PDA

View Full Version : Reverse Coattails Edition


Bloggingheads
05-15-2008, 11:28 AM

uncle ebeneezer
05-15-2008, 12:13 PM
Good to know that Ezra's not the only person Mickey has weaseled out of debating.

uncle ebeneezer
05-15-2008, 12:25 PM
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11042?in=00:19:08&out=00:19:13

Rich
05-15-2008, 12:37 PM
A great moment here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11042?in=00:26:20&out=27:30) when Mickey pops Bob's argument that the US violated UN law by invading Iraq. The blanket declaration that we violated international law by invading ought to be made after the "more research than [you've] done" occurs. Iraq was by UN Security Council resolution 1441 declared "in material breach" os the cease-fire declared after Desert Storm. If one side breaches a cease-fire, it is subject to the continuation of the hostilities that the cease-fire temporarily curtailed.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 12:59 PM
Is there any reason why the left shouldn't be portrayed as they are (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11042?in=00:09:36&out=00:09:41) when Mr. Wright espouses that it is all about status (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11042?in=00:07:46&out=00:08:00).

graz
05-15-2008, 01:42 PM
Is there any reason why the left shouldn't be portrayed as they are (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11042?in=00:09:36&out=00:09:41) when Mr. Wright espouses that it is all about status (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11042?in=00:07:46&out=00:08:00).

Pisc:
Not only does the left deserve the moniker,
it also should be labeled as traitorous,
as Chablis is soooo... French
http://www.tablewine.com/archiv40.htm

graz
05-15-2008, 02:11 PM
And didn't it all start with that rapscallion T.J. (3rd President) who bankrupted himself to enjoy the fine French wines. He even attempted to corrupt G.W. (the first G.W. - President #1) with the gift of cases of the stuff. The Liberals were doomed from the start with such an intoxicated foundation.

uncle ebeneezer
05-15-2008, 02:35 PM
Mickey proudly touts the findings of the immigration report that he believes support his view of Mexican immigration, but then dismisses the report's legitimacy when Bob logically explains why Mexicans would score low on one of the metrics. Nice acrobatics, Mickey.

This just in: convicted felons score low on the metric of "voter turnout". But assuming that the fact that they're NOT ALLOWED to vote is a restricting factor, would be unreasonable in Mickey's world. For someone who loves to champion "logic" it's always fun to watch Mickey turn away from it when it doesn't agree with his preconceived vision.

Just out of curiosity, where are all these Mexicans who want to take back America? I've lived in several areas of Los Angeles in neighborhoods varying in economic status from very low-rent to more upscale. I have lived around Mexican immigrants at every stop and I have never met anyone who has brought up the impending secession that Mickey is so obsessed with. Do I need to move to Beverly Hills or Venice to finally open my eyes? Granted, I'm sure that there are SOME Mexicans interested in this sort of thing, but considering it's not exactly the "buzz" of any of the predominantly Mexican communities that I have lived in, maybe it's not such a pressing issue to actual Mexican immigrants as it is to Mickey.

graz
05-15-2008, 02:50 PM
Mickey proudly touts the findings of the immigration report that he believes support his view of Mexican immigration, but then dismisses the report's legitimacy when Bob logically explains why Mexicans would score low on one of the metrics. Nice acrobatics, Mickey.


In addition to that suspect reasoning, Mickey scolds Bob for failing to prove anything with the Jonathan Alter "trick." Since Jonathan is a "Neo-Liberal" too, Mickey cannot be wrong on the merits of the challenge.
Because Lefty bloggers didn't link, it didn't happen.
So there!

popcorn_karate
05-15-2008, 03:03 PM
I think Mickey also pointed out that the level of assimilation is not his primary objection to Illegal Immigration. His primary objection is that it depresses wages at the bottom (ok - that should be his primary objection, but at least it is one of his main objections). and the report obviously has little to no bearing on that aspect of the argument.

I agree that i don't see a big organized effort to implement the "reconquista". I think its like the few wackos that show up for anti-war marches along with the thousands and thousands that are pretty sane. right wingers will focus on the few nut-jobs and try to paint the whole movement as somehow subscribing to those views expressed by the extreme fringes. Mickey is probably doing the same thing with this reconquista issue.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 03:08 PM
Who here thinks Hillary Clinton will be Barack's VP nominee? (I don't.)

Who here thinks she should be? (I don't.)

Reasons why I think she won't:
o I agree with Bob that she would see it as a loss of status
o I think she'd see it as hurting her chances at another run for president
o I think she'd rather be appointed to the Supreme Court, or,
o become Senate Majority Leader -- ideal for working on health care

Reasons why I don't think she should:
o She (and Bill) might undermine Obama's authority once in office via back-channel communications and leaks to the press every time they disagree with an Obama decision. I don't see either of them, or the both of them, being happy playing second fiddle.

o She brings a lot of negative ratings with her, which rallies the opposition
o Her position on the Iraq invasion, and lack of mea culpa, will irritate the left's base
o She doesn't offer anything so special that another choice for VP won't be able to beat.

The last three apply somewhat more to the campaign, obviously.

I do think she wouldn't be a bad choice, and if Barack asks her and she says yes, I'll be fine with that. She's just not my first choice.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 03:58 PM
Good to know that Ezra's not the only person Mickey has weaseled out of debating.

Do you, or does anyone else, remember why Mickey didn't want to debate Alex Gibney? And what the debate would have been about?

David Thomson
05-15-2008, 03:58 PM
It is most unfortunate that this discussion between Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus took place before the California Supreme Court came out for gay marriage. Will this help John McCain to carry the state? Will more social conservatives hold their nose and vote for the Arizona senator simply to rebuke the Democratic Party?

graz
05-15-2008, 04:24 PM
It is most unfortunate that this discussion between Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus took place before the California Supreme Court came out for gay marriage. Will this help John McCain to carry the state? Will more social conservatives hold their nose and vote for the Arizona senator simply to rebuke the Democratic Party?

It's a human rights issue, and not exclusively Democratic.
You may be underestimating McCain. If he tries to paint it exclusively as a destruction of marriage issue, that gambit might backfire.
It could hurt him nationally as well. I really don't know how to measure such trends definitively though. I'll default to high hopes.
What is your case against it?

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 04:27 PM
This bit bothered me (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11042?in=16:09&out=16:22).

Obama cannot directly pay off Hillary's campaign debts, even if he wanted to. That would be an illegal campaign contribution. It seemed curiously naive of Bob and Mickey not to be aware of this.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 04:41 PM
It is most unfortunate that this discussion between Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus took place before the California Supreme Court came out for gay marriage. Will this help John McCain to carry the state? Will more social conservatives hold their nose and vote for the Arizona senator simply to rebuke the Democratic Party?You are sadly mistaken if you think gay marriage is a conservative issue. It is a religious issue. Many conservatives are religious and there for not in favor of gay marriage. I agree with the majority of the California Supreme Court think it is unconstitutional for the state to deny the full rights and benefits to homosexual partners as heterosexual partners enjoy.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 04:44 PM
It is most unfortunate that this discussion between Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus took place before the California Supreme Court came out for gay marriage. Will this help John McCain to carry the state? Will more social conservatives hold their nose and vote for the Arizona senator simply to rebuke the Democratic Party?

