, AND you focus the brunt of your criticisms on Democrats (the more liberal the more criticism), I think it becomes an obvious question not of "which side are you on", but more approriately "who are you kidding?"

Mickey, come out of the closet already. You're a conservative. It's ok, we love you anyway, but stop living a lie.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 02:53 PM
Well put, Uncle Eb.

I'd add one point about Mickey's reaction to the speech: He's entitled to have his own reaction ("Don't lecture me!") but in all the times he's talked about the speech -- today, and several times with Bob -- he's never been able to talk about it in any terms besides his own personal feelings. (Nitpicking single lines excluded.) He usually can step back from an event or issue and consider how other people might see it, which makes this even more strange.

I'm not sure what's up here with him being so sensitive to being lectured by Obama. I mean, he took everything that was personal that Jonathan Alter said to him without flinching, and some of those criticisms were downright harsh.

Now that I think about it, Mickey said that he didn't like being lectured on something when he felt he was ahead of the person giving the speech. This kind of clanks, because I haven't heard much evidence of understanding racial issues from Mickey, to put it mildly. Maybe it's that he's so locked into wanting to think of social problems in terms of economic class that he refuses to let any new thinking on race intrude.

rcocean
05-09-2008, 03:03 PM
Alter is a perfect fit for Newsweek, boring, liberal, conventional, and trivial. The perfect soccer mom columnist to be read in the Dentists office.

Mickey is too good to be wasted with this droning bore. I suggest Bob match Alter up with Lake or (if you can get him) Bill Kristol. Kristol vs. Alter - a match made in heaven. (sarcasm too obvious for tagging).

BTW, unions have sold out their membership on open borders. One more reason why the left's pronounced love of the working class is all BS.

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 03:13 PM
You heard correctly but it was into Senator Obama inability to see just how bigoted, divisive and even hateful the Pastor's language while most others could see it for what it was. Talk about not bing able to see the point of views of others Senator Obama has provided you a good example.

bramble
05-09-2008, 03:43 PM
Odd thing about Alter's lecture: he tries to trip up Kaus with the cognitive dissonance in Kaus's ideology, but he trips himself up instead. Both of these men threw in with Clintonian centrism in the 1990s. Now that the Bush era has revealed the ugly truth that the Clinton era was not much more than a retrenchment period aimed at sweeping modern liberalism into the dustbin and filling the coffers for imperial projects, Alter feels a certain amount of guilt. Kaus doesn't. That's really the only thing that separates these two guys.

ohcomeon
05-09-2008, 03:44 PM
I've been wondering - since Dick Cheney flunked out of Yale is he still out to stick it to us non Ivy leaguers or is he even more on our side?

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 03:51 PM
You heard correctly but it was into Senator Obama inability to see just how bigoted, divisive and even hateful the Pastor's language while most others could see it for what it was. Talk about not bing able to see the point of views of others Senator Obama has provided you a good example.

Sorry, I completely disagree.

As you'll no doubt recall, I thought it was a great speech and said so at the time. Part of why I thought it was so good was exactly for that reason: that Obama could not only see different points of view on the issue, but could also articulate them so well. As I heard it, Obama was plenty clear on what things Wright said that he disagreed with, and how he understood why other people had reacted negatively to them, as well.

I'm not saying this applies to you, but I think part of what made some people not like the speech was that Obama also took pains to explain the thinking behind Wright's outbursts, even while conceding that they went too far. That is, he was presenting explanations for the emotions involved, and even though he wasn't saying that these absolved Wright, I think some people just did not want to hear any attempt at justification at all. They wanted the words, and the man who said them, summarily condemned, end of story.

I know you and I disagreed about most aspects of the speech, but that's my take on this one.

allbetsareoff
05-09-2008, 03:56 PM
The only thing "iconoclastic" about Mickey Kaus is that he calls himself a Democrat. His obsessions, talking points and snark repertory come straight out of the hard-right GOP playbook. On what specific points in this campaign season has he expressed views contra Bill Kristol or Jonah Goldberg?

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 04:24 PM
Sorry, I completely disagree.

As you'll no doubt recall, I thought it was a great speech and said so at the time. Part of why I thought it was so good was exactly for that reason: that Obama could not only see different points of view on the issue, but could also articulate them so well. As I heard it, Obama was plenty clear on what things Wright said that he disagreed with, and how he understood why other people had reacted negatively to them, as well.What I recall was some no specific reference to "some of the things" (paraphrased) not plenty clear.


I'm not saying this applies to you, but I think part of what made some people not like the speech was that Obama also took pains to explain the thinking behind Wright's outbursts, even while conceding that they went too far. That is, he was presenting explanations for the emotions involved, and even though he wasn't saying that these absolved Wright, I think some people just did not want to hear any attempt at justification at all. They wanted the words, and the man who said them, summarily condemned, end of story.

I know you and I disagreed about most aspects of the speech, but that's my take on this one. One man's excuse is another man's explanation. I have been in enough positions of authority , over others, too know this all too well.

uncle ebeneezer
05-09-2008, 04:30 PM
My take has been that the Obama-haters and people who are offended by Wright, simply wanted Obama to denounce him and nothing more. Any added detail on the complexity of racial attitudes in this country would be viewed as being "lectured." I totally don't get this seeing as how he didn't sound condescending or lecturing to me at all (and that IS something that personally drives me crazy so i'm usually very sensitive to it.) With all the Monday morning quarter-backing about how Obama's speech was inappropriate I have yet to hear, in a perfect world, what he could have said that would have pacified the people so offended by Wright's speeches. Beyond flat-out denunciation of Wright and casting him as an evil, anti-American, bigot etc., I can't see anything that would have caused the "haters" to have any different reaction whatsoever. If there are Obama skeptics out there who have an idea what he should have said that would have caused you to react differently, given his history with Wright, i'd be honestly curious to hear it. IE- if we toss out what he actually said, and toss out a complete branding of his lifelong minister as the Devil, are there any other options he should have considered and would it have made any difference.

I'm glad he said what he said because alot of us got something very valuable out of it. I'm sorry others didn't see some of the illuminating perspectives that I got, but at the end of the day, it's their loss.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 04:45 PM
pisc:

One man's excuse is another man's explanation.

Yup, I suppose so. In many cases, certainly. From my own point of view, a black man in his sixties has more than just excuses if he's griping about race problems, though. He said some things I don't accept, but I think he has legitimate reasons for a general sense of anger, frustration, and resentment.

Now that he's gotten into the spotlight, he seems to be dining out on these reasons a little too much, which undercuts his credibility. Even so, I could also make a case that he's taking advantage of his proverbial fifteen minutes to agitate for a cause that's not without merit, while admitting that he's going about things in an unproductive way.

If you don't buy that he has any legitimate reasons for being pissed off, then I guess you'll just see any defense of him as excuse-making, but I think there would be more to that case than just empty excuses.

Finally, there's a whole other part, too: He's done a lot of good in his life, so I don't think it's fair to dismiss him out of hand for saying a few things that are offensive.

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 04:56 PM
My take has been that the Obama-haters and people who are offended by Wright, simply wanted Obama to denounce him and nothing more. Any added detail on the complexity of racial attitudes in this country would be viewed as being "lectured." I totally don't get this seeing as how he didn't sound condescending or lecturing to me at all (and that IS something that personally drives me crazy so i'm usually very sensitive to it.) With all the Monday morning quarter-backing about how Obama's speech was inappropriate I have yet to hear, in a perfect world, what he could have said that would have pacified the people so offended by Wright's speeches. Beyond flat-out denunciation of Wright and casting him as an evil, anti-American, bigot etc., I can't see anything that would have caused the "haters" to have any different reaction whatsoever. If there are Obama skeptics out there who have an idea what he should have said that would have caused you to react differently, given his history with Wright, i'd be honestly curious to hear it. IE- if we toss out what he actually said, and toss out a complete branding of his lifelong minister as the Devil, are there any other options he should have considered and would it have made any difference.

I'm glad he said what he said because alot of us got something very valuable out of it. I'm sorry others didn't see some of the illuminating perspectives that I got, but at the end of the day, it's their loss. Isn't that what he has finally done; toss the good pastor to the curb. I am also glad to know that those that disagree over hyped importance and stature of it with laudations of it being compared to JFK or better yet Lincoln, are "haters." Give me a f***ing break. Senator Obama was forced to demonstrate the idiocy of it what 4 weeks latter.

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 05:05 PM
I have no doubt that he has done good, but he has also used his pulpit to perpetuate his oh so forgivable rantings to how many generations? If you are a believer it will be be up to the Lord to weigh the balance and since I am but a mere mortal not all knowing or all wise I must rely on what I see and hear, weighted with my personal experiences, to decide what weight to attach to Senator Obama's long term and deep relationship with such a conflicted individual.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 05:07 PM
Isn't that what he has finally done; toss the good pastor to the curb. I am also glad to know that those that disagree over hyped importance and stature of it with laudations of it being compared to JFK or better yet Lincoln, are "haters." Give me a f***ing break. Senator Obama was forced to demonstrate the idiocy of it what 4 weeks latter.

Two things: Obama would have stood on his Philadelphia speech had not the paster taken things to the next level.

I agree that Uncle Eb made too sweeping a generalization -- there are certainly some people who had problems with the speech without just being Obama haters. But I think he's right that there were a lot of people like this, and that there are a lot of people who keep hammering on the Wright thing just because it's a way to attack Obama. If you've watched "Fox & Friends," you know what I'm talking about.

Unrelated pet peeve: If you want to say "fucking," just say "fucking." That asterisk thing makes no sense. It's not like you're shielding anyone from what word you mean.

Namazu
05-09-2008, 05:10 PM
Jonathan Alter is the dumbest reporter since the Lascaux cave paintings.

osmium
05-09-2008, 05:10 PM
Senator Obama was forced to demonstrate the idiocy of it what 4 weeks latter.

perhaps yes, but also perhaps no. if the pastor had resurfaced as a contrite healer type, then this contradiction wouldn't exist.

"the race speech" is a tough nut, and probably has the possibility of greatness in it, depending on what happens next. if obama is president, and a decent one, then it will be a great speech.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 05:11 PM
I have no doubt that he has done good, but he has also used his pulpit to perpetuate his oh so forgivable rantings to how many generations? If you are a believer it will be be up to the Lord to weigh the balance and since I am but a mere mortal not all knowing or all wise I must rely on what I see and hear, weighted with my personal experiences, to decide what weight to attach to Senator Obama's long term and deep relationship with such a conflicted individual.

I don't dispute your right to assign different weight to Wright's words, or how much concern Obama's long association with him should raise.

However, I do think you're implying that he was saying stuff like this every time he hit the pulpit, and by all accounts I've seen, that's not at all true.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 05:12 PM
Jonathan Alter is the dumbest reporter since the Lascaux cave paintings.

Can paintings be reporters?

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 05:21 PM
I don't dispute your right to assign different weight to Wright's words, or how much concern Obama's long association with him should raise.

However, I do think you're implying that he was saying stuff like this every time he hit the pulpit, and by all accounts I've seen, that's not at all true.Read into it what you will I have never said or implied that. How often do you have to say oh shit before you here your child repeat it.

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 05:22 PM
No but they can be more informative!

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 05:29 PM
Read into it what you will I have never said or implied that. How often do you have to say oh shit before you here your child repeat it.

Here's why I said you implied that he was regularly/frequently saying the things that got YouTubed:

... but he has also used his pulpit to perpetuate his oh so forgivable rantings to how many generations? If you are a believer it will be be up to the Lord to weigh the balance ...

That sounds like you're suggest an ongoing pattern.

As to how many times someone has to say something before a child hearing it will repeat it, I can only roll my eyes. The old "think of the children" trope, eh?

In the first place, everyone in the audience that I've seen in the videos was an adult. In the second place, kids taken to church will always ask their parents about what the preacher said. I know I did. You act like hearing "God damn America" one time is going to permanently scar someone. That's just nonsense.

jh in sd
05-09-2008, 05:33 PM
bj, Maybe a better question than if Wright has a reason to be resentful would be to ask how constructive it is to hold on to and perpetuate that resentment. And since he is supposed to be a Christian pastor, how compatible is that message to Christian theology? Reconciliation is a central theme of Christianity-I don't see Wright as anything more than a huckster who is cloaking a strictly political message in theological language.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 05:49 PM
bj, Maybe a better question than if Wright has a reason to be resentful would be to ask how constructive it is to hold on to and perpetuate that resentment. And since he is supposed to be a Christian pastor, how compatible is that message to Christian theology? Reconciliation is a central theme of Christianity-I don't see Wright as anything more than a huckster who is cloaking a strictly political message in theological language.

jh:

I pretty much agree with all of that.

From a nitpicking point of view, I'd hesitate a little bit to agree that "[r]econciliation is a central theme of Christianity." Certainly it was in the form I was raised under (Roman Catholic), but there are so many different sects that call themselves Christian that I would be willing to bet that one could find some who either don't accept this, or who interpret it in a much different way. For example, "reconciliation" under Black Liberation theology might mean, "when we get our fair share, then we'll talk." I have no idea; I'm just speculating here.

I particularly agree that holding onto resentment is not constructive, and believe me, if you had ever met some of my grandfather's generation of my Irish relatives, you'd know why I believe that. On the other hand, this behavior is common among people, so while not agreeing with it as a method, I can accept that it happens, and see why people might hold onto such feelings.

To the "huckster" thought: I dunno. Sure seems that way lately to me, too, but as I said elsewhere, I could envision a scenario where Wright is sincere in his belief that he got an opportunity to deliver his message to a much larger audience, and felt he had to seize it. Again, I'm not a big fan of his recent actions; it's just that that given everything the guy has done in his life, he seems like more than an empty shell to me.

uncle ebeneezer
05-09-2008, 05:50 PM
I was actually trying to refer to TWO data sets: A.) Obama-haters...AND...B.)people who are offended by the things that Wright said (for whatever reason). Although there's undoubtedly alot of cross-over between the two camps, I wasn't implying that a member of group A.) was necesarrily a member of group B.) I was actually trying to acknowledge that in addition to the Haters, there are also people who like Obama who were upset about his relationship with Wright. I would guess though that anyone who is upset about Wright is a member of at least one of those two categories. I would also guess that there are several people who aren't upset about Wright, but are just feigning objection because he's not their candidate (ie Hillary supporters) and it's a convenient negative to focus on.

PS Obama denounced Wright after his more recent public statements because it wasn't the same context or message as the youtube sermons. Like Mike Huckabee, apparently Obama sees a difference as to what is said in a fiery church sermon (where EXTREME exageration is a common occurence) and a public television interview where Wright is telling us his actual beliefs. For the record Obama, denounced many of the things that Wright said in the youtube sermons in his race speech but refused to denounce Wright as a person. Some Christians might recognize this as an example of "loving the sinner, hating the sin." But maybe I'm just mindlessly repeating the brainwashing message I heard in church (on the few occasions I ever showed up.) Good thing they didn't say "God damn America."

graz
05-09-2008, 05:53 PM
bj, Maybe a better question than if Wright has a reason to be resentful would be to ask how constructive it is to hold on to and perpetuate that resentment. And since he is supposed to be a Christian pastor, how compatible is that message to Christian theology? Reconciliation is a central theme of Christianity-I don't see Wright as anything more than a huckster who is cloaking a strictly political message in theological language.