I'd be amazed if that made any significant difference in California, as far as pushing additional people into voting for McCain. From my decade there (in L.A., granted), I got the feeling that most of the conservatives in that state were conservative for fiscal reasons, or defense reasons, or anti-immigration, but most weren't particularly homophobic.

handle
05-15-2008, 05:10 PM
While I agree with many of your points, I think that even the gesture
would offer concrete proof of Obama's assertion that he is a person who can reach across the aisle. My reservations about him have been concerning
limited evidence to back up the sparkling rhetoric. Plus, I think he needs all the votes he can get.

uncle ebeneezer
05-15-2008, 05:11 PM
No sir, and I have never been a member of the Communist Party either.

Wonderment
05-15-2008, 05:35 PM
I live in a Mexican-American community. Mickey's view of us is deranged. Period.

But beyond that, Mickey's view that Mexican immigrants are uniquely averse to assimilation and consider the Southwest a part of Mexico is a bit of lunatic fringe bigotry that neither Bob nor any of the rest of us would tolerate for a nanosecond if it were directed at blacks or gays.

Think for a second how we would react if Mickey argued against gay/lesbian marriage by saying gay men want to have sex with boys (the NAMBLA argument) or parade around our conservative Southern towns naked promoting orgies and denouncing straight people.

Think for a second how we would react if Mickey argued against affirmative action by saying blacks are subversives who believe whites are devils and want to destroy America.

Bob is too decent and intellectually honest a human being to have people representing intellectual discourse on the site as deeply and blatantly prejudiced as Mickey is.

Bob makes the right moral arguments against Mickey's xenophobia, but I doubt that he would have a weekly dialogue with David Duke. So why do we continue to see Mickey spew the same hate speech almost every week?

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 05:36 PM
handle:

While I agree with many of your points, I think that even the gesture
would offer concrete proof of Obama's assertion that he is a person who can reach across the aisle. My reservations about him have been concerning
limited evidence to back up the sparkling rhetoric.

That's a reasonable concern/suggestion. But I really think there are ways to reach out to her and to her supporters that don't involve the VP slot. He could offer her the next seat on the Supreme Court or a Cabinet job, privately, and tell the public that he guarantees that she will play a prominent role in his Administration. That might do it.

I am also far from convinced that she'd want the VP job, in any case. I think she'd rather either be in charge in the Senate (Majority Leader or something that puts her in charge of health care reform), or get one of those other jobs that I mentioned.

Plus, I think he needs all the votes he can get.

While I certainly agree with that, I don't think she actually brings that many additional votes. First, I don't think that many Clinton supporters will hold their grudges through November, at least not those living in swing states. A few months to contemplate the real John McCain will make any Democrat face reality.

I also don't think she necessarily adds that many votes when you consider the moderates and independents. She doesn't have executive experience or extensive foreign policy or military credentials (though she has some), and despite her recent tactics that appealed to some sub-groups in the Democratic Party, I think most people who aren't already committed to vote Democratic still see her as elitist/liberal/whatever.

There's also the idea that a big part of Obama's support comes from people who are tired of the old guard. So, in addition to him wanting to show a sense of reaching out, he also wants to stay consistent on his theme of change.

Ultimately, I think he'd be better off with a governor from a state far from Washington, and there are several good ones to choose from there.

Wonderment
05-15-2008, 05:43 PM
Also, Mickey's assertion that "there are parts of America where you don't have to learn English" is quite questionable.

There is no place in the US where children do not attend primary school and learn English.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 05:47 PM
Wonderment:

I can't argue with any of what you said there.

To play devil's advocate, maybe I can say something to your closing thought:

Bob makes the right moral arguments against Mickey's xenophobia, but I doubt that he would have a weekly dialogue with David Duke. So why do we continue to see Mickey spew the same hate speech almost every week?

Two reasons, possibly both of which apply:

(a) It's his friend, so he has to let him vent every so often, especially as Mickey will protest that his main concern is reduced wages at the bottom end of the labor force, and not xenophobia. Obviously, such a claim is partly a farce, but Mickey may genuinely not be aware of this.

(b) Bob has a (possibly quixotic) hope of getting Mickey to see the light through reason, and thinks if he keeps getting Mickey to admit that he can't make much of a case whenever the issue is raised, the chances increase that Mickey will see it.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 05:51 PM
Also, Mickey's assertion that "there are parts of America where you don't have to learn English" is a complete lie.

There is no place in the US where children do not attend primary school and learn English.

I disagree. There are always some neighborhoods where an immigrant population is sufficiently concentrated that it's possible to live out a life without any need to speak English. This has been true throughout our history for all immigrant communities -- there are always some in the first generation who can't or won't learn a new language, and they get along well enough.

I agree about the kids, though.

graz
05-15-2008, 05:59 PM
Bob makes the right moral arguments against Mickey's xenophobia, but I doubt that he would have a weekly dialogue with David Duke. So why do we continue to see Mickey spew the same hate speech almost every week?

Because he couches it in contrarianism. Did he say learn or speak? And will you grant him the latter?
His defenders will counter your calling his claim about not having to "learn" as opposed to "speak" English - selective. He must be referring to certain and clearly ethnic communities or neighborhoods where an hour or two of frequenting stores, eateries, etc... will unlikely turn up any English at all.

Of course the same could be said of Chinatown's, Little Italy's and other ethnocentric enclaves (except the tourist oriented parts).

Addendum:
In the time it took me to write this I did not have the opportunity to associate myself with Brendan's idea that Bob continues to prod so as to allow him to see the light himself. As we saw with Alter - direct confrontation doesn't work.

popcorn_karate
05-15-2008, 06:08 PM
he may not be aware that it is a "farce" because.... oh thats right, its not a farce. It is supply and demand.

Its lovely for you that you don't find yourself in the economic/educational situation where you have to compete with illegal immigrants for your job. not all Americans are so lucky.

though experiment:
can we absorb 100,000,000 uneducated illegal immigrants into our nation without it affecting the wages for unskilled workers?
if the answer is "no" then you have to accept that this is a real issue. you can argue about the right numbers to let in etc. but you can't just dismiss the issue as "xenophobia"

have a nice day

p.s. yes i do think Mickey is xenophobic, but the illegal immigration issue is not simply disguised xenophobia, its economics.

p.p.s. I don't think his xenophobia rises to racism. and i think Wonderment might want to take a chill pill and think about whether or not she values open honest debate and the 1st amendment.

Wonderment
05-15-2008, 06:12 PM
I disagree. There are always some neighborhoods where an immigrant population is sufficiently concentrated that it's possible to live out a life without any need to speak English. This has been true throughout our history for all immigrant communities -- there are always some in the first generation who can't or won't learn a new language, and they get along well enough.

That was not Mickey's claim, as I understood it. Yes, there are enclaves of different linguistic groups where first generation speakers continue to use their native language. That is true for communities of Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabic, Russian speakers and so on.

But Mickey was trying to make a claim beyond those obvious facts, i.e., that there are Mexican communities that are opposed to and resistant to English.

On the contrary, among all the Mexican immigrants I have known, learning English is a high priority. I have NEVER MET ONE PERSON who did not want her children to go to American schools where they become fluent, native speakers of English.