And a further question would ask how you view Parsley's political pronouncements, which have the potential to inspire damning consequences.
Let's not forget to separate your blanket dissmisal of Wright as separate and apart from anything that Obama has said or displayed.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 05:53 PM
No but they can be more informative!

I once read a great thought on these cave paintings: An anthropologist/archaeologist was having real problems figuring out how people could have killed large animals with their limited tools. His friend reviewed the calculations and reasoning and said, "Maybe they just got lucky once, and then talked about it for the next 5000 years."

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 05:54 PM
I's is in and spread across numerous videos thus by definition making it a pattern. How often it was a part of this sermons only the parishioners know for sure. And while it is the left that so often uses the "it's for the children" argument I don't see why it doesn't apply here. The very definition of black liberation theology is what that particular church practices, it is by it's defining charter bigoted and here is the Pastor's description of THE BLACK VALUE SYSTEM (http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html). Which I imagine is the value system taught at every level of participation if it is anything like the churches I attended as a child.

brucds
05-09-2008, 05:58 PM
I love it when a guy like Mickey Kaus protests that he doesn't want to be lectured to by Obama. I'm sure Barack feels the same way about Mickey.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 05:59 PM
I's is in and spread across numerous videos thus by definition making it a pattern. How often it was a part of this sermons only the parishioners know for sure. And while it is the left that so often uses the "it's for the children" argument I don't see why it doesn't apply here. The very definition of black liberation theology is what that particular church practices, it is by it's defining charter bigoted and here is the Pastor's description of THE BLACK VALUE SYSTEM (http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html). Which I imagine is the value system taught at every level of participation if it is anything like the churches I attended as a child.

pisc:

The longer you go on like this, the more you sound like the kind of person Uncle Eb was talking about -- someone who doesn't like Obama and is just using this as an excuse to beat the drums.

brucds
05-09-2008, 06:01 PM
"it is by it's defining charter bigoted"

Then so is every synogogue that preaches fealty to Israel and blathers about the "chosen people." You are completely and willfully ignorant of African-American history and culture and you should be ashamed of youself for propogating your ignorance as "insight."

The truth is that your the bigot here, trumpeting phony arguments about this church.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 06:03 PM
I think we should now begin a one-month debate on Rod Parsley (http://evolutionarymiddleman.blogspot.com/2008/05/general-election-lets-get-it-on.html).

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 06:12 PM
Like I said bj read into it what you want. It is the Senator's comments, actions and chosen associations have recently convinced me that this is not a person that is ready to take on the responsibility of leading this country. If he had accepted one ounce of responsibility for continuing his association, with the pastor, while doing or saying nothing, as far as anyone knows, about it; perhaps the larger points, you claim the Senator raised, would have been more noticed and better received. Instead it seemed more like an attempt at redirection and apologia for the Pastors actions and words.

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 06:13 PM
And the mouse roars again.

James Cone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X5sZ6Q4Fw)
"Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.' "

jh in sd
05-09-2008, 06:21 PM
graz, I don't recall mentioning Obama at any point in my post. FYI, I left the church a few years ago because of ministers like Wright and Parsley. There are many, many like them in churches today who are more interested in pushing their own agendas even if it causes division rather than reconciliation. But please answer my question-is it constructive for anyone to hold on to resentments, either in their political or personal lives? If you think so, give me some examples of how it has worked out well.

graz
05-09-2008, 06:43 PM
graz, I don't recall mentioning Obama at any point in my post. FYI, I left the church a few years ago because of ministers like Wright and Parsley. There are many, many like them in churches today who are more interested in pushing their own agendas even if it causes division rather than reconciliation. But please answer my question-is it constructive for anyone to hold on to resentments, either in their political or personal lives? If you think so, give me some examples of how it has worked out well.

I concede that you did not mention Obama, but I also fail to see how Wright continues to be of value as anything other than a dirty trick.
Your valid question deserves a response that has no need to qualify the views held by the pastor who's name I will not mention.
Broadly, no. It is rarely constructive to seethe with resentment personally.
Politically, it seems to work quite nicely. Case in point: Clinton's continuation in the race.
I feel no need to defend pastors or churches particularly - I couldn't bring myself to join any that would have me as a member.
But I will use the Parsley example as a way to highlight the importance of separation of church and state - as futile as that effort may be (Yglesias).
And I would also be remiss if I did not voice complaint every time a clear partisan, or worse yet, a fence sitter conflate (The pastor who's name shall be unuttered) with a rationale for denying support to my candidate. I am not attributing this to you (btw), yet it is in the thread, again.
I do this not only in defense of my self interest, but also as bulwark against ignorance and politics as usual.

popcorn_karate
05-09-2008, 06:43 PM
I generally agree with Bob and Alter that Mickey largely pretends to be a Democrat. 95% of what he says sounds like any other right-winger.

One issue that is really interesting is Immigration. Immigration seems to seperate out the "identity politics" left from the progressive left. It is clear that high numbers of illegal immigrants are a boon for business and drive down wages for the working class. This clashes with the general white-guilt identity politics left that just has to support anyone with more melanin (sp?).

This is the same reason it splits the GOP. Business owners like it - cheap, abusable labor pool. the working class sees it as it is, a bad deal for them. plus you toss in the extra-melanin issue which stirs up all the racism that has largely found a home in the GOP.

I have seen first hand how an industry that provided living-wage jobs and supported rural communities was turned into a minimum wage industry largely run by large corporations with endless crews of hispanic immigrants. thats why i went back to college. an easy decision for me, I was a an A student, national merit scholar blah blah blah, plus i wasn't in that industry all that long before seeing the major changes and getting out. But it was obviously not such an easy transition for many others. Plus, all the money that used to circulate through our economy was being sent out of our county - a huge economic loss.

so crypto-con mickey is at least standing up for one of the most important progressive issues that I see. Its like a reverse "whats the matter with kansas" issue.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 06:44 PM
pisc:

It is the Senator's comments, actions and chosen associations have recently convinced me ...

I'm not buying "recently." Unless you're speaking in geological terms.

uncle ebeneezer
05-09-2008, 06:45 PM
Pisc, it could also be seen as loyalty to a pastor and family friend. I know several Christians (black and white) who think that Wright has some sketchy viewpoints, but that Obama was right to stand-up for his pastor regardless. I have never been a big church-goer, so I have never had a mentor relationship with a Pastor, but I have had several friends/family who have said questionable things that indicated a bit of "confusion" or ignorance, and I have usually defended them even when I didn't agree with what they said. I take pride in doing that and see it as a positive aspect of my character. Obviously, it's apples and oranges since I'm not a Pres candidate (way too much dirt in my past), and obviously it depends on what was actually said (unlike Mickey, I wouldn't defend Ann Coulter), but I'm surprised by how little play this idea of loyalty and respect is getting from the Christian community. I tend to think the public over-amplifies their sensitivity because this is a presidential election. If Obama was running for a local office and the exact same story came out, I would wager that alot of the people harping on it now, would treat it completely differently.

Mr. Mayhem
05-09-2008, 07:06 PM
Watching this on the heels of the cognitive-dissonance-in-monkeys diavlog, it's fascinating to see Alter flailing around, looking for some way to reconcile his faith in unionism with his realization that many facets of unionism have contributed to serious economic and public policy problems (teachers unions, UAW, AFSCME, and so forth). Alter's backtrack from his initial support (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10904?in=00:25:29&out=26:20) of card check is indicative (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10904?in=00:36:26&out=36:35).

graz
05-09-2008, 07:08 PM
But please answer my question-is it constructive for anyone to hold on to resentments, either in their political or personal lives? If you think so, give me some examples of how it has worked out well.

Your questions deserve greater consideration than I allowed in the prior post. Please excuse my short shrift to the heat of the political season. I take your point that resentment may just be corrosive and counter-productive. But I will not concede that he (the unmentionable) does not have a case for resentment.
Yes, how he presents the case matters. His goals and results should be examined. But lets have that discussion apart from the examination of candidates for president. This of course should include pastor (kitchen herb), and how his anti-muslim rhetoric might be a destructive force, even if clearly within the bounds of free speech.

uncle ebeneezer
05-09-2008, 07:12 PM
Brendan thank you for that. Good stuff. Sadly it is not satire.

I love the distinction between messages from "demon spirits" (Muslim) and the "living God" (Christianity.) And here I was just assuming that people who hear voices are just plain "crazy". But when Parsely put's it into such clear, empirical perspective, I can see the obviousness of my error.

I find these statements highly offensive and un-American. I expect anyone who even watches these clips to denounce Parsely, otherwise I question their fitness to be President.

uncle ebeneezer
05-09-2008, 07:14 PM
I wish Mickey would have the card-check debate with Ezra Klein. Too bad Mickey's chicken...bok, bok, bok.

graz
05-09-2008, 07:26 PM
Brendan thank you for that. Good stuff. Sadly it is not satire.

I love the distinction between messages from "demon spirits" (Muslim) and the "living God" (Christianity.) And here I was just assuming that people who hear voices are just plain "crazy". But when Parsely put's it into such clear, empirical perspective, I can see the obviousness of my error.

I find these statements highly offensive and un-American. I expect anyone who even watches these clips to denounce Parsely, otherwise I question their fitness to be President.

I denounce and reject... but I think you should still question my fitness...

AemJeff
05-09-2008, 07:29 PM
Really? Have you ever read one of Alter's Newsweek columns and thought to yourself, wow, I hadn't thought of it that way; Alter's got some real insight here.

However, my purpose is not to slam Alter's writings, which don't interest me. These ritual spankings of Mickey for thoughtcrime are ridiculous, anti-intellectual. I don't know why he sits still for them. They're not "smackdowns," they're ostracization like you'd see among junior high school girls. Questioning conventional wisdom is what Mickey does. For me it's an end in itself. For Alter, it's anathema.

It's like you and I were listening to two different conversations. I hear Alter making some pretty good arguments and putting Mickey on the spot analytically. I didn't hear Alter arguing that contrarianism is a bad thing, for example. I understood him to be saying that if it's a tool that can be overused - which I have to say, seems like a sound point; and regarding Mickey, is exactly on point.

brucds
05-09-2008, 07:52 PM
Piscovorous is pissed because Barack called him and his cohorts out for the fools they were in the fall of 2002. He'll never forgive him. Thus the mountains of tedious bullshit and "sincere" concerns about...uh...nuthin'.

brucds
05-09-2008, 07:53 PM
Make that "meese"...

Happy Hominid
05-09-2008, 08:15 PM
I too continue to be baffled at Mickey's revulsion about Obama's "lectures". "I don't wanted to be lectured by this guy".

I'm a white man about Mickey's age and live fairly close to him. I listened to that speech and thought it was brilliant. I didn't feel lectured. Then again, maybe if I were a white middle-aged male who blamed my (many) problems on others - those who have had affirmative action work for them, those who have crossed the Mexican border to mop up in Chinese restaurants after hours, people who scream that the U.S. government has been historically guilty of many actions that hurt minorities - then I guess I might have felt he was lecturing me. If the shoe doesn't fit.... it didn't fit me but maybe Mickey had some reason to feel lectured.

Happy Hominid
05-09-2008, 08:19 PM
There was a point during the diavlog in which I thought Alter made a really good point to Mickey in a very nice way and Mickey's response? What was the first thing out of his mouth?

A rather sarcastic sounding "Thanks for the lecture".

rcocean
05-09-2008, 08:32 PM
It's like you and I were listening to two different conversations. I hear Alter making some pretty good arguments and putting Mickey on the spot analytically. I didn't hear Alter arguing that contrarianism is a bad thing, for example. I understood him to be saying that if it's a tool that can be overused... on point.


Yeah, thats why Alter is so boring. "Mickey, sometimes the conventional wisdom is right -so stop criticizing liberals."
Wow, I guess Mickey never thought of that. Other than this, what was Alter's "good arguments" (emphasis on plural)?

The truth is that, Alter, being a cookie-cutter liberal just can't stand to hear someone criticize liberalism. So he complains that Mickey is a "traitor to his race". I guess these guys are friends, so they did the BHTV together. But it was snoozeville.

Want an interesting BHTV diavlog? Coulter vs. Kaus.

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 09:32 PM
Pisc, it could also be seen as loyalty to a pastor and family friend. I know several Christians (black and white) who think that Wright has some sketchy viewpoints, but that Obama was right to stand-up for his pastor regardless. I have never been a big church-goer, so I have never had a mentor relationship with a Pastor, but I have had several friends/family who have said questionable things that indicated a bit of "confusion" or ignorance, and I have usually defended them even when I didn't agree with what they said. I take pride in doing that and see it as a positive aspect of my character. Obviously, it's apples and oranges since I'm not a Pres candidate (way too much dirt in my past), and obviously it depends on what was actually said (unlike Mickey, I wouldn't defend Ann Coulter), but I'm surprised by how little play this idea of loyalty and respect is getting from the Christian community. I tend to think the public over-amplifies their sensitivity because this is a presidential election. If Obama was running for a local office and the exact same story came out, I would wager that alot of the people harping on it now, would treat it completely differently.And I was only following orders. While I agree with that the Senator owed some loyalty and respect. And he should have shone it to his Preacher quite sometime ago by informing him that many of his views were misguided at best if not wrong. Respect does not mean being blind, or remaining mute, and following in lockstep it also means, as the left likes to say, 'talking truth to power." Respect is a two way street or it is hero worship. Apparently this Senator, that wants to be the President, you know the leader of this country, showed little leadership in this particular venue and didn't even have enough respect, for his pastor, to tell him he was wrong.

Whatfur
05-09-2008, 09:34 PM
In hopes that he may be reading this, I want to give Alter a bit of praise for his FDR book. It was a very good read and provided (at least me) a fair amount of new insight into the man along with interesting facts and lessor known stories. Add to that the fact the he did not write it as though he was "in the tank" for Frank, allowed me to keep turning the pages in spite of him being an icon (Frank not Jon) of much of what repels me about liberals in general. (Wait..maybe Jon too) Also want to add for Mr. Alters information that the only reason I bothered with the book was because of his interview with Hugh Hewitt...just so he knows where the sale came from. In any case, I recommend it.

With that said and with the segue being the fact, I think, that both Mr. Alter and I are obviously interested in what makes a President... I have to say that I was surprised and disappointed that in spite of being given a number of opportunities during this diavlog to explain to us why in fact he IS in the tank for Obama the best he could come up with was that he his "running a good campaign". What!!!??? Thats it??

So it doesn't matter that all we STILL seem to know is that he was a community organizer of very little detail, got trounced in his first election, got handed his second where most everything he claims as his in the Illinois senate has others complaining that party leadership handed HIM their work...as they groomed him for ...yes, his U.S. Senate seat...also handed him without competition where he has continued to throw his name on bills after the work of others was done...while at the same time he has been shown to vote exclusively liberal with absolutely no hint of being the "unity" candidate his "campaign" paints.

Ohhh, but he runs a good campaign! To quote one of my favorite people...Give me a f***ing break. He IS just the "hopeity, hopeity, change, change" candidate and anyone who would vote for him based on what we know and what we don't know is IMHO, and in his cousin TRs words, a bunch of "flubdubs, mollycoddles, and flapdoodles".

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 09:40 PM
That's pretty good but like many of the comments I have left here today you seem to read more into some of my previous comments than was there. Yes recently is shortly after the coronation of the Senator, after his Philadelphia speech, as the greatest statesman since JFK. It was then that I started to look more closely at the Senator, his accomplishments and his record of achievements.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 09:41 PM
pisc:

Apparently this Senator, that wants to be the President, you know the leader of this country, showed little leadership ...

Yesterday, you were fretting about Obama showing too much leadership. I know there's no pleasing you, but your contradictory demands are getting silly.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 09:43 PM
... A rather sarcastic sounding "Thanks for the lecture".

Got me there.

David Thomson
05-09-2008, 09:53 PM
"I generally agree with Bob and Alter that Mickey largely pretends to be a Democrat."

Mickey Kaus is indeed more of a Republican than today’s Democrat. Is he afraid of being damned to the eternal fires of hell if he admits to this harsh fact of life? Kaus has not particularly moved towards the GOP. No, the Democratic Party has become much more leftwing in the recent past. There may no longer be any room for those deemed center-left. The Obama movement might not even be willing to throw a few bones in Mickey’s direction. It could feel that it is not necessary.

bkjazfan
05-09-2008, 09:56 PM
Excellent diavlog. I agree, the pairing was superb: Alter and Kaus. I especially enjoyed the conversation dealing with unions.

John

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 10:01 PM
You've suggested a great campaign button: In the Tank for Frank.

Reminds me of I Like Ike.

I'd say we should suggest it to our guy, but I'm sure we agree that Barack Obama is already the greatest presidential name ever.

Perhaps you should offer this to another one of our shared heroes: the gentleman (http://www.house.gov/frank/) from Massachusetts.

graz
05-09-2008, 10:04 PM
In hopes that he may be reading this, I want to give Alter a bit of praise for his FDR book. It was a very good read and provided (at least me) a fair amount of new insight into the man along with interesting facts and lessor known stories. Add to that the fact the he did not write it as though he was "in the tank" for Frank, allowed me to keep turning the pages in spite of him being an icon (Frank not Jon) of much of what repels me about liberals in general. (Wait..maybe Jon too) Also want to add for Mr. Alters information that the only reason I bothered with the book was because of his interview with Hugh Hewitt...just so he knows where the sale came from. In any case, I recommend it.

With that said and with the segue being the fact, I think, that both Mr. Alter and I are obviously interested in what makes a President... I have to say that I was surprised and disappointed that in spite of being given a number of opportunities during this diavlog to explain to us why in fact he IS in the tank for Obama the best he could come up with was that he his "running a good campaign". What!!!??? Thats it??


Shall I have Hugh Hewitt call you to explain that the premise of this diavlog was a challenge to Mickey. The premise was clear and elucidated by the participants. Your desired dialogue about what makes a President may take place sometime in the future, but it didn't happen today. The underlying premise was, why is it that Mickey calls himself a Liberal. As you have already stated and proved in your comments, you have blinders, earplugs a stuffy nose and gloves on that disallow you from engaging reasonably with the repellent (your word) Libs.
So I advise you to allow Hewitt to view the diavlogs first and then translate them for you. This won't dissuade you from attack with the men of straw, proffering the herring - oh look it's red or engaging in attacking opponents by attributing positions or prejudices to them that aren't entered into the record. But hey, your side is for free speech, right?

bkjazfan
05-09-2008, 10:09 PM
I agree with Mickey's take on Obama's race speech that so many people went ga-ga over. Who needs another lecture on the history of slavery and the rest of it when all he was doing was attempting to deflect the Reverend Wright issue.

John

Whatfur
05-09-2008, 10:23 PM
Shall I have Hugh Hewitt call you to explain that the premise of this diavlog was a challenge to Mickey. The premise was clear and elucidated by the participants. Your desired dialogue about what makes a President may take place sometime in the future, but it didn't happen today. The underlying premise was, why is it that Mickey calls himself a Liberal. As you have already stated and proved in your comments, you have blinders, earplugs a stuffy nose and gloves on that disallow you from engaging reasonably with the repellent (your word) Libs.
So I advise you to allow Hewitt to view the diavlogs first and then translate them for you. This won't dissuade you from attack with the men of straw, proffering the herring - oh look it's red or engaging in attacking opponents by attributing positions or prejudices to them that aren't entered into the record. But hey, your side is for free speech, right?

...said the flapdoodle.... you are a funny little monkey graz...you have already proven to be a fraud and also prove daily that when you are called on something you lie, deflect or fold so I won't bother to engage you any more and hope for the same thing from you. Now run along.

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 10:33 PM
Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws) I guess he was tired or lost his bearings or his staffer got the figure wrong. No I got it it's early onset Alzheimers.

graz
05-09-2008, 10:35 PM
Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws) I guess he was tired or lost his bearings or his staffer got the figure wrong.

Nice one. Yeah definitely his bearings.

Whatfur
05-09-2008, 10:52 PM
... to think the libs and their Media gave Bush a hard time for not knowing the leader of Chechnya...which is I believe is state number 54.

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 10:53 PM
I hadn't heard that one before.

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 10:58 PM
I thought that he found those in the Trinity Church and pastor Wright?

Whatfur
05-09-2008, 11:07 PM
...now that I think about it, I think they used that to start their "Bush is Dumb" mantra with the only time it went away was during that period where it was discovered that he outperformed Kerry in college.

In any case, yeah you may be on to something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws).

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 11:11 PM
From the short clip it is hard to tell but this looks to be the great orator without a teleprompter. Not a real good sign for when he goes to negotiate with President Ahmadinejad.

Happy Hominid
05-10-2008, 12:03 AM
John, maybe because the real context of white angst over the black angst of a guy like Wright is entirely racial in nature and something that we as a society have still not come to terms with. Some have but when the stuff Wright said becomes a major campaign issue for Obama - it says more about us as a society than about Obama. He recognizes this and wants to deal with it. He doesn't want to shrug it off as just another irrelevant (yet consequential) wedge issue.

uncle ebeneezer
05-10-2008, 12:10 AM
BK, try this mind experiment. Toss out the notion that Obama's race speech was "just" a politically motivated speech to absolve him of his relationship with Wright. Consider this possibilty: the time presented itself for someone to finally speak to America about the complexity of racial relations and somebody who has a unique perspective (being black...and white) decides to speak to the US for the first time in years with real sincerity about a grey issue that most people see only in black and white. Ok I know you don't think that's what happened but just humor me. Accept that setting in your mind. Now listen to the speech again. I bet you'll hear it a bit differently.

That is not to say that my perspective is "reality", but if you can successfully look at it from a different perspective you might really "see" why some of us were ga-ga over it. cheers- Uncle Eb

uncle ebeneezer
05-10-2008, 12:14 AM
HH:

when the stuff Wright said becomes a major campaign issue for Obama - it says more about us as a society than about Obama. He recognizes this and wants to deal with it. He doesn't want to shrug it off as just another irrelevant (yet consequential) wedge issue

Fucking well said-- UE

Allan
05-10-2008, 12:20 AM
Mickey is no conservative, he is a Statist big-time.

But liberals don't like him because he doesn't follow the party line.

piscivorous
05-10-2008, 12:23 AM
Stalinist might be just a little harsh but he defiantly swings pretty far left on lots of issues.

themightypuck
05-10-2008, 12:34 AM
Good god. I hate that Alter dude. He's almost insane.

Allan
05-10-2008, 12:38 AM
Some advice to Jonathan Alter:

Enough with the gas! You're already gassy enough.

Whatfur
05-10-2008, 12:49 AM
You're right UE, its not a bad speech. Just given by the wrong man at the wrong time. Once again the left of center here wishing for everyone to base their beliefs on perception and not reality. Sorry Unc, but you don't seem to understand there are a couple problems with closing our eyes and imagining that Obama is not a disingenuous player of suckers. The first being that our eyes would be closed and the second being that we would be imagining.

look
05-10-2008, 12:50 AM
"it is by it's defining charter bigoted"

The truth is that your the bigot here, trumpeting phony arguments about this church.

brucds, how do you interpret point #8 from the Black Value System posted on Trinity's website?

Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.” Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.

Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:


Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.
Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”
So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness.” If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.

http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

AemJeff
05-10-2008, 12:57 AM
Yeah, thats why Alter is so boring. "Mickey, sometimes the conventional wisdom is right -so stop criticizing liberals."
Wow, I guess Mickey never thought of that. Other than this, what was Alter's "good arguments" (emphasis on plural)?

The truth is that, Alter, being a cookie-cutter liberal just can't stand to hear someone criticize liberalism. So he complains that Mickey is a "traitor to his race". I guess these guys are friends, so they did the BHTV together. But it was snoozeville.

Want an interesting BHTV diavlog? Coulter vs. Kaus.

My comment took note of the fact that my understanding of this diavlog and someone else's seemed to be at odds. What I took to be true, in that case, was that both of us had actually listened to the thing.

You not only mischaracterized what was said during the diavlog, your quotes from my comment were weirdly off - how do you accomplish misquoting text with a system that'll give it to you literally at the touch of a button? And why not get it right when the original is right there for direct comparison? Surely you care about more than just "tagging" the forum with a psuedonym.

piscivorous
05-10-2008, 01:02 AM
Can He Spell "Potato?" (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020481.php)

Whatfur
05-10-2008, 01:24 AM
And HH,

He actually did try to shrug it off as did most the media. Then there was denial. Then he tried to deflect and then he threw the good Reverand under the bus for repeating the same things both he and the Rev. accused others of taking out of context. Again, lets deal in reality here eh?

bjkeefe
05-10-2008, 01:40 AM
And HH,

He actually did try to shrug it off as did most the media. Then there was denial. Then he tried to deflect and then he threw the good Reverand under the bus for repeating the same things both he and the Rev. accused others of taking out of context. Again, lets deal in reality here eh?

I see that you are still challenged with finding the reply button, so that your negativity, can be contained to one thread but given your proclivity to bloviate and bluster it is not to be unexpected.

__________

Whatfur
05-10-2008, 01:55 AM
Oh and concerning Alter trying to comically corner Kaus on coming up with something more caustic and more distinctly panderous than Clinton and the Gas tax well I give you Michelle Obama (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=ddd5d777-8e9f-4067-b51d-3ab5fd04ca64).

Listen to the whole thing...pandering to victimhood. Guess she was awake during Reverand Wrights sermons. Isn't this the same kind of talk that was suppose to be from the Sharpton/Wright generation? Just wondering?

look
05-10-2008, 01:56 AM
In hopes that he may be reading this, I want to give Alter a bit of praise for his FDR book. It was a very good read and provided (at least me) a fair amount of new insight into the man along with interesting facts and lessor known stories. Add to that the fact the he did not write it as though he was "in the tank" for Frank, allowed me to keep turning the pages in spite of him being an icon (Frank not Jon) of much of what repels me about liberals in general. (Wait..maybe Jon too) Also want to add for Mr. Alters information that the only reason I bothered with the book was because of his interview with Hugh Hewitt...just so he knows where the sale came from. In any case, I recommend it.I don't know how to access diavlogs from the old board, but Jonathan did a vlog with Amity Shlaes where each discussed their book on FDR. It was interesting, but they did talk over one another quite a bit.

So it doesn't matter that all we STILL seem to know is that he was a community organizer of very little detail, got trounced in his first election, got handed his second where most everything he claims as his in the Illinois senate has others complaining that party leadership handed HIM their work...as they groomed him for ...yes, his U.S. Senate seat...also handed him without competition where he has continued to throw his name on bills after the work of others was done...while at the same time he has been shown to vote exclusively liberal with absolutely no hint of being the "unity" candidate his "campaign" paints.
Do you have any handy links supporting the claim that he took credit for others' work?

uncle ebeneezer
05-10-2008, 01:58 AM
Whatfur, the challenge was to take this assumption,

Obama is a disingenuous player of suckers.

(which is clearly the foundation from which you start), and disavow it and try to look at the whole picture WITHOUT it. So that even if you disagree with that assumption-removed scenario you could at least imagine how other people might see it in a different way. But clearly that assumption is too dear for you to let go of, and you're unable or unwilling to even try to see a different perspective. That's fine. I can actually see how people would react differently to Obama and his actions/speech etc. I react the way I do, but I can understand some of the perspectives that I don't happen share or that I find irrelevant or poorly weighted. But I like to I try to challenge my own assumptions from time to time and was trying to encourage somebody else (BK) to do the same. if you can't or aren't interested that's your limitation, not mine.

bjkeefe
05-10-2008, 02:27 AM
... I give you Michelle Obama (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=ddd5d777-8e9f-4067-b51d-3ab5fd04ca64).

Listen to the whole thing...

Did you? And if so, why? What would possess you to listen to 70 minutes from someone you hate?

Pop8386
05-10-2008, 02:58 AM
Wow! Jonathan Alter is horrible!!!!

He's the worst type of reporter -- the one who projects his own weaknesses onto others and then condescendingly transfers his own personal views onto "voters" or "people". It's obnoxious. The great thing about Mickey is that it almost doesn't matter whether he's in the tank for Hillary or over-contrarian or whatever, because he admits that he has biases and is open about trying to identify them. The thinking he does is all part of the process and it's a very human form of punditry. Alter, on the other hand, is one of those weird people who seem to think that he is good at identifying bias in others and cutting through bullshit while simultaneously thinking he is better than the average person at putting aside his own biases. He's not; in fact, he's worse. If Hillary people wanted to run an ad for most pathetically annoying Obama supporter who claims to be "above it all" you've got your video. And I'm so happy Mickey brought up the war -- I too opposed the war and voted for Hillary, and I'm sick of these pro-war media types playing "I'm the better progressive" with Hillary supporters.

rgajria
05-10-2008, 03:16 AM
Very interesting diavlog. I just wish Mickey and Jonathan wouldn't speak over each other. Its difficult to understand them when they do. James Pinkerton and David Corn can do the same thing. I hope the staff is reading this. Otherwise this was good fun. I wish Jonathan Alter would show up more often.

brucds
05-10-2008, 05:13 AM
(In response to Q about "Black Value System" quote as being "bigoted" and how I interpret it..)

I interpret it as a hyperbolic statement of what has been a historical reality. Whatever it might be - dated, paranoid, simplistic or over-the-top to the point - I don't see it as "bigoted" coming from an African-American perspective. I think it's just nutty and an indication of white paranoia and blindness to racism - if not racist - to paint those concerns as "bigoted." Just as I don't equate "Zionism" with racism, I don't equate this kind of inner-directed ethnic narrative, argued from worst cases and pessimism, as "bigotry." It's a set of inferences - controversial perhaps - that are drawn from a demonstrable history of the African-American and African legacies in the face of slavery and colonialism. Only a white person disconnected from historical reality and willfully ignorant of the marginalization of far too many black people could come up with such hysterical bullshit.

I'm not asking that you embrace that perspective - just don't whine about as though you're somehow wounded by it as a white person. It's unseemly and IMHO insincere. But, hey, anything to trash the Obama candidacy...'cuz McCain's got nuthin'. Right ?

brucds
05-10-2008, 05:20 AM
"piscivorous wrote on 05/10/2008 at 01:02 AM
Best quip on 57 states
Can He Spell 'Potato?'"