The English language learning industry is booming among Mexican adults. People who work 16 hours a day, have small kids to raise flock to English classes at night.

The problem is that adult education is underfunded and often of low quality. The demand for good language programs far exceeds the supply.

But there is no problem with children. They go to kindergarten and they learn English. The aging population is replaced by a bilingual second-generation, and by the third generation ALL the kids are dominant in English, and we parents spend our time lamenting that the kids speak Spanish poorly or they can't or won't speak it at all.

Morningsider
05-15-2008, 06:15 PM
If Congress perceived a threat to our sovereignty because of Chinese people failing to assimilate, then legitimate sovereignty concerns would trigger a reduction in their quota. The problem is that Congress does not have the same level of control over illegals.
I think Mickey's paranoia is overblown, but I do want Congress to be able to control levels of immigration, in case it becomes a real concern at some point.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 06:18 PM
While I agree with many of your points, I think that even the gesture
would offer concrete proof of Obama's assertion that he is a person who can reach across the aisle. My reservations about him have been concerning
limited evidence to back up the sparkling rhetoric. Plus, I think he needs all the votes he can get.I wouldn't exactly call hooking up with Senator Clinton, which would be seen by many as political expediency, as reaching across the aisle. Their differences are primarily stylistic not of substance. That's not to say it might not help but shouldn't delude oneself that your opponent in a primary is on the opposite side of the aisle.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 06:26 PM
I wouldn't exactly call hooking up with Senator Clinton, which would be seen by many as political expediency, as reaching across the aisle. Their differences are primarily stylistic not of substance. That's not to say it might not help but shouldn't delude oneself that your opponent in a primary is on the opposite side of the aisle.

I agree, but I bet there are more than a few HRC fans who wouldn't.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 06:27 PM
Wonderment:

That was not Mickey's claim, as I understood it.

I guess I heard it differently.

No disagreement with the rest of your reply.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 06:30 PM
Senator Clinton's supporters may see Senator Obama in a less than charitable light right now, but many agree with much of his agenda because they are on the same side of the aisle. Nor would it be unusual for biter primary opponents to be on the ticket for political reasons.

P.s. I might add the the reverse is true for some of Senator Obama's supporters. If anything they have been the nastier side of the conversation, in the comment sections, of the lefty sites I visit.

Wonderment
05-15-2008, 06:32 PM
p.s. yes i do think Mickey is xenophobic, but the illegal immigration issue is not simply disguised xenophobia, its economics.

I agree with both these points. I know of no one on planet earth who favors unlimited undocumented immigration to the US. The economic issues need to be discussed fully and freely, and we need comprehensive immigration reform.

...and i think Wonderment might want to take a chill pill and think about whether or not she values open honest debate and the 1st amendment.

I do, of course, support free speech, and Mickey has a blog at Slate Magazine where he is quite free to speak, even to the extent of making up sex scandal stories about McCain and Edwards.

I am just suggesting that racism is an abuse of free speech, and that a weekly chat with Mickey, David Duke or Louis Farrakhan may not necessarily be the best choice for Bheads.

Wonderment
05-15-2008, 06:34 PM
In appreciation of your take on what he said, I have downgraded "lie" to "dubious assertion."

See title thread above.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 06:36 PM
pk:

Its lovely for you that you don't find yourself in the economic/educational situation where you have to compete with illegal immigrants for your job. not all Americans are so lucky.

Actually, I have had to do this at various times in my life. I have also had to compete with workers overseas in other jobs, when the work was amenable to outsourcing. But I take your point that not everyone has the same equanimity as I do.

Don't really buy the premise of your thought experiment, sorry. Put it this way: if you agree that eating ten pounds of salt a day would be a problem, would you also agree that any lesser amount is also a problem?

I also don't think it's the workers' fault so much as it is the entire system that allows for the employment of illegal immigrants at ridiculously low wages.

I agree that concerns over illegal immigration are not solely xenophobic, and that there is an economic component. But there is a real xenophobia, and it frequently shines through among a lot of people who try to pretend that it's only economics that concern them. I dunno about Mickey specifically. If I had to guess I'd say he probably suffers less from outright hatred than he does a lack of understanding, and a lack of willingness to see how other people view a situation.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 06:38 PM
In appreciation of your take on what he said, I have downgraded "lie" to "dubious assertion."

See title thread above.

Heh. But isn't orange even worse (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22great+orange+satan%22)?

montevideo
05-15-2008, 06:40 PM
re http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11042?in=00:01:33&out=00:03:11 ...

well i had to go and sign up for this forum just to demonstrate that somewhere in the outer reaches of the blogosphere (http://thegeebus.blogspot.com/2008/05/kaus-gets-altered.html), there has been some latching on to jonathan alter's dressing down (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10904?in=00:16:34&out=00:20:06) of mickey

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-15-2008, 06:41 PM
Like Mickey, I'm against illegal immigration and oppose amnesty, but unlike Mickey, I don't base my opposition on some convoluted theory of Mexico retaking the Southwest. Rather, my opposition is based on the quality of contribution to U.S. society made by illegal immigrants, as opposed to legal immigrants (who typically have to be well-educated or highly-skilled to enter the U.S.).

Key finding of the study (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_53.htm):

Mexican immigrants experience very low rates of economic and civic assimilation. Immigrants born in Mexico, particularly those living and working in the United States illegally, lie at the heart of many current debates over immigration policy. The assimilation index shows that immigrants from Mexico are very distinct from the native-born upon arrival and assimilate slowly over time. The slow rates of economic and civic assimilation set Mexicans apart from other immigrants, and may reflect the fact that the large numbers of Mexican immigrants residing in the United States illegally have few opportunities to advance themselves along these dimensions.



The vast majority of Mexican immigrants are here illegally. Although the study indicates that they may learn English and adopt U.S. marital habits more quickly than other immigrant populations, I'm not sure why this is important given their lag in civic and (especially) economic. Here's what the study measures for economic assimilation:


• Earned income in the year prior to the survey (not available for 1900–1930)
• Labor-force participation
• Unemployment (not available for 1900–1930)
• A quantitative ranking of occupations by average income in that occupation in 1950
• Educational attainment (not available for 1900–1930)
• Home ownership (not available for 1900–1930)


I'm not sure why I should care that some illegals learn English more quickly than legal immigrants when they lag far behind legal immigrants and natural-born U.S. citizens in terms of education or labor skills, and even behind persons fleeing far worse conditions in their native countries (e.g., Vietnamese refugees).

We have enough uneducated and low/no-skilled people in this country; I'm in no hurry to add millions more to the roster. If the economic and educational graphics of the illegal immigrant population were better (e.g., if more engineers and doctors were illegally entering the country rather than manual laborers) my opinion would be entirely different. It's not illegal immigration per se that's the problem, it's the quality of the illegal immigrant.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 06:44 PM
pisc:

P.s. I might add the the reverse is true for some of Senator Obama's supporters. If anything they have been the nastier side of the conversation, in the comment sections, of the lefty sites I visit.

I don't know how you'd measure who's worse, but if you look at taylormarsh.com or talkleft.com, for example, you'd find plenty of nasty. Not to mention crazy.