This is what you've got ?

Say hello to your new Commander in Chief - Obama.

brucds
05-10-2008, 05:23 AM
Allan wrote on 05/10/2008 at 12:20 AM
Re: Crypto-conservative Kaus
Mickey is no conservative, he is a Statist big-time.
But liberals don't like him because he doesn't follow the party line.

piscivorous wrote on 05/10/2008 at 12:23 AM
Re: Crypto-conservative Kaus
Stalinist might be just a little harsh but he defiantly swings pretty far left on lots of issues.

From "Statist" to "Stalinist" ? Can Mr. Pisco spell Potato ? Calling you an idiot might be just a little harsh, but you definitely swing pretty far in that direction.

piscivorous
05-10-2008, 07:06 AM
Guilty as charged.

stat·ist (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=statist)
noun
1. an advocate of statism.
–adjective
2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a statist or statism.

stat·ism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=statism)
–noun
1. the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
2. support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.


So all Stalinist by definition are statist. But the reverse is not necessarily true. Not all statists are Stalinists.

piscivorous
05-10-2008, 08:03 AM
Well I liked this one too Personally, I don't think it was a 'tired mistake' as much as this is just how Chicago Democrats are used to counting during elections and election campaigns... (http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/7984-Obama-Unveils-his-57-State-Strategy.html) But it seemed a little wordy.

harkin
05-10-2008, 08:27 AM
Nice try Mickey in your attempt to explain the problem of employees being forced to make their vote under the union's observation. Alter (even though the volume of his earpiece is turned up loud enough for us all to hear) fails to hear because he fails to hear anything you are saying. Imagine Alter's view if they were forced to make their vote under the observation of the management.......earth to Jon, it's the same thing!

Listen to what Jon is really saying "Unions are bad, except where I want them".

and Jon, for the love of us all......ECONOMY OF WORDS!


Liberals like Alter are a great illustration of the heads-in-the-sand dems who were hailing Obama on his 'Lincolnesque' speech in Philadelphia and later praising him for doing a complete about-face and throwing Wright under the bus.....all with a straight face.

Mickey.......LOL @ JA's 'broaden your lens'.......it was almost creepy listening to Jon alternating (no pun int) between lavish praise and severe criticism of you. Your talents are so immense that you do the country a disservice with your sins of ommision regarding Jon's pet issues. Truly weird.

Whatfur
05-10-2008, 09:43 AM
Did you? And if so, why? What would possess you to listen to 70 minutes from someone you hate?

I don't hate Michelle Obama, BJ. Yes I did listen. Pretty amazing stuff.
Did you listen? No comment except to call ME the hater. Is this the type of speech you want whispered in your President's ear every night??

Whatfur
05-10-2008, 09:48 AM
Oooooo brucds back to being the street thug. Funny how guys like that usually end out being 5'2" and living in mama's basement.

piscivorous
05-10-2008, 09:53 AM
I'd really hate to throw a double entendre his/her way It would take me three additional post to make the meaning clear to him/her.

Andrew
05-10-2008, 09:55 AM
At 1:37 Jon Alter confuses a "logarithm" with an "algorithm". Do not let this man cover any story involving a number.

piscivorous
05-10-2008, 10:15 AM
Don't worry about it because we all know that the Democrats don't even approve of listening to terrorist calls from oversees to oversees, between suspected terrorists because they went through a switch in America.

Whatfur
05-10-2008, 11:28 AM
Duuuckkk! (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3897414.ece)

bkjazfan
05-10-2008, 11:57 AM
If John McCain was in a similar position as Obama vis-a-vis the pastor controversy I would be disappointed if he wasn't toast as far as elective office is concerned.

Batrak Obama tried to have it both ways with Reverend Wright and at the end of the day he couldn't.

I, too, was raised and live in Los Angeles and had parents who neither went to church nor disparaged people in other ethnic groups. So, the issue of Senator Obama and his minister being a societal problem is beyond my experience and knowledge.

John

look
05-10-2008, 01:32 PM
(In response to Q about "Black Value System" quote as being "bigoted" and how I interpret it..)

I interpret it as a hyperbolic statement of what has been a historical reality. Whatever it might be - dated, paranoid, simplistic or over-the-top to the point - I don't see it as "bigoted" coming from an African-American perspective. I think it's just nutty and an indication of white paranoia and blindness to racism - if not racist - to paint those concerns as "bigoted." Just as I don't equate "Zionism" with racism, I don't equate this kind of inner-directed ethnic narrative, argued from worst cases and pessimism, as "bigotry." It's a set of inferences - controversial perhaps - that are drawn from a demonstrable history of the African-American and African legacies in the face of slavery and colonialism. Only a white person disconnected from historical reality and willfully ignorant of the marginalization of far too many black people could come up with such hysterical bullshit.

I'm not asking that you embrace that perspective - just don't whine about as though you're somehow wounded by it as a white person. It's unseemly and IMHO insincere. But, hey, anything to trash the Obama candidacy...'cuz McCain's got nuthin'. Right ?
brucds, if anything is 'hysterical bullshit,' it's your post. You're insulting the millions of white Americans who are sincerely sorry about the Black experience.

Only a white person disconnected from historical reality and willfully ignorant of the marginalization of far too many black people could come up with such hysterical bullshit.I'll reckon there's a black person or two who would find such rhetoric bigoted and counter-productive to some of the other Black Value System goals.

It's ironic that this is the second time this thread you've referred to Zionism as not being racist, because a) Rev. Wright is anti-Zionist, and b) the way Zionists are currently treating Palestinians is incredibly racist.

Bob M
05-10-2008, 01:40 PM
I thought this was a pretty good episode of bloggingheads. Here are a few thoughts:

Mickey’s Contrarianism – I thought that one of whole merits of the blogosphere was that it brings the benefits of the “long tail” to political commentary. So why shouldn’t Mickey be the contrarian liberal blogger provocateur? I think it’s valid to debate him on this or that issue or to say that he is be overly repetitive, or even to argue that the net effect of his blog is to hurt the Democrats, but I don’t think it is constructive to tell him that he should be writing about any particular issue or that he should write more about the evils of Bush or the merits of Obama.

Worst Panders – Alter seems to argue that the maliciousness of a particular pander should be measured by how obviously illogical the pander is. Mickey seems to argue that the maliciousness of a particular pander is the amount of tangible harm that the pander can do. Using Alter’s standard, Hillary’s gas tax pander was pretty bad. Using Mickey’s standard, the gas tax pander was not so bad. As a consequentialist, I’m with Mickey. There is really no chance that the gas tax holiday will be implemented, and even if it were, a three-month holiday from an $0.18 per gallon gas tax would have negligible effects on the economy and the environment. Still, I acknowledge that there are consequences to the political process and to policymaking in general when politicians propose silly ideas or make arguments that they know are bogus.

Unions and the Working Class – I thought this was a pretty good discussion, though I wish that they had sharpened their differences a little more.

I think it is fair to say that Mickey and Jon agree that they want the working class to make more money and (though neither said this explicitly) that they would both prefer that return to labor grow relative to the return to capital. I think they also agree that they would prefer that the return to labor come in the form of monetary compensation not in the form of leisure during the workday (i.e. not in the form of productivity-killing work rules or in policies that favor less productive workers over more productive workers). So I think they mostly agree on the policy goal.

However, they have real differences on the policy solution. Mickey believes that unions have proven that they tend to promote too many productivity-killing work rules and that, in the long run, unions shrink the pie at the expense of everyone. His solution is a tight labor market and says that one way to create a tight labor market is through a more restrictive immigration policy (or at least a better-enforced immigration policy).

Jon says that you just can’t call up a tight labor market, and he insinuated that unions like the SEIU are starting to realize some of the ways that they erred in the past. He says that private sector unions are good but government unions are bad. Therefore, he favors policies like card check that will favor the unions that he thinks are good (BTW I think Jon’s distinction between government and private sector unions is an interesting one, but I would like to hear him defend the validity of the distinction.)

I agree with Mickey and Jon on the policy goal, and I suspect that most workers do too. I am not sure what the right policy solution is. My suspicion is that the criticism that unions have promoted work rules that are sclerotic and have shrunk the pie is valid, but it might be a little overblown. I think the empirical evidence shows that unionization is, on balance, good for workers. Have they been as good for workers as they should have been? Probably not. Have they promoted some policies that even most workers would agree ran contrary to their own interests, not to mention the interest of the economy as a whole? Probably. So to me the right policies will be those that throw out as much of the bath water as possible without harming the baby. I don’t think “card check” fits that description. I don’t know what does, but I will say that I think we are living in an age where our biggest economic problems have to do with our inability to solve the “principal-agent problem.” Maybe we should address this by enlarging the problem. Perhaps shareholders should have to ratify union agreements too.

brucds
05-10-2008, 01:59 PM
look - you don't make any sense. This statement isn't about what particular white people do - it's about a legacy of structural racism. Thank you very much for being sorry about all of that. Totally misses the point of "black values." As for equating Zionism with racism - as opposed to being critical of Israeli policies that are indeed racism - I'll leave it to you to swim in that pool. Apparently you can't see anything in a context other than your personal predilictions. The parallel - and double standard - in the way many Jews position their religion and their relationship to Israel hasn't been addressed by anyone. Rev. Wright's views about Zionism have zero to do with this.

bjkeefe
05-10-2008, 02:08 PM
Mickey’s Contrarianism – I thought that one of whole merits of the blogosphere was that it brings the benefits of the “long tail” to political commentary. So why shouldn’t Mickey be the contrarian liberal blogger provocateur? I think it’s valid to debate him on this or that issue or to say that he is be overly repetitive, or even to argue that the net effect of his blog is to hurt the Democrats, but I don’t think it is constructive to tell him that he should be writing about any particular issue or that he should write more about the evils of Bush or the merits of Obama.

Good points, Bob. Just to be contrarian ... ;^)

As to Mickey's defense on not wanting to write about a specific topic that everyone else is writing about, sure, that's entirely understandable. But you could also see this as an example of a larger pattern: Mickey's habit of passing along, even obsessing over, any smear or innuendo if it has to do with Democrats, while treating the Republicans with kid gloves. It's one thing to be a self-appointed critic of one's side when it comes to policy, ideas, and actions; it's another to sink to one-sided tabloid-style wink-wink-nudge-nudging as a staple for one's entire blog.

As Jonathan noted toward the end, the way to view this diavlog was as a conversation between long-time friends, with the viewers as flies on the wall. Looked at in this way, Jonathan's criticism seems legitimate in two ways: Mickey claims one political affiliation but acts like he belongs to another, and he adopts the air of a serious political analyst but does not apply a consistent set of standards or the same critical eye to what he writes about. Friends can, and should, call each other out on hypocrisy.

Again, Mickey is perfectly free to write about whatever he wants, in any way he wants. It's just that there's a sense of dishonesty, or at least inconsistency, between his work and the way he talks about his work.

brucds
05-10-2008, 02:08 PM
Great response. Definitely doesn't sound like some little creep typing away in Momma's basement. You are a giant among commenters.

graz
05-10-2008, 02:13 PM
[QUOTE=look: "You're insulting the millions of white Americans who are sincerely sorry about the Black experience.

I'll reckon there's a black person or two who would find such rhetoric bigoted and counter-productive to some of the other Black Value System goals."

Look:
Thanks for highlighting this understated point about the challenge that white and black America faces. Of course we really are one America, yet it would be foolish to ignore these real concerns and divisions.
I think you offered another chance to dialogue about this complex set of issues... Hey, just like Obama did in his Philly Speech (LECTURE).
It is an interesting question: How do sympathetic voters, not affiliated with a church that embraces the "Black Value System" begin to understand or is it even a necessary process to further an understanding of the political underpinnings of Obama?
Separating the invective out of brucds reply, I'm inclined to believe that once again nuance and context are required to offset the fear or doubts.
Damn nuance, it just doesn't cooperate when it is most required.
Even though this thread has once again devolved into heated partisanship - myself included- Your probing questions are appreciated by me for one.

My answer is in line with brcuds: Don't let crazy ideas get in the way of the project at hand. As much as it pains me, kidney, pisc, DT, whatfur, et al are right that we pick a man or women as much as party. And how we take the measure of that candidate is where the arguing begins. Character counts, but personal prejudice and selective reasoning seems to trump reasoned debate.
What to do?
By the way.... wasn't this all about Mickey?

look
05-10-2008, 02:20 PM
look - you don't make any sense. This statement isn't about what particular white people do - it's about a legacy of structural racism. Thank you very much for being sorry about all of that. Totally misses the point of "black values." As for equating Zionism with racism - as opposed to being critical of Israeli policies that are indeed racism - I'll leave it to you to swim in that pool. Apparently you can't see anything in a context other than your personal predilictions.And you totally miss the point that a 'black value' portraying white people at large as 'captors' is bigoted. If anyone is caught up in their own predilictions, you're the one.

Happy Hominid
05-10-2008, 02:26 PM
Thanks Ebeneezer. I guess now and then I'm able to string together a cogent thought.

Happy Hominid
05-10-2008, 02:30 PM
John, no doubt some people have mostly gone into a post-racial mode of living. As a man who is married to a black woman from the Dominican Republic and two grown children, I like to think of myself that way too. And yet... it isn't completely done even for those of us who try to live in an enlightened way. How much worse for the millions who are no where close to our life experiences?

Happy Hominid
05-10-2008, 02:34 PM
Imagine the variety of great topics Mickey COULD rip into McCain over. And it's disingenuous to say that they are well-worn topics. Those of us who really keep up with such things know about the surface stories that could haunt McCain. Others have heard almost nothing yet. It's a wide open field for you, Mick!

Whatfur
05-10-2008, 03:26 PM
Look,

Of course the biggest evidence of the truth of my statements is that it took you, someone whose posts reflect of fairness, to ask the question because the Obamanation that permeates here already know and like everything else they choose to turn a blind eye and/or because...well...because (http://tubearoo.com/articles/89396/The_Simpsons_You_Can_t_Handle_the_Truth.html)

I have read a number of accounts...with a quick google now I can give you:

A D. Couples blog post (http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/03/while-a-trip-to.html) that references a Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706.html).

This one (http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print)I had read at the time it was written and provides some new info and details of other things I had heard about.


Add to these things his plagerizing of Devel Patrick and his false statement about being a law professor (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/was-barack-obama-law-professor.html)and again...I just find it hard to believe the slack this fraud is given because so many were so invested prior to his vetting.

Let me know if you would like additional info.

look
05-10-2008, 03:28 PM
"You're insulting the millions of white Americans who are sincerely sorry about the Black experience.

I'll reckon there's a black person or two who would find such rhetoric bigoted and counter-productive to some of the other Black Value System goals."

Look:
Thanks for highlighting this understated point about the challenge that white and black America faces. Of course we really are one America, yet it would be foolish to ignore these real concerns and divisions.
I think you offered another chance to dialogue about this complex set of issues... Hey, just like Obama did in his Philly Speech (LECTURE).
It is an interesting question: How do sympathetic voters, not affiliated with a church that embraces the "Black Value System" begin to understand or is it even a necessary process to further an understanding of the political underpinnings of Obama?
Separating the invective out of brucds reply, I'm inclined to believe that once again nuance and context are required to offset the fear or doubts.
Damn nuance, it just doesn't cooperate when it is most required.
Even though this thread has once again devolved into heated partisanship - myself included- Your probing questions are appreciated by me for one.My answer is in line with brcuds: Don't let crazy ideas get in the way of the project at hand. As much as it pains me, kidney, pisc, DT, whatfur, et al are right that we pick a man or women as much as party. And how we take the measure of that candidate is where the arguing begins. Character counts, but personal prejudice and selective reasoning seems to trump reasoned debate.
What to do?
By the way.... wasn't this all about Mickey?
graz, that wasn't the weight of brucds message, which contained upwards of 9 insults to any white who would question the reverse bigotry of point #8 of the Black Value System.

Nuance is all well and good for a white like me, whom brucds so graciously thanked, but I still think the big picture is being missed. Obama attended for 20 years the church of a racist, anti-semitic nutjob. There's not a hell of a lot of nuance there for lots of Dems and Republicans. Yes, we're exhausted and bored with the topic, but we're political junkies. When the general race starts in earnest, buckle your seatbelt, it's going to be a bumpy ride. Whenever brucds says, 'say hello to President Obama,' he should click his heels together three times, just for insurance.

Mickey, shmickey. I like Mickey a lot; hell, I may be Mickey. Alter's ok, but he was a ponderous nag this go-round. Next time he should just stick to discussing topics.

jh in sd
05-10-2008, 03:31 PM
bj, It's not nit picky-if you ignore the spin doctors in the pulpits and go to the New Testament as your source, it is hard to come away without discovering a continuing theme of reconciliation to God and others through humility, service to others, and forgiveness. There are other important themes as well, but when removed from the primary message of love and reconciliation, they become incompatible with the true message of Christ.

As far a Wright is concerned, it would probably be more generous of me to say that he suffered from pride before the fall. But I do feel that any preacher who calls down damnation needs to re-examine the life of Christ.

piscivorous
05-10-2008, 03:38 PM
Barack Obama and Me (http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/)

The white, race-baiting, hard-right Republican Illinois Senate Majority Leader James "Pate" Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr., a gravel-voiced, dark-skinned African-American known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor.

Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama's. He became Obama's *kingmaker.

Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city's most popular black call-in radio *program.

I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:

"He said, 'Cliff, I'm gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'"

"Oh, you are? Who might that be?"

"Barack Obama."

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.

"I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book." There were numerous stories about this around this time but they were so similar in content that they probably came from one source. This one sums it up fairly well from what I remember reading back then.

P.S. Didn't mean to step on your thread but I thought that the question needed answering. You replied while I was out getting the basic info and composing my comment.

graz
05-10-2008, 03:40 PM
QUOTE=look:
"Nuance is all well and good for a white like me, whom brucds so graciously thanked, but I still think the big picture is being missed. Obama attended for 20 years the church of a racist, anti-semitic nutjob.

Whenever brucds says, 'say hello to President Obama,' he should click his heels together three times, just for insurance."


On your first point, the picture has been drawn incessantly.
The question is what will you do with the image.
I'm a junkie too but I fail to see the significance of the linkage that you obviously do.
And nowhere have I seen you afford any nuance or context to the man (Wright).

Secondly, in addition he should cross fingers, throw salt and ward off the evil eye.

Whatfur
05-10-2008, 03:45 PM
Actually no UE, that was not the foundation from which I started. You see, that is where YOU are the one mistaken. My foundation was not knowing anything at all about him, followed by hearing nothing of substance at all when he spoke. It was when I began to try to find information on what exactly he had done and in doing so he either came up empty or fraudulent.

I just responded to a question by look somewhere here which if you read the links will give you a better idea about my foundation instead of your own prejudiced speculation. Sorry, man but your boy is probably a nice guy but an empty suit who is not close to being ready to take on the responsibility of being the most powerfull man in the world. Hopeity, Hopeity, change, change does not a president make.

AemJeff
05-10-2008, 03:53 PM
the New Testament as your source, it is hard to come away without discovering a continuing theme of reconciliation to God and others through humility, service to others, and forgiveness.

That is how Christianity was taught to me in my youth. I only rarely recognize that message in contemporary representations of Christian beliefs. I don't doubt that it's still a strong part of the teachings, but it seems to me that an Old Testament Iron Age vengefulness, or at least a seeming nostalgia for that sort of muscular faith, is increasingly what's thought of as authentic Christianity. Far more "eye for an eye" than "turn the other cheek." In my opinion, even absent belief in God the Father, the New Testament can stand as a strong example of how to live a life - but a lot of what passes for Modern Christianity, at least as I'm exposed to it, seems nearly inverted from those ideals.

bjkeefe
05-10-2008, 04:19 PM
look:

... I still think the big picture is being missed. Obama attended for 20 years the church of a racist, anti-semitic nutjob.

I think you're missing something in constructing your picture, too: all of the other things that Wright talked about when he was in the pulpit, all of the other aspects to the community life that Obama found in the church, and yes, all of the valuable political connections and cred Obama was building by being part of that community.

Back when I used to go to church regularly, there were invariably things said during the sermons and readings that I found offensive; e.g., pretty much anything in Paul's letters having to do with his prescriptions for family life. And we're talking plain vanilla American suburban Roman Catholicism here; i.e., a message that's been sanitized for inoffensiveness for centuries.

The point is, nothing is perfect, and we all take in what works for us and discard the rest. By the same token, one bad part does not mean the whole must be abandoned.

piscivorous
05-10-2008, 04:27 PM
The current media portrayal in the MSM and even the newer media concerning Christianity is similar to the rest of the issues it covers, if it bleeds it leads, if it is controversial it is sellable, the more provocative the high the price. This can probably be generalized to Islam, Judaism and every other faith that people choose to practice. I highly doubt that the fire and brimstone approach from the Old Testament, as it is portrayed and proselytized by the televangelists, is the dominate philosophy of Christen denominations. But the power of the pulpit, and that power is real to those who believe, can be just as corrupting as the practice of politics and we all know how whacked politicians are, whether it is the left viewing the right or visa versa. In the context of this political cycle I have less trouble with what Pastor Wright had to say than with the way Senator Obama has dealt with it. I just don't mean once it became a public spectacle but for the 20 some odd years he has supported what I believe to be a radicalizing and negative philosophy.

bjkeefe
05-10-2008, 04:31 PM
bj, It's not nit picky-if you ignore the spin doctors in the pulpits and go to the New Testament as your source ...

AemJeff has already given a good response. I'll just add one point for emphasis: you describe Christianity as you understand it from how you were brought up in one particular sect of it. I expect that you've learned a little bit about other sects over time, of course, but I doubt you've had the opportunity to survey the entire field. Also, just learning a little about the differences between a few branches of Christianity should suggest the possibility of other differences.

As AemJeff notes, were a sect to concentrate more on the Old Testament than the New, the view of reconciliation could well be less important. I'd go further and say that it's also possible to take a different view of reconciliation from just reading the New. Yes, "turn the other cheek" is one part, but there are also some vague memories floating around in memory of passages where Jesus spoke in more vengeful or retributive terms. And in any case, once someone makes up his or her mind to believe something, it's almost always possible to find justification for that thinking by reading and interpreting the Bible to suit. One doesn't need to be a dismissive atheist to admit that.

As far a Wright is concerned, it would probably be more generous of me to say that he suffered from pride before the fall. But I do feel that any preacher who calls down damnation needs to re-examine the life of Christ.

I'd say three things to this. First, you're almost certainly interpreting Wright in light of a very few moments in his life. Second, judging others (which we all do) seems itself to connote some sense of pride in the one who is judging. Third, I have yet to hear of a fire-and-brimstone type of preacher who doesn't call down damnation. It's stock in trade for all the televangelists I've ever heard, for example.

graz
05-10-2008, 04:33 PM
The current media portrayal in the MSM and even the newer media concerning Christianity is similar to the rest of the issues it covers, if it bleeds it leads, if it is controversial it is sellable, the more provocative the high the price. This can probably be generalized to Islam, Judaism and every other faith that people choose to practice. I highly doubt that the fire and brimstone approach from the Old Testament, as it is portrayed and proselytized by the televangelists, is the dominate philosophy of Christen denominations. But the power of the pulpit, and that power is real to those who believe, can be just as corrupting as the practice of politics and we all know how whacked politicians are, whether it is the left viewing the right or visa versa. In the context of this political cycle I have less trouble with what Pastor Wright had to say than with the way Senator Obama has dealt with it. I just don't mean once it became a public spectacle but for the 20 some odd years he has supported what I believe to be a radicalizing and negative philosophy.

Damn, you had me for the first 4 sentences... and then you lost me again.
Is there any particular support other than membership that bothers you? What were the concrete manifestations of the support?

look
05-10-2008, 04:42 PM
QUOTE=look:
"Nuance is all well and good for a white like me, whom brucds so graciously thanked, but I still think the big picture is being missed. Obama attended for 20 years the church of a racist, anti-semitic nutjob.



On your first point, the picture has been drawn incessantly.
The question is what will you do with the image.
I'm a junkie too but I fail to see the linkage that you obviously do.
graz, first, I'm sorry for the snippiness of my reply. It didn't match your very considerate post. Second, here is my complete first point (emphasis added):
Nuance is all well and good for a white like me, whom brucds so graciously thanked, but I still think the big picture is being missed. Obama attended for 20 years the church of a racist, anti-semitic nutjob. There's not a hell of a lot of nuance there for lots of Dems and Republicans. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'linkage' I see. Also my point is that as political junkies, we parse this out and search for the nuance. A large sector of the electorate won't be so discerning.

And nowhere have I seen you afford any nuance or context to the man (Wright).I can't get my post to link directly, but I posted something today at 2:18 AM in this thread:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=76757#poststop

But overall, I've come to see him as a megalomaniacal fanatic, who, if you consider the opportunities he was afforded as an American citizen, went on to poison the minds of his congregants. What kicked this discussion off was the point that part of the Black Value System inculcates into the black mind that whites are 'captors.' This mind-set creates a prison without bars.

graz
05-10-2008, 05:02 PM
look:
Thanks for the civility as well. Silly me, I admired your earlier post and was going to offer it as part of a response to someone else. So I stand corrected.

And yet as my post proves, one pull from a post can potentially have you-tube consequences. I am also with you on the potential negative consequences of BVS #8.

However, your now settled conclusion about Wright , imo, (linkage) shouldn't reflect poorly on Obama. You are entitled to allow it or choose it - I'm making a suggestion that you do otherwise. Particularly for the reasons that Brendan expressed so clearly a few posts above. Do you think Obama has been inculcated? If you can make that case I could be persuaded. Notwithstanding your point about the larger electorate, it still seems important to persuade one forum participant who may be wavering. One Mickey, one vote. Except sometimes in Chicago..jk.

kevski11
05-10-2008, 05:09 PM
Mickey Kaus is simply clueless! To say that America's historical racism is simply a problem is Black America's "pathological" problem is simply absurd. He is exactly who Senator Obama was talking to in his Race Speech. Is is this Mickey guy a democrat because he sure has all the "pathological" GOP talking points down to a science.

piscivorous
05-10-2008, 05:17 PM
Damn, you had me for the first 4 sentences... and then you lost me again.
Is there any particular support other than membership that bothers you? What were the concrete manifestations of the support? As this THE BLACK VALUE SYSTEM (http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html) is from the churches WEB site I have to assume that it is in part, if not in totality, the guiding philosophy of the church. As I have said I find it radicalizing and negative and parts of it bigoted. I believe that Trinity like most if not all churches subsist on tithing, you know the members transfer funds from their own pockets to the pocket of the church. When you give money to an organization it generally implies that you support it's goals and philosophy. As there are numerous other religious establishments, in the immediate area, as well as throughout the Chicago land area, some of which I am sure are majority black that don't preach or practice Black Liberation Theology

It is reasonable for me to then infer that the reason that you attend a particular institution that espouses BLT philosophy is you share the goals and philosophy of BLT. If not then you are sitting in the pew for 20 some plus years with completely different goal in mind and the only one I can think of in this particular instance is primarily political; which I not sure speaks more highly of his motives nor his character.

bkjazfan
05-10-2008, 05:19 PM
Happy Hominid,

I also had a 12 year interracial marriage with one child that unfortunately ended in divorce. I find it so difficult to understand the Jeremiah Wrights and Christian identity types of this world. When I was in the army in the late 60's I heard these white guys from the south talking their trash and I removed myself from such conversations. As a young surfer guy from L.A. it was too foreign to me. Forty years later I still find this kind of talk repulsive and it doesn't matter whose mouth it comes out of.

John

Whatfur
05-10-2008, 05:26 PM
What seems to be missing behind the attempts to normalize Reverand Wright by speculating that Aids Stuff, and GD America stuff, and Evil Jew stuff, and Eval white man stuff by saying that they probably made up a small percentage of his articulation, is logic. First, the context BS has been refuted by now Obama himself as well as by those sermons we now have heard in their whole context. Second, it has been reported that all of his sermons were taped...but surprise they have not been made available. Don't you think if they showed a huge outpouring of brotherly love or at the very least something even a little softer on average than the racist, black-victim rhetoric we have seen, that they would have been made available immediately??? Sure they would have. Thirdly, how do you go from spewing the things above one week to talking about love and reconcilation with with all people of all creeds and colors the next without being hypocritical?

And finally anyone who portends to habitually hearing a priest spew anything like we have seen from the good Reverand I can only respond with B as in B, S as in S.

graz
05-10-2008, 05:31 PM
It is reasonable for me to then infer that the reason that you attend a particular institution that espouses BLT philosophy is you share the goals and philosophy of BLT. If not then you are sitting in the pew for 20 some plus years with completely different goal in mind and the only one I can think of in this particular instance is primarily political; which I not sure speaks more highly of his motives.

Fair enough on the inference, but I have to counter that all denominations are about community. I don't know of any of the BLT philosophies that were realized other than imagined, practiced other than preached; the concrete work of the community included housing outreach, food and clothing drives, etc...
The church no more realized it's philosophical aims than your average evangelical church has fostered Armageddon.
But then, don't ask me to defend religion.
I will grant that community service is admirable.

piscivorous
05-10-2008, 05:51 PM
Fair enough on the inference, but I have to counter that all denominations are about community. I don't know of any of the BLT philosophies that were realized other than imagined, practiced other than preached; the concrete work of the community included housing outreach, food and clothing drives, etc...
The church no more realized it's philosophical aims than your average evangelical church has fostered Armageddon.
But then, don't ask me to defend religion.
I will grant that community service is admirable.I have no idea either and baring some parishioners coming forward and baring all, there is probably a good book deal in there somewhere, never will. I have no doubt that the church and the Pastor have done many good works and preformed many necessary services as do the televangelists so you will get no argument there. But I would have similar qualms about a 20+ year parishioner of insert radical white preacher of choice running for President. So far what we have seen from Senator McCain is the pursuit of votes. This is what a politician must do, to accumulate 50% +1 of the Electoral College, and to do this the age old adage of "the political enemy of my political enemy is my political friend" comes into play. I don't particularly like it but such is reality.

bkjazfan
05-10-2008, 05:59 PM
I wonder if going to these types of churches is part of the dumbing down of America? Frankly, I don't see how a person with even a junior college education would want to go to Wright's church, a white pentecostal one, or the myriad of strange cults and denominations that are found in this country. I don't get it!