Actually, though, I wasn't saying anything about the nastiness of Clinton supporters in my previous comment, just that they feel very far apart from Obama. At this time, of course -- you and I are in agreement that most of them will eventually come around.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 06:54 PM
Generally that is what happens. It may be somewhat different this time because of the nature of Senator Clinton's candidacy. It would be interesting to see what happens if Senator McCain chooses a competent and respected woman for VP. Some might rather have a woman VP with a shot at the White House in the immediate future.

Wonderment
05-15-2008, 06:56 PM
We have enough uneducated and low/no-skilled people in this country;

Do we? Only if we very significantly raise wages and benefits. Undocumented workers follow the market.

It's as simple as that. No demand for their services, they don't come.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 07:08 PM
pisc:

It would be interesting to see what happens if Senator McCain chooses a competent and respected woman for VP.

What do you make of Carly Fiorina? She seems to be in the spotlight a lot lately, and she's already being referred to as one of his leading economic advisors.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 07:13 PM
Yesterday President Bush gave a speech in Israel that apparently didn't please Senator Obama. The passage of the speech that Senator Obama took issue with is Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is–the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

So what does the Senator's communications director, Robert Gibbs, do; he has a fit and screams bloody murder astonishing and an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. How is this helping the Senator when a paragraph in a speech, that for the most part would have passed practically unnoticed, is highlighted to the point of making it significant news by linking the issue of "appeasement" and his candidate. To make it even better Representative Pelosi and a few others are also flogging this horse.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 07:18 PM
pisc:

So you think it would be smarter, politically, for Obama to let Bush accuse him of being an appeaser and a terrorist-lover, and not say anything in response? Especially with the likes of Holy Joe singing the chorus (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/15/lieberman-bush-appeasers/)? You don't think that would make him look weak?

I'm all for hitting back hard and hitting back quick on any attack like this.

Big Wayne
05-15-2008, 07:20 PM
A great moment here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11042?in=00:26:20&out=27:30) when Mickey pops Bob's argument that the US violated UN law by invading Iraq. The blanket declaration that we violated international law by invading ought to be made after the "more research than [you've] done" occurs. Iraq was by UN Security Council resolution 1441 declared "in material breach" os the cease-fire declared after Desert Storm. If one side breaches a cease-fire, it is subject to the continuation of the hostilities that the cease-fire temporarily curtailed.

I hope this makes you feel better about Bush's disasterous war and the disasterous impact it has had on the United States.

graz
05-15-2008, 07:25 PM
So what does the Senator's communications director, Robert Gibbs, do; he has a fit and screams bloody murder How is this helping the Senator when a paragraph in a speech, that for the most part would have passed practically unnoticed, is highlighted to the point of making it significant news by linking the issue of "appeasement" and his candidate. To make it even better Representative Pelosi and a few others are also flogging this horse.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/bush-suggests-obama-wants-appeasement-of-terrorists/

This is one of the exact battlegrounds that this election will be decided over.
The spotlight needs to be on Bush and his inelegant deflection of responsibility. It's not as if Obama wasn't going to have to contend with this anyhow.
Attempting to turn it around is the only way for Obama to tie it to McCain as a proxy for Bush.

uncle ebeneezer
05-15-2008, 07:27 PM
(possibly quixotic)

What, you couldn't make reference to a character from a book in good-old American-English?? You just dropped a couple points on the cultural assimilation metric, amigo.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 07:32 PM
What, you couldn't make reference to a character from a book in good-old American-English?? You just dropped a couple points on the cultural assimilation metric, amigo.

No, because all characters in all American books are salt-of-the-earth, common-sense, plain-talkin' and clear-thinkin' sorts. We don't go for that fancy pants dream quest stuff.

Besides, the only tilting at windmills we do in this country is tipping them over when we back into them on the miniature golf courses with our SUVs.

USA! USA! USA!

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 07:35 PM
pisc:

I'd also add that this seems more than a little disingenuous:

How is this helping the Senator when a paragraph in a speech, that for the most part would have passed practically unnoticed ...

The president, speaking to the Knesset, breaking Godwin's Law, and you think it's going to go unnoticed? Please.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 07:35 PM
While I have not gone so far as to look at the time line yet but my guess is that it goes President's speech..... Robert Gibbs reaction ... Senator Lieberman, Representative Pelosi, Senator Biden et al. No Robert Gibbs response no story.

graz
05-15-2008, 07:38 PM
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/prestige.php

Here is a rationale for response: Don't take crap lying down.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 07:40 PM
While I have not gone so far as to look at the time line yet but my guess is that it goes President's speech..... Robert Gibbs reaction ... Senator Lieberman, Representative Pelosi, Senator Biden et al. No Robert Gibbs response no story.

Well, I just don't agree. There is no way, as I said in my added-on comment above, that these words from Bush were going to go unnoticed. I'm sure they were reported widely in the US media. Had Obama not responded, the line in those stories all would have been "No response from the Obama campaign."

Bill Clinton showed, in 1992, that the way to beat the Republicans and the right wing noise machine is to have a War Room strategy -- be ready to respond immediately and forcefully to any tricks like this. That's the way we won back then, that's what Gore and Kerry failed to realize, and that's how we're going to win this year.

Note the longer response from the Obama campaign by following graz's link.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 07:56 PM
I've looked briefly and nearly every story if find contains references to Robert Gibbs implying that the cane out after Mr. Gibbs whine. In general I would agree that it is better to confront the issue head on.But sometimes it is better to let sleeping dogs lay until they growl at you. When they growl deal with it immediately don't wake him up to see if he has teeth.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 08:02 PM
this story comes after the Robert Gibbs comments 9 am on cnn is the first reference I can find to Mr. Gibbs whine.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 08:04 PM
Once again this one comes after Mr. Gibbs whine.

Wonderment
05-15-2008, 08:24 PM
Because he couches it in contrarianism.

And because he pretends to be some kind of right-wing Democrat, which is presumably better than a Republican?

But it's not just contrarianism to foment racist hatred and to make up sex stories about presidential candidates.

I oppose McCain's politics with every fiber of my being, but how dare Mickey make charges of a sex scandal against McCain that he cannot support with one scintilla of evidence?

This hideous innuendo is even worse than what Mickey did to John Edwards; at least on the bogus Edwards story he could cite a shit-rag tabloid.

The McCain smear, however, is right-wing Swiftboating at its absolute worst.

I cannot conceive of any other commentator on BHeads -- conservative, libertarian, center or progressive -- ever making this kind of empty claim about anyone. It's signature Mickey Kaus sleaze.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 08:30 PM
Sorry, don't agree. I don't care if Gibbs's line came first, and I'm hard-pressed to think that anybody besides obsessive Obama haters could be made to care about it either. I care that there was a clear response around the same time from the Obama campaign. And there was:

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement released to CNN by his campaign. "It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel…."

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel," Obama's statement said.

This appears in a story (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/bush-suggests-obama-wants-appeasement-of-terrorists/) timestamped 10:48 AM ET. (This is graz's link.) Good enough for me.

And really, Pisc, how many times are you going to say "whine?" You're starting to drift into David Thomson broken record territory here.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 08:45 PM
I understand that there is already a meme floating about that the Senator's campaign is prone to whine and this seems to me another good example of it. The first reference I can find is at 9:00 am. in a cnn interview. Your article 10:48 AM nearly two hours after Mr. Gibbs whine turned it into a story. Every story I have checked, and I have now checked more than a few, prior to this time follows the general themes of "President is optimistic'...", "President attacks Iran...", "President expresses strong support..." etc. no particular mention of the controversial quote.

P.S. here is the link to the 9:00 am reference quote by Obama aide (http://mediamatters.org/items/200805150010) Because you know a hater like me just might make it up.

graz
05-15-2008, 08:45 PM
And because he pretends to be some kind of right-wing Democrat, which is presumably better than a Republican?

But it's not just contrarianism to foment racist hatred and to make up sex stories about presidential candidates.

I oppose McCain's politics with every fiber of my being, but how dare Mickey make charges of a sex scandal against McCain that he cannot support with one scintilla of evidence?

This hideous innuendo is even worse than what Mickey did to John Edwards; at least on the bogus Edwards story he could cite a shit-rag tabloid.

The McCain smear, however, is right-wing Swiftboating at its absolute worst.

I cannot conceive of any other commentator on BHeads -- conservative, libertarian, center or progressive -- ever making this kind of empty claim about anyone. It's signature Mickey Kaus sleaze.

I thought I might let that point slide. Now I will engage in Kausian innuendo:
The only reason Mickey alluded to a McCain sex scandal was to appease all the commentors who rightfully called out his one-sidedness.
He no more has the goods on McCain than he is a logical and good faith journalist (with a few exceptions). He may have piqued Bob's prurient interest, but did nothing to rehabilitate his reputation.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 08:58 PM
You're going off the deep end on this one, Pisc, and I have no interest in following you any further.

graz
05-15-2008, 08:59 PM
I understand that there is already a meme floating about that the Senator's campaign is prone to whine and this seems to me another good example of it. The first reference I can find is at 9:00 am. in a cnn interview. Your article 10:48 AM nearly two hours after Mr. Gibbs whine turned it into a story. Every story I have checked, and I have now checked more than a few, prior to this time follows the general themes of "President is optimistic'...", "President attacks Iran...", "President expresses strong support..." etc. no particular mention of the controversial quote.

What is whining in a political context?
Isn't it merely a form of winning if you are a supporter?
As Brendan highlighted, the track record is clear for Dems:
Do not allow the narrative to overtake the case in point. Do you hold on to the idea that G.W. was infallible in his approach to terrorism?
This is a rallying cry (not a whine) for Dems. Neo-con fear mongering does not trump real threats. How much worse could a new method actually be?
Let's see: should I put my faith in Leiberman and McCain, or apply some rational analysis to the problem?
Let's start with an honest appraisal and then to the approach.

rcocean
05-15-2008, 09:09 PM
Some of the comments on this thread - comedy gold.

Yes comrades, Bob will get rid of Kaus, his most popular BHTV personality, so all your sensitive left-wing ears won't hear opposing views. Yes, Bob will do that right after he marries Ann Coulter.

Seriously, while I enjoy the Stalinist comments and find them amusing, I suggest most people to the right of Bernie Sanders would disagree. Maybe, Bob will move the comments section to a separate page, so it doesn't embarrass him any further.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 09:13 PM
I may be going off the deep end on this one but I don't think so. It doesn't seem like a very smart political move to make a story out of what, up until the time you made a big deal out of it, was not a story. Epically when that story links you to a meme that is already out there essentially reinforcing that meme in the mind of the voters. I don't remember who said it but this falls into the category of "it's not the content of the story that counts it's the publicity." Well the Senator's team just linked the term "appeasement" and Senator Obama. While they added the dressing of disapproval the two terms are more linked than they were before. Not a real brilliant move.

graz
05-15-2008, 09:40 PM
Some of the comments on this thread - comedy gold.

Yes comrades, Bob will get rid of Kaus, his most popular BHTV personality, so all your sensitive left-wing ears won't hear opposing views. Yes, Bob will do that right after he marries Ann Coulter.

Seriously, while I enjoy the Stalinist comments and find them amusing, I suggest most people to the right of Bernie Sanders would disagree. Maybe, Bob will move the comments section to a separate page, so it doesn't embarrass him any further.

You are right. Mickey will not be banished, nor should he.
But that does not make him much more than a curio and a comedian.

pod2
05-15-2008, 10:08 PM
A great moment here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11042?in=00:26:20&out=27:30) when Mickey pops Bob's argument that the US violated UN law by invading Iraq. The blanket declaration that we violated international law by invading ought to be made after the "more research than [you've] done" occurs. Iraq was by UN Security Council resolution 1441 declared "in material breach" os the cease-fire declared after Desert Storm. If one side breaches a cease-fire, it is subject to the continuation of the hostilities that the cease-fire temporarily curtailed.

Your argument is that this was a "temporary cease fire" between 1991 and 2003? And that the controlling resolutions in 91 were meant to justify invasion by ANY member state ANY time Iraq breached any of the conditions laid out in the 91 resolution?

The UN, and particularly the security council, was set up by the victors (principally the US) after WWII to outlaw acts of aggression between states. THe controlling language is pretty specific. MEmber states are allowed to respond in self defense in the face of attack or imminent attack, but that any justification of a military action, particularly one of invasion, can only continue if, when the Security Council meets, it is authorized. If there were claims that the US was authorized by a 1991 resolution to invade in 2003, then these would be completely superseded if the Security Council met again in March 03, say. WHen the UNSC met and explicitly dealt with the question of military action against Iraq, the vote denying the legitimacy of a US invasion renders the invasion illegal. It's a testament to the remarkable propaganda efforts of the Bush administration that this is even a point of contention in the US. The disputes about the legality of a US invasion, even those about previous resolutions were rendered moot after the Security Council vote and its refusal to allow the invasion.

pod2
05-15-2008, 10:12 PM
It is most unfortunate that this discussion between Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus took place before the California Supreme Court came out for gay marriage. Will this help John McCain to carry the state? Will more social conservatives hold their nose and vote for the Arizona senator simply to rebuke the Democratic Party?

Ah yes, that hotbed of social conservatism.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 10:16 PM
It will probably insure that an initiative gets on the th ballot to change the constitution to reverse this ensuring that the maximum number of "social conservatives" go out and vote. Not that this will likely have an effect on the final outcome unless McCain does fairly well in the Hispanic vote.

pod2
05-15-2008, 10:19 PM
It will probably insure that an initiative gets on the th ballot to change the constitution to reverse this ensuring that the maximum number of "social conservatives" go out and vote. Not that this will likely have an effect on the final outcome unless McCain does fairly well in the Hispanic vote.

But in CA a ballot initiative to change the constitution to prohibit gay marriage will probably be more effective at ensuring that the maximum amount of social liberals vote, and they definitely outnumber the social conservatives in CA, even in Orange County, where REagan is celebrated as a deity.

Wonderment
05-15-2008, 10:21 PM
Ah yes, that hotbed of social conservatism.

Indeed.

I thought I would insert a shout-out here to our local wetback, unassimilated, queer-loving commie mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, who today pledged to officiate over as many same-sex marriages as possible.