John

graz
05-10-2008, 06:09 PM
I wonder if going to these types of churches is part of the dumbing down of America? Frankly, I don't see how a person with even a junior college education would want to go to Wright's church, a white pentecostal one, or the myriad of strange cults and denominations that are found in this country. I don't get it!

John

That's because you have been enlightened by the power of jazz music.
Which is as close as I would ever be able to come to worship.
Even if we don't get it... the numbers don't lie.

RTF members Chic Corea and Stanley Clarke are Scientologists.
Go figure.

Bob M
05-10-2008, 08:08 PM
But you could also see this as an example of a larger pattern: Mickey's habit of passing along, even obsessing over, any smear or innuendo if it has to do with Democrats, while treating the Republicans with kid gloves. It's one thing to be a self-appointed critic of one's side when it comes to policy, ideas, and actions; it's another to sink to one-sided tabloid-style wink-wink-nudge-nudging as a staple for one's entire blog.

Yes, I agree with you on this. I think Bob Wright has made this point better in the past than Jon Alter does here

bkjazfan
05-10-2008, 08:30 PM
Graz,

You are right about jazz music. I have been mesmerized by John Coltrane for 40 years.

John

AemJeff
05-10-2008, 08:32 PM
Graz,

You are right about jazz music. I have been mesmerized by John Coltrane for 40 years.

John

Definitely one of my favorite things.

bjkeefe
05-10-2008, 09:00 PM
Ah, Larry Johnson. Along with Taylor Marsh, Jerome Armstrong, Armando the Big Spent Democrat, and Jeralyn Merritt, certainly a paragon of rational thought and concern for the overall good of the party and country to which I can only dream of someday attaining. Few things are as entertaining to watch as the meltdowns of these cretins.

Glad these sites provide someplace for you to deal with your loneliness though, kidneystones. I'd hate to think of where else you might have to go to find people like yourself.

bjkeefe
05-10-2008, 09:03 PM
Yes, I agree with you on this. I think Bob Wright has made this point better in the past than Jon Alter does here

Bob's done good on this score, I agree, but it was nice to hear someone else that Mickey might listen to saying the same thing.

bkjazfan
05-10-2008, 09:29 PM
Aem Jeff,

"My Favorite Things" - nice play on words.

John

AemJeff
05-10-2008, 09:56 PM
Aem Jeff,

"My Favorite Things" - nice play on words.

John

Thanks, John. Here's a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_n-gRS_wdI&eurl=http://eponym327.blogspot.com/search/label/Jazz) for anyone who's curious what we're talking about.

graz
05-10-2008, 10:16 PM
There are plenty of places folks like me go. Patriotism, hard work, family, national service and pride in country win me entry into some wonderful places.

I sincerely hope you and the rest of the Obama fans continue to prove your superior virtues and intelligence to the rest of us.

I get down on my knees and thank my lucky stars I've been blessed with enough sense to know when I'm in the wrong place talking to the wrong people.

You have a good time listening to Obama tell you why you're all the people you've been waiting for.

Hillary and Bill and their 'racist supporters' have no place in your Democratic Party. I hope they don't let the door hit them on the ass on the way out.
This would be your second melodramatic exit in the last few months.
If the third time is a charm does that mean that we can look forward to another reappearance?

I have a better idea. Why don't you stay and actually engage with other participants. Maybe you just want a hug or an invite. Well I guess I can only speak for myself, but what do you say... stay?

graz
05-10-2008, 10:18 PM
Thanks, John. Here's a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_n-gRS_wdI&eurl=http://eponym327.blogspot.com/search/label/Jazz) for anyone who's curious what we're talking about.

Thanks Jeff... John... Trane

donroberto
05-10-2008, 10:26 PM
Probably the most appropriate title for a diavlog in some time.

I agree but for different reasons. The idea that Obama's race speech was nothing more than a lecture is entirely absurd as to be laughable.

I suppose the people were all offended by Lincoln's House Divided and Gettysburg "Lectures". I mean, they were so ahead of him on these issues. Any good carpenter could have told you that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And everybody whoever took a civics class knew about being conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition, blah blah blah blah blah!

bjkeefe
05-10-2008, 10:51 PM
Hillary and Bill and their 'racist supporters' have no place in your Democratic Party. I hope they don't let the door hit them on the ass on the way out.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

graz
05-10-2008, 10:57 PM
Couldn't have said it better myself.

You know they might start a third party?
At least it will keep you know who engaged.

bjkeefe
05-10-2008, 11:54 PM
You know they might start a third party?

The Clieberman Party?

Slogan: America for Dummies
Name of first legislative initiative: No Earth Left Unscorched
Official Residence Renamed: The Hard-Working White House

graz
05-10-2008, 11:58 PM
The Clieberman Party?

Slogan: America for Dummies
Name of first legislative initiative: No Earth Left Unscorched
Official Residence Renamed: The Hard-Working White House

belly laugh from me

look
05-11-2008, 12:28 AM
However, your now settled conclusion about Wright , imo, (linkage) shouldn't reflect poorly on Obama. You are entitled to allow it or choose it - I'm making a suggestion that you do otherwise. Particularly for the reasons that Brendan expressed so clearly a few posts above. Do you think Obama has been inculcated? If you can make that case I could be persuaded. Notwithstanding your point about the larger electorate, it still seems important to persuade one forum participant who may be wavering. One Mickey, one vote. Except sometimes in Chicago..jk.I think he may have been, to a degree. I understand that in one of his books, he talks of the inspiration he gained from the first Wright semon he heard. And is it correct that he took Rev. Wright's tapes to law school so he could listen to them? So did he mean that, or was he politicking?

I think Michelle is completely in, and his daughters are being raised in this atmosphere.

One Mickey, one vote...sweet.

look
05-11-2008, 12:40 AM
look:
I think you're missing something in constructing your picture, too: all of the other things that Wright talked about when he was in the pulpit, all of the other aspects to the community life that Obama found in the church, and yes, all of the valuable political connections and cred Obama was building by being part of that community.
Yes, but why that church?
Back when I used to go to church regularly, there were invariably things said during the sermons and readings that I found offensive; e.g., pretty much anything in Paul's letters having to do with his prescriptions for family life. And we're talking plain vanilla American suburban Roman Catholicism here; i.e., a message that's been sanitized for inoffensiveness for centuries.
Inoffensiveness to whom? ;-)

Interesting thought, Brendan, I'm going to have to ponder that one.
The point is, nothing is perfect, and we all take in what works for us and discard the rest. By the same token, one bad part does not mean the whole must be abandoned.
Cafeteria black liberation theology....

look
05-11-2008, 12:49 AM
Whatfur and pisc, thanks for the links. I haven't gotten a chance to read them yet, but look forward to it.

look
05-11-2008, 12:52 AM
Odd thing about Alter's lecture: he tries to trip up Kaus with the cognitive dissonance in Kaus's ideology, but he trips himself up instead. Both of these men threw in with Clintonian centrism in the 1990s. Now that the Bush era has revealed the ugly truth that the Clinton era was not much more than a retrenchment period aimed at sweeping modern liberalism into the dustbin and filling the coffers for imperial projects, Alter feels a certain amount of guilt. Kaus doesn't. That's really the only thing that separates these two guys.I'd be interested in reactions to the bolded quote, if anyone has thoughts to share.

lowellfield
05-11-2008, 01:15 AM
I wish people would stop defending Mickey by saying his critics just want him to be an orthodox liberal. That's not the problem. It's the dishonesty, stupid.

Imagine a guy who goes bowling all day, every day, and he's really good. Could go pro. And a guy at the lane says "Hey, you're quite a bowler!" And he says "I'm not a bowler. I never bowl. I'm a baseball player." Now, you can say that guy is full of crap without making any comment one way or the other as to whether bowling or baseball is better.

graz
05-11-2008, 01:18 AM
[QUOTE=look;"I think he may have been, to a degree. I understand that in one of his books, he talks of the inspiration he gained from the first Wright semon he heard. And is it correct that he took Rev. Wright's tapes to law school so he could listen to them? So did he mean that, or was he politicking?
I think Michelle is completely in, and his daughters are being raised in this atmosphere."

You raise an interesting point if what you think is true. Let's say he meant it. How would this bear on his ability to execute the duties of office? Of course behavior is often traced to influences. Could you imagine him making policy decisions thru a BLT lens?
I find it hard to believe that the fully formed man we have come to "know" is so beholden to this singular influence as to expect it to be a harbinger of decisions or approach.
I hold no illusions about his purity or perfection. But I am not afraid or concerned that I should withhold judgement until some later date when all rocks are overturned. How much more can I know? What more do I need to know? It's about the role of President not the man that I am most concerned.

Let's take our current President. Most likely his most formative influences were fraternity life and coming to Jesus. What does this explain to us in regard to his behavior in office?
And if you're right about Michelle, I find that intriguing. It would make for an interesting observational case.

graz
05-11-2008, 01:20 AM
[QUOTE=lowellfield;
It's the dishonesty, stupid.
[/QUOTE]

Bumper-sticker worthy!

graz
05-11-2008, 01:32 AM
Brendan, I suspect, defines the blogosphere as those sites where Obama's praises are sung to the skies. Everywhere else is a kind of hell.

I post here and one or two other places.

I've a lot of commitments outside bhtv. Please take my comment as a statement of proportional participation.

When I go to church, I go to church.

Others worship online.

See you around.

This site is so much more than to Obama or not to Obama.
If you have other obligations, O.K.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 01:33 AM
look:

Yes, but why that church?

Political connections is the explanation I've heard most often.

Cafeteria black liberation theology....

LOL!

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 01:50 AM
An interesting thing about our current president is that he is bilittled for only having joined the Air National Guard during the Vietnam area and frolicking in safety. Yet he flew the F102 Star Fighter which has one of if the highest accident rate for modern ground based fighter aircraft. From memory the research I did gives numbers something like this

Produced around 850 or so
Aircraft lost due to accidents around 250.
Number of pilots killed in those accidents approximately 70. Of course this says nothing of the pilots that were injured often seriously when having to decide to exit the aircraft in a rather quick and violent manner.

It seems that the F102 had a fairly nasty habit of the engines quiting (compressor stall) when you pulled back on the throttle and pointed the nose towards the sky. Something you do every time you take off.

War is not the only thing that is dangerous to your health and welfare when you sign your name on the dotted line and raise your hand to take the oath. This is probably one of the reasons that president Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard is not disparaged or discounted amongst most veterans as much as it is amongst those that have never served.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 01:54 AM
An interesting thing about our current president is that he is bilittled for only having joined the Air National Guard during the Vietnam area and frolicking in safety. Yet he flew the F102 Star Fighter which has one of if the highest accident rate for modern ground based fighter aircraft.

Probably a good thing for him that he kept going AWOL (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2000/05/23/1_year_gap_in_bushs_guard_duty/) and skipping his flight physicals (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/bushang.html) then.

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 01:56 AM
One should ask Dan Rather about that I suppose!

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 02:01 AM
No need to. I just updated my last post with links.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 02:04 AM
Brendan, I suspect, defines the blogosphere as those sites where Obama's praises are sung to the skies. Everywhere else is a kind of hell.

It's almost hard to believe a brave truth-telling message bearer could be wrong about anything, isn't it?

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 02:08 AM
Yes senility is defiantly setting in. It might help if you provide this link where I fretted about him being too much the leader.

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 02:20 AM
having had to take a few flight physicals in my brief tenure in the service i can assure you it is not something that was all that unusual in that time period for active duty Army at least. You will also notice that the neither officer, in the actual memo sighted, seems to make much of this as I see no recommendation for any disciplinary action, for that matter any action at all, against the then First Lieutenant Bush. But I defer to your greater knowledge of the inner workings of the Services and how it handles these sort of matters. As I stated earlier many of those who serve see things from a some what different perspective.

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 02:50 AM
Flying a military aircraft is a tricky thing. It takes a certain attitude and demeanor to successfully return to the cockpit controls and just preform the task that is your job. I have friends that for one reason or another had to walk away because they had lost that attitude and demeanor. We all saw in the Hollywood blockbuster Top Gun one portrayal of one of those reasons but of course Mr. Cruise recovers from his troubles and saves the day. Real life seldom woks this way so the respect that I have for these friends service to their country, even though they walked away from their profession, was not lessened nor was the honor they are due diminished. Only President Bush can answer the question why, which seems to you to be so important, but to me it is of no relevance what soever. If you wish to diminish the service of First Lieutenant Bush, for cheap political posturing, because for some reason he made a decision to no longer fly that is your prerogative but it is not one that I think you will find in those that have taken to the skies, in services of their country, so you can remain so judgmental.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 03:09 AM
Yes senility is defiantly setting in. It might help if you provide this link where I fretted about him being too much the leader.

Here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=76448&postcount=11). And here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=76470&postcount=11), from later in the same thread.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 03:19 AM
... Only President Bush can answer the question why, which seems to you to be so important, but to me it is of no relevance what soever.

Nope. It was you who brought it up in the first place (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=76874#post76874), from out of left field. At this point, I could give a shit about Bush's ANG time, or lack thereof. He's now guilty of far worse crimes.

If you wish to diminish the service of First Lieutenant Bush, for cheap political posturing, because for some reason he made a decision to no longer fly that is your prerogative but it is not one that I think you will find in those that have taken to the skies, in services of their country, so you can remain so judgmental.

Spare me the pieties. I have no respect for rich men's sons who take cushy jobs when real soldiers are dying. He'll always be a chickenhawk, and nothing more.

Given all that we've experienced over the past seven-plus years, it's a mystery to me why anyone would take the time to defend any of this loser's actions. Or inactions, to be more precise.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 03:58 AM
... Yes, I think you're a coward and a fraud. ...

Do tell. Why is that?

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 04:22 AM
done, Brendan.

Best of luck.

Another empty accusation exposed, kidneystones now storms off in his 47th huff of the month.

I'd say don't let the door hit you on the way out, kidneystones, but somehow, I doubt you'll even make it that far.

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 07:04 AM
Actually it was graz that brought it up ...Let's take our current President. Most likely his most formative influences were fraternity life and coming to Jesus. What does this explain to us in regard to his behavior in office?... No one that serves their country in the armed services is not shaped by it in one way or another. I thought that for graz to blithely ignore his service, even as ignoble as you have judged it to be from the comfort of your hovel, is to ignore a sizable bit of shaping.


Spare me the pieties. I have no respect for rich men's sons who take cushy jobs when real soldiers are dying. He'll always be a chickenhawk, and nothing more.While I am sure that some of the 70 or so deaths from accident occurred over Vietnam however the majority of them happened not in the pursuit of killing the enemy but on routine training missions and patrols with a good number of them occurring in Air National Guard units. But I guess the deaths of these false soldiers serving in their cushy jobs should not be considered honorable service for they are not but "chickenhawks", wait they can't be chickenhawks because their nice comfy jobs killed them. Well I happen to be one of those "real soldiers" and from my perspective that sounds like a load of Bovine Scatology. I lost more friends over the hill country of Texas than I lost in my year of service in Vietnam.