"I will stand with you," the mayor said, from the courtyard of Los Angeles' Gay and Lesbian Community Center. "I will do everything in my power to keep this decision the law of the land."

Unassimilated Aztlán irredentist Justice Carlos Moreno (M.A.,Yale University, J.D.Stanford Law School) was in the Supreme Court majority on this landmark gay-rights decision.

Gay marriage is supported by both CA senators and majorities in the Assembly and State Senate.

Unassimilated Austro-wetback governor Arnold (married a Kennedy for the Green Card) S. has thrown in the towel (i.e., grown-up) on opposing gay marriage.

pod2
05-15-2008, 10:23 PM
Do you, or does anyone else, remember why Mickey didn't want to debate Alex Gibney? And what the debate would have been about?

I think it was going to be about whether torture should be outlawed across the board (as it already actually is), with the possible expectation that a ticking bomb scenario would mean that prospective torturers would have to break the law or whether it makes more sense to be (in Mickey's estimation) less hypocritical, and have the law leave some room for torture in some situations.

pod2
05-15-2008, 10:31 PM
Who here thinks Hillary Clinton will be Barack's VP nominee? (I don't.)

Reasons why I don't think she should:
o She (and Bill) might undermine Obama's authority once in office via back-channel communications and leaks to the press every time they disagree with an Obama decision. I don't see either of them, or the both of them, being happy playing second fiddle.

o She brings a lot of negative ratings with her, which rallies the opposition
o Her position on the Iraq invasion, and lack of mea culpa, will irritate the left's base
o She doesn't offer anything so special that another choice for VP won't be able to beat.

The last three apply somewhat more to the campaign, obviously.

I do think she wouldn't be a bad choice, and if Barack asks her and she says yes, I'll be fine with that. She's just not my first choice.

ANy thoughts on Bob Beckel's article in Realclearpolitics suggesting that Clinton can force Obama and the party to give her the Veep spot if she wanted to ?

pod2
05-15-2008, 10:37 PM
pisc:

I'd also add that this seems more than a little disingenuous:



The president, speaking to the Knesset, breaking Godwin's Law, and you think it's going to go unnoticed? Please.

I thought that only applied to online discussions. If we start willy nilly applying it to the Bush administration, we'll never get to invade anyone ever again.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 10:37 PM
Given the nature of the likely candidate, the enthusiasm for success form the left, and large turnouts in the primaries and caucuses, I don't believe it's effect on the voter turnout for the left will be as great as the impact it will have for the right.

Whatfur
05-15-2008, 10:52 PM
re http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11042?in=00:01:33&out=00:03:11 ...




I had to just respond to this only to get people to watch the first few seconds of what Monte linked to above for complete validation that ...YES, Bob WAS pleased with the thought of marketing Mickey's humiliation.

Eyes on Bob.

pod2
05-15-2008, 10:52 PM
I may be going off the deep end on this one but I don't think so. It doesn't seem like a very smart political move to make a story out of what, up until the time you made a big deal out of it, was not a story. Epically when that story links you to a meme that is already out there essentially reinforcing that meme in the mind of the voters. I don't remember who said it but this falls into the category of "it's not the content of the story that counts it's the publicity." Well the Senator's team just linked the term "appeasement" and Senator Obama. While they added the dressing of disapproval the two terms are more linked than they were before. Not a real brilliant move.

I think for Obama, if he wanted to invent a dispute, it doesn't get much better than this one. He gets to make McCain come out and stand with Bush against diplomacy. The fight with McCain about whether or not to talk to our enemies is now couched in Obama vs. Bush. Obama wins if he gets to run against Bush, and this news cycle tricked or forced McCain into casting himself as a sideline supporter for Bush. Pure gold, and particularly if the Obama campaign basically invented this kerfuffle instead of just responding to it.

Big Wayne
05-15-2008, 11:15 PM
It will probably insure that an initiative gets on the th ballot to change the constitution to reverse this ensuring that the maximum number of "social conservatives" go out and vote. Not that this will likely have an effect on the final outcome unless McCain does fairly well in the Hispanic vote.

Already happened months ago: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf

Whatfur
05-15-2008, 11:18 PM
I think for Obama, if he wanted to invent a dispute, it doesn't get much better than this one. He gets to make McCain come out and stand with Bush against diplomacy. The fight with McCain about whether or not to talk to our enemies is now couched in Obama vs. Bush. Obama wins if he gets to run against Bush, and this news cycle tricked or forced McCain into casting himself as a sideline supporter for Bush. Pure gold, and particularly if the Obama campaign basically invented this kerfuffle instead of just responding to it.

If it were a "stand with Bush against diplomacy" then what you say might be true. Unfortunately, for Mr. Obama, the example presented by President Bush was a stand against ridiculousness. To think the "kerfuffle' was invented to play off of it is just as ridiculous. One might think it is easier to spin when you are back on your heels but that is not the case. Pisc is right. Obama should/or should have run from this dog.

Big Wayne
05-15-2008, 11:19 PM
I'd be amazed if that made any significant difference in California, as far as pushing additional people into voting for McCain. From my decade there (in L.A., granted), I got the feeling that most of the conservatives in that state were conservative for fiscal reasons, or defense reasons, or anti-immigration, but most weren't particularly homophobic.

Attitudes about gay marriage have changed very quickly in recent years, with polls showing a steady decline in the ranks of the homophobes.

But back in 2000, California voters passed prop. 22 with a decisive 63% of the vote.

This is bound to help the wingnut party mobilize its base, but I'd be flabbergasted if it was enough to turn CA red.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 11:21 PM
I will grant that that is a possibility that crossed my mind. It seems somewhat fought with more down side then up with the demographic of the voters he will need to win in November. Given that his recently fired adviser was actually talking to Hamas it seems too much a reminder of this it to have been a deliberate strategy at this point in time.

Big Wayne
05-15-2008, 11:23 PM
It will probably insure that an initiative gets on the th ballot to change the constitution to reverse this ensuring that the maximum number of "social conservatives" go out and vote. Not that this will likely have an effect on the final outcome unless McCain does fairly well in the Hispanic vote.

Social conservatives?!?

I didn't agree with you when you said gay marriage wasn't a conservative issue. Apparently you don't believe it yourself!

It is by definition a conservative issue. That's not the same as saying every conservative is opposed to gay marriage. If unanimity was a requirement for an issue to be "conservative," there would be no conservative issues.

For reference, here's what you said earlier:

You are sadly mistaken if you think gay marriage is a conservative issue.

You were right at 9:16 when you rejected your statement of 3:41.

Big Wayne
05-15-2008, 11:26 PM
Yesterday President Bush gave a speech in Israel that apparently didn't please Senator Obama. The passage of the speech that Senator Obama took issue with is

So what does the Senator's communications director, Robert Gibbs, do; he has a fit and screams bloody murder How is this helping the Senator when a paragraph in a speech, that for the most part would have passed practically unnoticed, is highlighted to the point of making it significant news by linking the issue of "appeasement" and his candidate. To make it even better Representative Pelosi and a few others are also flogging this horse.

Yeah. The problem with this is that you think anyone can lose in a fight with the failed president who is loathed by most Americans and disapproved by historically large numbers — 72%.

I realize you're part of the tiny minority that still adores the president, but you should know that most Americans recoil in disgust from that man. (You can't really do the damage he has done to our great nation and not be hated for it. It turns out that if you trash the country with malfeasance and incompetence, there are consequences.)

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 11:28 PM
Yes I know the initiative was being circulated this just makes it easier to gather the necessary signature is my point.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 11:30 PM
ANy thoughts on Bob Beckel's article in Realclearpolitics suggesting that Clinton can force Obama and the party to give her the Veep spot if she wanted to ?

I presume you mean this one (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam.html)? If so ...

An interesting article. I'll have to take his word on the rules for picking a VP at the convention -- I had always assumed it was the nominee's choice, at least de facto, and that the roll call was so much kabuki theater.

I will say that Beckel's thinking certainly offers a plausible explanation for why Hillary is staying in the race and continuing to campaign so hard. (Another explanation, of course, is that she still thinks she can win the top spot.)

Here's how I'd argue against his scenario:

First, let's admit that there's a huge assumption on Beckel's part here: that Obama hasn't already picked a VP by the time the convention rolls around. I have my doubts about that, but let's play along.

I am not sure how much stock I place in Beckel's assessment of the loyalty that Bill Clinton commands. It seems to me that if you are a superdelegate and you've had it within you to say, "Sorry, no, I gotta go with Obama for president," it's not going to be so hard to say "no" a second time, when he calls asking for a VP vote. Some people might be like the hypothetical one he proposed, and will feel compelled to say "yes" the second time around, but I have a feeling that there aren't that many in this boat.

It is my sense that along with the loyalty that Beckel says Bill Clinton commands, there might also be some resentment at being under the thumb of the Clintons for so long, or in other cases, just plain Clinton fatigue. I have to think both of them have eaten up a lot of political capital during this campaign. I think many of the superdelegates will see an attempt by Hillary to force her way onto the ticket as an indication that she's just stayed too long; it'll be like being a bartender with a belligerent drunk customer, shutting that customer off with a sense of relief.

I also think that, leaving Bill aside, not every superdelegate that has announced for Hillary is fanatical about it. Remember that she started off with a bunch in the bank, even before Iowa, and picked up quite a few more early on. This was during the "inevitable" period. Note that several have already announced a change of mind. Beckel says nearly half of the delegates are committed to her to the point where he feels compelled to type that in all caps. I'd say the truly committed is more like a third.

There's another thing to weigh against the supposed persistent clout of Bill Clinton, maybe most important: If the word 'round the campfire is that Obama does not want Clinton as VP, how many active politicians do you think want to start off the campaign by pissing off the (new) top guy? Imagine you're a superdelegate and you're one of the ones that forced Obama to take a VP he didn't want, and then he gets elected. It's going to be a long, cold next four years for you.

So, Beckel has one scenario, and I have another. And of course, all this assumes that Clinton wants the VP slot, and I'm not convinced of that, either.

piscivorous
05-15-2008, 11:31 PM
Not every conservative is a social conservative. The distinction is made daily buy the punditocracy.

pod2
05-15-2008, 11:33 PM
If it were a "stand with Bush against diplomacy" then what you say might be true. Unfortunately, for Mr. Obama, the example presented by President Bush was a stand against ridiculousness. To think the "kerfuffle' was invented to play off of it is just as ridiculous. One might think it is easier to spin when you are back on your heels but that is not the case. Pisc is right. Obama should/or should have run from this dog.

So is it safe to say that you disagree with pisc's assertion that the Dems just jumped on what would have been an overlooked section in Bush's speech?

I definitely don't think that the Obama campaign invented this controversy, but if they had, I think it would have been a good move. If Obama can run against Bush, with McCain me-too-ing on the sidelines, that is a winning combination. I would be interested to hear why it's bad for Obama to pick fights with Bush and make McCain run to defend a President who is approaching Nixon's month-of-resignation approval ratings.

Big Wayne
05-15-2008, 11:34 PM
I think for Obama, if he wanted to invent a dispute, it doesn't get much better than this one. He gets to make McCain come out and stand with Bush against diplomacy. The fight with McCain about whether or not to talk to our enemies is now couched in Obama vs. Bush. Obama wins if he gets to run against Bush, and this news cycle tricked or forced McCain into casting himself as a sideline supporter for Bush. Pure gold, and particularly if the Obama campaign basically invented this kerfuffle instead of just responding to it.

Good points!

Plus, I don't think anyone has made this point yet: I just don't think most Americans are as stupid as Pisc and conservatives think they are. (We all know how out of touch and elitist conservatives are; they don't really understand how Americans think.) They're kidding themselves if they think Americans will believe that Obama wants to "negotiate with terrorists and radicals" in the way Bush means to imply.

Plus, there's this:

Poll: Most Israelis back direct talks with Hamas on Shalit

By Yossi Verter, Haaretz Correspondent

Sixty-four percent of Israelis say the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas government in Gaza toward a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit. Less than one-third (28 percent) still opposes such talks.

The figures were obtained in a Haaretz-Dialog poll conducted Tuesday under the supervision of Professor Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University.

(source (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958473.html))

Whatfur
05-15-2008, 11:38 PM
President Obama I would like you to meet Mahmoud. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29962_Obamas_Diplomatic_Partner-_The_Hidden_Imam_Manages_All_the_Affairs_of_the_Wo rld)

His mind is wide open.

pod2
05-15-2008, 11:41 PM
I presume you mean this one (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam.html)? If so ...

An interesting article. I'll have to take his word on the rules for picking a VP at the convention -- I had always assumed it was the nominee's choice, at least de facto, and that the roll call was so much kabuki theater.

There's another thing to weigh against the supposed persistent clout of Bill Clinton, maybe most important: If the word 'round the campfire is that Obama does not want Clinton as VP, how many active politicians do you think want to start off the campaign by pissing off the (new) top guy? Imagine you're a superdelegate and you're one of the ones that forced Obama to take a VP he didn't want, and then he gets elected. It's going to be a long, cold next four years for you.

So, Beckel has one scenario, and I have another. And of course, all this assumes that Clinton wants the VP slot, and I'm not convinced of that, either.

I tend to agree with you on this. Alter's point in "The Lecture" about Obama's lists of donors would reinforce your last point. It's hard to see what leverage the Clintons can muster at this point-- if they can't keep Richardson, Reich, John Lewis, etc. etc. from endorsing Obama, how can they stop the superdels from ratifying the nominee's veep choice? Obama's leverage will not be vague claims of "look what I did for you 10 years ago." It will look more like, "let's take a look at the next four."

Big Wayne
05-15-2008, 11:42 PM
President Obama I would like you to meet Mahmoud. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29962_Obamas_Diplomatic_Partner-_The_Hidden_Imam_Manages_All_the_Affairs_of_the_Wo rld)

His mind is wide open.

LGF? Really?

Here's a poll. Try to figure out if these statements were made by posters at Little Green Footballs or Late German Fascists (Nazis):

http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/

Funny stuff. And so true.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 11:42 PM
Attitudes about gay marriage have changed very quickly in recent years, with polls showing a steady decline in the ranks of the homophobes.

But back in 2000, California voters passed prop. 22 with a decisive 63% of the vote.