Given all that we've experienced over the past seven-plus years, it's a mystery to me why anyone would take the time to defend any of this loser's actions. Or inactions, to be more precise.Yes I can see just how much you have suffered and endured or the last 7+ years. I can feel the pain and angst that your ensconcement in front of your keyboard has caused your soul. I therefore agree that with your exalted level of success and achievements in life, in conjunction with the hardships you have personally experienced in the reality of your underprivileged and miserable existence in the land of plenty has left you the Chief Justice in the court of who is a winner and conversely who is a loser in life. But I despair for you as this high exalted position, to which you have anointed yourself, will leave you a vacant and hollowed shell for there will be no further need of this supererogatory throne and it will be dismantled under Senator Obama's lock steeped march to a non confrontational utopia of peace love and harmony. Or then again it could be just another case of BDS.

johnmarzan
05-11-2008, 08:21 AM
mccain was the first to advocate the "gas tax holiday," not hillary. clinton copied grampa mac's idea.

if you're a reader of kausfiles, you know that mickey shows more contempt for mccain than obama. but mickster failed to criticize mccain's gax tax holiday proposal when it first came out.

so to use alter's logic, mickey must be a secret mccain supporter! genius!

Whatfur
05-11-2008, 09:22 AM
Here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=76448&postcount=11). And here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=76470&postcount=11), from later in the same thread.


But your "here" and "here" is neither here nor there in backing up your statement.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 09:30 AM
pisc:

You've failed to convince me, but I expect that felt good to get out. I could even hear the violins.

Whatfur
05-11-2008, 09:37 AM
pisc:

You've failed to convince me, but I expect that felt good to get out.


He convinced me. And you have conviced me that you are pretty much legless dickhead. (ahhhhh....it does feel good)

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 09:48 AM
He convinced me.

Color me shocked.

And you have conviced me that you are pretty much legless dickhead. (ahhhhh....it does feel good)

Ah, how quickly the promises are broken. From another thread not ten minutes ago ...

And I will shoot for being more like Conn with Reagan looking over his shoulder.

harkin
05-11-2008, 09:54 AM
I agree but for different reasons. The idea that Obama's race speech was nothing more than a lecture is entirely absurd as to be laughable.

I suppose the people were all offended by Lincoln's House Divided and Gettysburg "Lectures". I mean, they were so ahead of him on these issues. Any good carpenter could have told you that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And everybody whoever took a civics class knew about being conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition, blah blah blah blah blah!


It's almost funny how the people who praised Obama as the next Lincoln for his Philly speech are in total denial as to the true objective of obfuscation and a projection of guilt onto America en masse, with the larger goal being to remove Wright from the table. You'd think they'd have learned when BO did his about-face and threw Wright under the bus, not for the stated reasons of his AIDS, chickens and Farrakhan rants (which had already been reported) but for Wright's mortal sin of declaring BO an evasive, double-talking politician, which if you look at what has been said by both parties is one of the few times Wright was dead-on.

Every time that Obama sat and listened to the hate, don't you think he might have got a whiff of an idea that these lunatic ideas were the sort of thing that the 'a house divided' speech were meant to reject? Anyone with an average brain would think so but not a politician seeking to garner community cred at any cost.

To compare the Philly speech to Gettysburg is truly laughable, but that won't stop the adoration society from continuing to insist on it.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 10:02 AM
... but that won't stop the adoration society from continuing to insist on it.

And it won't stop the blinded-by-hate wingnuts from denying its importance, either.

Whatfur
05-11-2008, 10:02 AM
Color me shocked.



Ah, how quickly the promises are broken. From another thread not ten minutes ago ...


What do you mean?..Conn would think you are a legless dickhead also in this particular tact...as would Reagan, although he might phrase it differently.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 10:03 AM
What do you mean?..Conn would think you are a legless dickhead also in this particular tact...as would Reagan, although he might phrase it differently.

That the best you can do? An appeal to authority?

And try to imagine how little I care what Conn or St. Ron think about me. Nope, it's less than that. Try again.

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 10:08 AM
I am not out to convince you just expose your pettinesses and hypocrisy as amply demonstrated in this ...And try to imagine how little I care what Conn or St. Ron think about me. Let the Obama healing begin.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 10:12 AM
I am not out to convince you just expose you hypocrisies.

Might help if you specified what they were.

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 10:15 AM
I think my previous post speaks top that issue sufficiently.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 10:18 AM
I think my previous post speaks top that issue sufficiently.

So since you can't actually name anything specifically, your plan is to try to make me guess out loud at what might be my imagined "hypocrisies," thereby letting you say, "Yeah, that's what I meant. Yeah, yeah, that's it."

Your previous post was pious claptrap. Sorry if I'm not ready to bow down to George W. Bush in his soldier-boy costume.

AemJeff
05-11-2008, 10:44 AM
And it won't stop the blinded-by-hate wingnuts from denying its importance, either.

That's fear talking, I think. I'm making no predictions - I don't know what the dynamic is going to be once the race is really R vs D - but, I detect a lot of whistling in the dark among the dead-enders.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 10:46 AM
AemJeff:

That's fear talking, I think.

Yeah, you're right. Probably a lot of that mixed in, too.

thouartgob
05-11-2008, 10:58 AM
As to the question of why this church I have a tnr link:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/29/why-d-obama-join-trinity-in-the-first-place.aspx

grabbing a quote from the obama bio:
"Wright remains a maverick among Chicago's vast assortment of black preachers. He will question Scripture when he feels it forsakes common sense; he is an ardent foe of mandatory school prayer; and he is a staunch advocate for homosexual rights, which is almost unheard-of among African-American ministers. Gay and lesbian couples, with hands clasped, can be spotted in Trinity's pews each Sunday. Even if some blacks consider Wright's church serving only the bourgeois set, his ministry attracts a broad cross section of Chicago's black community. Obama first noticed the church because Wright had placed a "Free Africa" sign out front to protest continuing apartheid. The liberal, Columbia-educated Obama was attracted to Wright's cerebral and inclusive nature, as opposed to the more socially conservative and less educated ministers around Chicago. Wright developed into a counselor and mentor to Obama as Obama sought to understand the power of Christianity in the lives of black Americans, and as he grappled with the complex vagaries of Chicago's black political scene. "


Having watched a good chunk of Wrights speech ( press club or naacp I don't remember ) I can attest to his intellectual attitude towards many ( not all ) issues. It meandered around different topics ranging from the beats in european vs. african music to black history. He made it a point to state that different does not constitute better or worse. I was waiting for someone to question the aids thing and he seemed to mitigate his sermon's more hyperbolic rhetoric by stating that US "might have done something like that" vs "did". Maybe a distinction without difference to some but it is a more plausible statement given he directly invoked the Tuskegee Experiments, which I would remind people withheld life saving treatments from african american subjects and ran until 1972.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_ Male

His attacks against white greed instead of greed itself might problematic for some ( he doesn't scare me at all but then I think there is a difference between a black man using the N-word and a white man saying it ) but I don't feel he is anti-white and I know that obama isn't. I get the sense that what was iron clad institutional racism in wright's past is now used more metaphorically and unfortunately in the name of . Wright can choose to look at american life with a distorted ( maybe opportunistically ) lens as Obama has stated or he can choose differently. His book coming out as he helpfully plugged it will be up to him to square the circle.

And as for the Obama children I believe they attended one of the 3 age appropriate services on Sunday's.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 11:06 AM
thou:

Thanks for that effort.

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 11:18 AM
You know with you it is so easy to tell when a comment hits close to home. You stop addressing the arguments and start trying to play word games and deflection. I defer to your oh so nonjudgmental unprejudiced wisdom and superior understanding.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 11:32 AM
You know with you it is so easy to tell when a comment hits close to home. You stop addressing the arguments and start trying to play word games and deflection. I defer to your oh so nonjudgmental unprejudiced wisdom and superior understanding.

Pisc:

You haven't really made any arguments. You expressed an opinion that a couple of years of hiding out in the ANG made Bush some kind of extra-special person and expected me to agree with that opinion. Sorry, I don't. Then you made a Hallmark card-style speech. I was unimpressed and said so. Then you made an accusation -- that I'm guilty of hypocrisy. I've asked you to specify how. You've declined to do that.

If you would like to end this, I am happy to. If you would like to substantiate your accusation, please feel free.

graz
05-11-2008, 12:48 PM
[QUOTE=piscivorous;76884]Actually it was graz that brought it up No one that serves their country in the armed services is not shaped by it in one way or another. I thought that for graz to blithely ignore his service, even as ignoble as you have judged it to be from the comfort of your hovel, is to ignore a sizable bit of shaping.

I would like to concede your point about shaping. I was making a point to look that did some disservice to GW'S record. O.K. but you read to much into my omission... my point to look included that you ought not to overestimate influences that may not have been significant. This is of course where our disagreement would begin. Just to clarify, thanks.

bkjazfan
05-11-2008, 01:04 PM
I don't see the big deal in serving a 6 year year commitment in the armed forces. Granted, it is an accomplishment that I fulfilled but it doesn't make one a de facto super patriot. However, I have noticed that the overwhelming number of diavlog contributers do not have armed forces backgrounds in their resumes. At least it never brought up. Granted, most have post graduate degrees but no honorable discharge certificates.

John

DoctorMoney
05-11-2008, 01:47 PM
I think of Mickey as being a very smart person who is unbelievably coy about his overall, 'large lens' political take on things, which makes it all but impossible to read his comments in a partisan frame. It's of a piece with his fake editor notes.

I'm someone who reads his blog pretty religiously, so it works for me. But when he does 'political' stories (as opposed to 'policy' stories) it leaves me cold. Was his low-balled NC primary Obama prediction an attempt at expectations gaming, wish fulfillment, contrarian credentials-burnishing, or a gut feeling?

Who knows. It would take the average new reader weeks if not months to identify his political affiliation. Is that really a strength? He obviously cocoons himself about as often as the MSM does, so I don't see a real advantage to the approach unless you're someone who is looking for a truly unique perspective.

thouartgob
05-11-2008, 02:11 PM
.... I get the sense that what was iron clad institutional racism in wright's past is now used more metaphorically and unfortunately in the name of . Wright can choose to look at american life with a distorted ( maybe opportunistically ) lens as Obama has stated or he can choose differently.....

Glad I spent time bolding and less time finishing sentences :-)

...I get the sense that what was iron clad institutional racism in wright's past is now used more metaphorically and unfortunately in the name of dramatic exposition he is mixing the metaphor ( white man w/ power of the state keeping us down, so hold together ) with the reality of today (some white with various amounts of power trying to keep us down but the state and the majority of whites are not in that business anymore ).

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 02:17 PM
I can understand that that those who have never served would have a difficult time understanding the breadth and depth the formative influences of service have on individuals. Having never experienced the formative influences of fraternal life I can only speculate that they would have a difficult time overriding the lasting influences that a stint in the Services instills in most that have passed that way. Having gone back and reviewed the comment tree I can see where you were coming from and as I assuming that you have never served, just an observation no slight intended, so you therefore would be unaware of the influences such service generally habituate into an individual so forgive my slight hyperbole. I make this observation based on my experiences and impressions upon returning to civilian life after my 5 years of service and noticing just how immature and irresponsible most of my high school friends seemed, some of who had experienced the fraternal life.

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 02:41 PM
Yes and to me so many of them seem lake the sheep in flock with their incessant bleating, are disturbed from their placidness by the presence of the sheepdog, as it looks much like the wolf until the actual beast comes calling. It has little to do with super patriotism but more with the choice to be one of the sheep, one of the sheepdogs or one of the wolves.

jimM47
05-11-2008, 04:35 PM
worst. episode. ever.

thouartgob
05-11-2008, 05:42 PM
He obviously cocoons himself about as often as the MSM does, so I don't see a real advantage to the approach unless you're someone who is looking for a truly unique perspective.

Self consciously unique-y and solipsistic would be my thought. I agree he is a bright guy and I don't mind his mining a niche but he coughs up lots of iron pyrite for every nugget of gold. It is not that he holds different opinions other than his "liberal friends" it is that he works really hard on pushing a republican viewpoint to the point of absurdity yet will not give an inch on a democratic talking point.

In the diavlog he said "the scales fell from his eyes" about how bad bush was only after bush took the corporate side of the immigration debate. I guess had bush taken a more draconian stance then mickey would have been a bushie, waxing poetic about the glass being 1/4 full in Iraq for the next 100 years. Sorry that doesn't wash. Maybe he would have followed Norman Podhoretz in stating that bush was the bestest president evaah. Along with that his flogging the Aztlan separatist bs. Mention it once or twice maybe with a hint of irony fine but to actually take it to Lou Dobbsian heights ?? Am I supposed to take him seriously ?? He can hang out with Ann Coulter all he wants but she adds no light to any subject except how much money can be made by a female misogynist bashing minorities and supporting powerful elites.

If I want a more nuanced approach to the conservative viewpoint I could read Ross Douthat. He is an honest broker and while I don't always agree with him he doesn't strain credulity in the way Mickey does. I have mentioned before that he has been raised in california and from my dealing with native californians they like to mess with people ( good heartedly I assure you ) so I take some of his contrarianism as a form of entertainment for him and his audience. He likes a good debate and who can blame him. Still I think he needs to rethink his slavish devotion to many conservative viewpoints at the expense of his allegedly democratic instincts.

AemJeff
05-11-2008, 06:31 PM
In the diavlog he said "the scales fell from his eyes" about how bad bush was only after bush took the corporate side of the immigration debate. I guess had bush taken a more draconian stance then mickey would have been a bushie, waxing poetic about the glass being 1/4 full in Iraq for the next 100 years.

I noticed that, too. Apparently, Mickey's opinion of this Administration isn't so much that it's a "bad" Administration on some objective metric, like competence or hyper-partisanship to the detriment of policy, it's a difference on a specific policy issue. His new understanding is based simply on their non-orthodoxy (from his point of view) on one issue. I like Mickey, but that's pretty pathetic in an opinion journalist, particularly one who styles himself an honest broker.

bkjazfan
05-11-2008, 06:41 PM
Piscivorous,

Hello! If you are referring to me I did serve from '68 to '74 in the U.S. Army. My MOS was light weapons infantry and I came out an E-5, buck sergeant. I think it takes a lot of gall to call someone a liar on this site.

The ones I put on a pedestal are the men and women who serve at least 20 years of active duty and then get a retirement not the short timers like myself(2 years active duty due to being drafted).

John

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 06:59 PM
Piscivorous,

Hello! If you are referring to me I did serve from '68 to '74 in the U.S. Army. My MOS was light weapons infantry and I came out an E-5, buck sergeant. I think it takes a lot of gall to call someone a liar on this site.

The ones I put on a pedestal are the men and women who serve at least 20 years of active duty and then get a retirement not the short timers like myself(2 years active duty due to being drafted).

JohnActually I was responding to graz and about in generic manner about those that don't serve. It would be strange to say you were not in the army when the comment above this says you served 6 years I believe.

bkjazfan
05-11-2008, 07:36 PM
Piscivorous,

Oh, I'm sorry for the accusation. I don't read all the replies so I thought you were addressing me.

John

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 07:51 PM
No problem.

popcorn_karate
05-12-2008, 12:01 PM
Pisc - your getting unhinged.

If any democrat had Bush's record you would pillory them, and you know it. It makes these arguments useless when you have no coherent philosophy, ideas, or judgements.

you are usually better at annoying me with arguments that I have to take seriously - rather than complete ideological crap.


-Z

popcorn_karate
05-12-2008, 12:11 PM
Serving in the military is OK, i suppose. I know many people that have. most of them don't have your egotism about it, however. It seems the holier-than-thou military people are all right-wingers that are trying to shut-down debate based on their supposedly heroic service.

My Grandfather never used his WWII experience as a bludgeon against anyone that disagreed with him. Nor did my father who served in Vietnam.

and my father supports Obama ( as would my grandfather were he still alive).

you are a sad little man, pisc.

bjkeefe
05-12-2008, 12:22 PM
popcorn:

My Grandfather never used his WWII experience as a bludgeon against anyone that disagreed with him. Nor did my father who served in Vietnam.

That's a good point, and reminds me of my grandfather and his brothers and cousins. Virtually all of them served during World War II, and most of them saw heavy combat. I think at least one landed on Normandy Beach and at least one other was at Okinawa. They never talked about it. One of their brothers-in-law, name of Larry, however, had easy duty all war long. As I understand it, he basically was in charge of lawn maintenance for some admiral's house on Pearl Harbor, starting well after 12/7/1941. He was the one that talked about military matters all the time, even to me at every family reunion.

Finally got one of the ones who was in the Pacific (not the one who was at Okinawa) talking one time, when he was about 85, and was enjoying more than his fair share of wine. He got a few sentences into some serious stuff, then stopped himself, and spent most of the rest of the time telling R&R stories and laughing about how they all used to make fun of Larry for his endless soldier-boy talk.

I wish I'd thought of that earlier. I couldn't figure out what was bugging me so much about Pisc's patter about W. Now I know.

Exeus99
05-12-2008, 12:24 PM
Even for a journalist, Alter is remarkably in love with the sound of his own voice.

mcdonald928
05-12-2008, 12:43 PM
Jon's critique of Mickey is dead-on right. Mickey seems not to realize that he is 'in the tank' with the 'philosophy of difference' disseminated via the postmodernists, where Jon is well-representing the modern Enlightenment value for objective truth. Jurgen Habermas has rightly put the same accusation of neo-conservatism or crypto-conservatism against the major postmodernist figure Michel Foucault. Foucault, and Mickey, are intellectuals who disguise their primary interest in disseminating their own subjectivity, their own 'difference', fashioning a novel, differentiating viewpoint, but doing this under the image of an objective practice (i.e., sociology, journalism, etc.) that people tend to take as one aiming toward objective truth. The argument from Habermas, and Jon Alter here, is that this is a fine and very interesting intellectual exercise that can often yield interesting results, but please don't hoodwink people by pretending that objective accuracy is the primary concern in your work.

mcdonald928
05-12-2008, 12:46 PM
Jon's critique of Mickey is dead-on right.

Mickey seems not to realize that he is 'in the tank' with the 'philosophy of difference' disseminated via the postmodernists, where Jon is well-representing the modern Enlightenment value for objective truth. Jurgen Habermas has rightly put the same accusation of neo-conservatism or crypto-conservatism against the major postmodernist figure Michel Foucault.

Foucault, and Mickey, are the intellectual types who disguise their primary interest in disseminating their own subjectivity, their own 'difference', fashioning a novel, differentiating viewpoint, but doing this under the image of an objective practice (i.e., sociology, journalism, etc.) that people tend to take as one aiming toward objective truth.

The argument from Habermas, and Jon Alter here, is that this is a fine and very interesting intellectual exercise which can often yield interesting results, but please don't hoodwink people by claiming objective accuracy as a primary concern in your work.

piscivorous
05-12-2008, 02:03 PM
Well I suppose I should take some solace in the fact that I can annoy you with both the truth and what you see as nonsense.

piscivorous
05-12-2008, 02:04 PM
Actually I am a little larger than average but not what would be considered a bear of a man.

harkin
05-12-2008, 05:58 PM
That's fear talking, I think. I'm making no predictions - I don't know what the dynamic is going to be once the race is really R vs D - but, I detect a lot of whistling in the dark among the dead-enders.

Except the only fear or hate being talked about here is contained in the sermons (and also Wright's Trumpet magazine (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/082ktdyi.asp?pg=1) we come to find out) which Obama sat through with no problem.

I don't see any hate or fear being exhibited here by people calling Obama or Wright out for their own words.

Truth hurts.

bjkeefe
05-12-2008, 06:31 PM
harkin:

I don't see any hate or fear being exhibited here by people calling Obama or Wright out for their own words.

Of course you don't. It's very hard to recognize these things in oneself.

piscivorous
05-12-2008, 08:58 PM
Wouldn't it be much easier if both sides recognized that the "race card" has been used by both sides in this debate. Senator Clinton has used as an offensive weapon and to some extinct it has worked; mostly at the margins on those that have other doubts. Senator Obama has used it as a shield to try and deflect scrutiny of himself in the area of race. It is what politicians do.

It would have actually been a disservice to Senator Obama and the Democratic Party in general to not to have dealt with the probing of issue because like it or not it is an issue that directly affects the electability of the eventual candidate. It has given the voters a glimpse into how Senator Obama will deal with an issues that is sure to come up in the general, as all politics is really narcissistic and base, so the internecine fight has been good for Senator Obama from a larger strategic point of view.

The bigots are beyond convincing, the believers are not rocked so it still boils down to convincing the center that yes he can deal with this issue, amongst a few others, instead of just pontificating about it. The Pastor Wright debacle will probably force Senator Obama to get more specific about this issue in the general debate as now that he has disowned Preacher Wright he will need to draw direct contrast to the views of BLT that will inevitably make it to the forefront. Can he sell his vision to the sociopolitical demographic that he needs to be elected President, is the debate, and the extended campaign has addressed that issue to the extent that it can; but it appears that the question remains open from the poling data.

bjkeefe
05-13-2008, 01:22 AM
pisc:

I don't accept your claim that Obama has used race to shield himself, but I'll grant that some of his supporters have played the "you're a racist" card too quickly at times.

I agree with your larger point, though -- that race, unfortunately, is a real issue for some voters, and particularly for some undecided voters, and that it will have to be addressed in various ways. I think there could be some upsides to this, especially if John McCain takes a higher road than Hillary Clinton has. He ought to be able to -- there's plenty of real policy differences between him and Obama that he doesn't need to play that slice and dice the demographic game that Clinton felt she had to.

piscivorous
05-13-2008, 07:35 AM
pisc:

I don't accept your claim that Obama has used race to shield himself, but I'll grant that some of his supporters have played the "you're a racist" card too quickly at times.

I agree with your larger point, though -- that race, unfortunately, is a real issue for some voters, and particularly for some undecided voters, and that it will have to be addressed in various ways. I think there could be some upsides to this, especially if John McCain takes a higher road than Hillary Clinton has. He ought to be able to -- there's plenty of real policy differences between him and Obama that he doesn't need to play that slice and dice the demographic game that Clinton felt she had to.Plez. It has happened too frequently to not be semi-sanctioned by the candidate. By having his surrogates do the dirty deed it has created a false impression of the Senator's purity. What was it he said so cynically "Your like able enough..." with a look of semi disgust on his face and a sneer in his voice. As the saying goes the fish rots from the head.

bjkeefe
05-13-2008, 08:07 AM
Plez. It has happened too frequently to not be semi-sanctioned by the candidate. By having his surrogates do the dirty deed it has created a false impression of the Senator's purity. What was it he said so cynically "Your like able enough..." with a look of semi disgust on his face and a sneer in his voice. As the saying goes the fish rots from the head.

There's two separate issues here. You're wrong on both.

First, Obama cannot possibly stop everything said by his supporters. Someone who's directly connected with the campaign can be disciplined, fired, etc. Everybody else, no. Nor should he try. We have a principle of freedom of expression in this country, and we don't want someone who wants to be president acting as Censor-in-Chief.

That doesn't mean he sanctions everything everybody else says, just because he doesn't reject, denounce, renounce, etc., every statement that someone takes offense to. If you can't accept that, then ask yourself if you're prepared to hold John McCain to the same standard. And don't just snarkily respond that you are, because you're not.

Second, the "you're likable enough" line had nothing to do with race. Whether you thought the line appropriate or not is a different argument, but he didn't say it because of their difference in skin color. He was half-kidding, and the part that contained truth reflected how he felt about her as an individual -- as a person and as a campaign opponent.

piscivorous
05-13-2008, 08:33 AM
While I agree that the Senator is not responsible for everything his supporters say he is responsible for rejecting such speech with enough vim and vigor to significantly curtail the use of such tactics. It would be helpful if you could document you assertions with actual references so I can see what up until now I seemed to have missed.

As far as your claims about the McCain camp I do believe that Senator McCain has very publicly and forcefully denounced a campaign add, that he felt was not representative of the type of campaign he wished to run, with little if any credit or acknowledgment of it from your side, and considerable flack, from the right, for his criticism of it.

No one is so blind as those that who do not wish to see and while there is plenty of willful blindness on both sides so far i would say it is Senator McCain that has actually put forth more effort along this line.

Big Wayne
05-13-2008, 08:39 AM
Plez. It has happened too frequently to not be semi-sanctioned by the candidate.
Perhaps you could provide some examples? I imagine it would not be difficult given that it has happened so frequently.



What was it he said so cynically "Your like able enough..." with a look of semi disgust on his face and a sneer in his voice. As the saying goes the fish rots from the head.
Do you believe that Barack's "likable enough" statement is an example of his injecting race into the debate? If not, why are you bringing it up here? Just because you don't like him and wanted to vent?

Also: Here's the video of that debate moment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4UgXzXaueI

People can judge for themselves whether pisc's characterization of Obama as having a look of disgust or a sneer in his voice is correct.

bjkeefe
05-13-2008, 08:52 AM
Pisc:

I am not going to offer you a bunch of links for you to pick at. You have been paying more than enough attention to the campaign to have heard what Obama has to say on race and on how he prefers to talk about race. The problem is, your mind is already made up to judge him the harshest possible light, while judging McCain in the rosiest possible light. I'd get more honesty out of Jeralyn Merritt.

You're starting to show signs of a "kitchen sink" attack mindset here, in between claiming that Obama hasn't done enough to denounce whatever and whomever, your earlier propensity to harp on Jeremiah Wright and lapel pins, and your reference to that stupid apostasy op-ed, to name but three examples. You dismiss out of hand everything Obama says, or that anyone says in his defense, as vague or hand-waving or lawyer-talk or not up to your standards or not something you trust or doesn't give you enough information or whatever.

I get it. You don't like Obama. Fine. But I am not going to engage with you on this sort of stuff anymore. You aren't open to anyone else's point of view, you never concede even the most obvious points, and every time someone gets you to a position that even you can't defend anymore, all you do is grab some completely unrelated thing and say, "Oh, yeah? What about THIS?"

I think you show more honesty and open-mindedness on other topics, so I am happy to argue with you about them, but your mind so made up about Obama and your attitude about him is so unreasonable that it's pointless for me to carry on any longer.

piscivorous
05-13-2008, 10:02 AM
As far as made up minds go that is probably a two way street. And you are correct I do have problems believing mere words given a long history that is at a minimum mildly contradictory to those spoken words. While never having lived in Missouri I do tend to to adopt the philosophy of the "show me" state.

reader_iam
05-20-2008, 05:13 PM
Just got around to listening this one. "Pathetic" and "lame" indeed! Ugh. Alter's smug, self-serving little display was completely off-putting, and the drop in my estimation of him is remarkable in the wake of listening to his self-serving rant-lecture. He's not nearly good enough--and never has been--to get that far up on his high horse. Makes me want to knock him right off it; instead, being a lowly powerless person out here, I'll just move him way, way farther down my list of pundit-journalists to consciously pay attention to.

johnmarzan
05-21-2008, 01:20 AM
a nice but late (10 days) response from mickey

http://www.slate.com/id/2191779/#dontjumpbloggers

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 05:13 PM
Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws) I guess he was tired or lost his bearings or his staffer got the figure wrong. No I got it it's early onset Alzheimers.

Interestingly, here's a line from a story (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/03cnd-elect.html) in today's NY Times:

After the longest nominating contest in recent history with 57 contests in all, news organizations rushed to declare an end to primary on Tuesday.

I always did wonder if this number had some meaning. Let's see if we can figure it out.

Start with 50 states. Add one for each of the following (reference (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html)):

51. Washington, D.C.
52. Puerto Rico
53. Guam
54. Virgin Islands
55. American Samoa
56. Democrats Abroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_Abroad)
57. ??

One guess for the 57th is to count the Texas primary and caucus as two separate contests. Anyone got a better idea?

AemJeff
06-03-2008, 05:18 PM
Jeeze - I hadn't payed much attention to this particular mini-contovery (I'll cite it here as support for my contention regarding the tone of Obama's press coverage, here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=79362#post79362), BTW) and wasn't aware that the noun was "contests," not "states." Good grief, what a silly, pointless knock this was.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 05:25 PM
Jeeze - I hadn't payed much attention to this particular mini-contovery (I'll cite it here as support for my contention regarding the tone of Obama's press coverage, here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=79362#post79362), BTW) and wasn't aware that the noun was "contests," not "states." Good grief, what a silly, pointless knock this was.

To be fair, I think Obama did say "states" that one time. But as I say, I always did think that number must have had some meaning to him.

AemJeff
06-03-2008, 05:34 PM
Darn, Brendan. Now what am I going to with all this righteous indignation? Seriously, even if he did say "states," the notion that a nominally intelligent adult would be confused on this issue (as opposed to a default assumption that he misspoke) is still just, frankly, silly.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 06:11 PM
... Seriously, even if he did say "states," the notion that a nominally intelligent adult would be confused on this issue (as opposed to a default assumption that he misspoke) is still just, frankly, silly.

Indeed. The anti-Obama crowd is frequently thus in the things they latch onto.

TwinSwords
06-04-2008, 10:14 AM
I always did wonder if this number had some meaning. ... Anyone got a better idea?

That's an intriguing theory. But I think it's simpler than that.

He said "57" when he meant "47." He said he had "one [state] left to go," followed by the point that he wouldn't go to Alaska or Hawaii. Not counting AK and HI leaves 48 states. If you subtract the "one [he had] left to go," he had been to 47 states. While doing this math out loud on stage, he said "we've been to 57 states." The entire thing makes perfect sense if you just switch his "57" with 47.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKGpwi58

piscivorous
06-04-2008, 10:59 AM
Yea it's funny when one is so far in the tank, for a candidate, it is unimaginable that there candidate might actually have misspoken and some deeper underlying magnificent revelation must be behind the slip of the tounge.

bjkeefe
06-04-2008, 12:49 PM
Yea it's funny when one is so far gone in hatred, for a candidate, it is unimaginable that he would be unable to resist distorting the motivations behind those speculating about the slip of the tongue.

piscivorous
06-04-2008, 01:10 PM
And you would know all about the motivations of hatred I would bet.

bjkeefe
06-04-2008, 01:15 PM
And you would know all about the motivations of hatred I would bet.

I don't know about this in general, but over the past year, I think I've become close to expert on yours.