This is bound to help the wingnut party mobilize its base, but I'd be flabbergasted if it was enough to turn CA red.

I got some more recent data from a friend out in LA, who says:

... in 2004, "Slightly more than half (51%) [of Californians] oppose
an amendment banning gay couples from marrying, including 42% who strongly oppose it." [1] I have to believe that in the last five years, the numbers have only gone up. Still, it's going to be a squeaker, and I'm going to go blue holding my breath until November.

[1] http://www.latimesinteractive.com/pdfarchive/state/la-me-gay24apr24-pdf.pdf

I think he's right about the trend, too. If you look at the full report, you see a huge increase in the percentage of those who favor gay marriage or civil unions as the respondents' ages decrease. The bottom group, 18-29 years old, has 47% in favor of gay marriage and another 22% in favor of civil unions. Think of all those kids aged 13-17 in 2004, and I have to think that these numbers will only go up. A referendum to amend the constitution could even be a mobilizing factor to get out the youth vote.

So, yeah, we agree. This issue isn't likely to tip the state to McCain.

pod2
05-15-2008, 11:44 PM
Good points!

Plus, there's this:

For the record, Obama is strongly opposed to talks with Hamas. When Robert Malley, who was affiliated with the Obama campaign, recently made overtures under the radar to talk with Hamas leadership, he was quickly jettisoned from the campaign.

graz
05-15-2008, 11:49 PM
President Obama I would like you to meet Mahmoud. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29962_Obamas_Diplomatic_Partner-_The_Hidden_Imam_Manages_All_the_Affairs_of_the_Wo rld)

His mind is wide open.

And G.W.'s mind is?
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/bush_munich_munich_munich.php

Resolute?

pod2
05-15-2008, 11:49 PM
LGF? Really?

Here's a poll. Try to figure out if these statements were made by posters at Little Green Footballs or Late German Fascists (Nazis):

http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/

Funny stuff. And so true.

Well played, sir.

bjkeefe
05-15-2008, 11:54 PM
Some more data, in support of the trend toward greater tolerance hypothesis: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/polling-marriag.html

Big Wayne
05-15-2008, 11:55 PM
For the record, Obama is strongly opposed to talks with Hamas. When Robert Malley, who was affiliated with the Obama campaign, recently made overtures under the radar to talk with Hamas leadership, he was quickly jettisoned from the campaign.

You are correct, but thank you for pointing it out in case anyone wasn't aware.

My point in posting the Haaretz poll was not that Obama supports negotiations with Hamas, but to show that the effectiveness of this particular wingnut tactic is probably limited, since there are a lot of people who don't think diplomacy is such a terrible idea.

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 12:00 AM
Yes I know the initiative was being circulated this just makes it easier to gather the necessary signature is my point.

Oh, well, it already has enough signatures. We're just waiting for the Secretary of State to accept them. Conservatives have been working on this initiative for a while. It's a done deal, barring rejection by the CA Sec. of State, which is improbable.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 12:00 AM
I always enjoy it when the psychologists get on the site and divine what I think.
At least it was an interesting link.

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 12:00 AM
Not every conservative is a social conservative. The distinction is made daily buy the punditocracy.

Not every kind of cheese is American, but Swiss is still cheese.

pod2
05-16-2008, 12:01 AM
You are correct, but thank you for pointing it out in case anyone wasn't aware.

My point in posting the Haaretz poll was not that Obama supports negotiations with Hamas, but to show that the effectiveness of this particular wingnut tactic is probably limited, since there are a lot of people who don't think diplomacy is such a terrible idea.

Completely agreed.

Many Americans would be surprised to find that many views or approaches that are beyond the pale in political circles here are part of the mainstream discussion in Israel.

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 12:06 AM
What's funny is that there is so much BDS running through some here that they feel free to display the disease in public and they think it is looked at like a beautiful birthmark and not the shanker it is.

If Obama can spin this into a positive...he may BE the 12th imam and not the inexperienced ignoramus he sometimes projects.

Unfortunately, I'm thinking we are just seeing some additional bad judgement.

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 12:10 AM
I definitely don't think that the Obama campaign invented this controversy, but if they had, I think it would have been a good move. If Obama can run against Bush, with McCain me-too-ing on the sidelines, that is a winning combination.
Spot on.


If it were a "stand with Bush against diplomacy" then what you say might be true. Unfortunately, for Mr. Obama, the example presented by President Bush was a stand against ridiculousness. To think the "kerfuffle' was invented to play off of it is just as ridiculous. One might think it is easier to spin when you are back on your heels but that is not the case. Pisc is right. Obama should/or should have run from this dog.
I think we're all clear on one thing: You and your side will attack Obama no matter how he pronounces "tomato." That's a given. His getting out of bed on the left or right side of the bed can equally be presented as proof of his terrorist sympathies — and will. There's nothing serious or honest about this line of attack, or most of the other lines of attack your side will put forth in the months ahead. They simply serve one function: to damage Obama. Truth is irrelevant.

I don't think you believe your own argument. Running away from a fight has never characterized Republican strategy, so I really doubt you think it's the right strategy for Democrats.

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 12:14 AM
Well played, sir.


"Played" is exactly what Obama was here and will be when he decides to sit down with Mahmoud.

And Big Wayne pointing to inconsiderate posters on LGF is pretty funny. Tell you what BW, they have open enrollment there every so often, why don't go there and share your obvious wisdom...you know...be the diplomat.

graz
05-16-2008, 12:14 AM
What's funny is that there is so much BDS running through some here that they feel free to display the disease in public and they think it is looked at like a beautiful birthmark and not the shanker it is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Shanker
I fail to see what the head of the Teachers Union has to do with this?

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 12:19 AM
It also seems a bit narcissistic to me, for Senator Obama, to think that in a speech before the Israeli Keenest, a speech that contained a reference to the peoples that suffered the most so greatly from the European's appeasement of Hitler is directed you know at the good Senator; and hence my persistence of the "whine." Myself; I think he doth protest too much, too loud and too often.

P.S. If I can't use strike through I can at least bracket what I want to change.

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 12:19 AM
I got some more recent data from a friend out in LA, who says:

That's excellent news! Thank you for bringing more current data to the discussion. Good stuff.

I didn't have the data handy, but I have seen similar results in the past year or so showing that the trend towards acceptance has been remarkably rapid in recent years.


I think he's right about the trend, too. If you look at the full report, you see a huge increase in the percentage of those who favor gay marriage or civil unions as the respondents' ages decrease. ... This issue isn't likely to tip the state to McCain.
More good points. And when you consider that Democrats are way more energized than Republicans, I just don't think this issue will have the same power that it did in 2004. Conservatives may be able to mobilized a lot of the base to come out and vote against gay marriage, but it almost certainly will not be enough to compensate for the larger numbers coming out to put a stake through the heart of the Bush Era. Hell, they can't even win red districts in Mississippi.

I am really looking forward to November!

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 12:27 AM
What's funny is that there is so much BDS running through some here that they feel free to display the disease in public and they think it is looked at like a beautiful birthmark and not the shanker it is.
If you weren't so out of touch with the American people (you elitist!), you would realize that BDS is a "disease" that afflicts the majority of your fellow countrymen. (God bless the wisdom of the American people!)

Whether you like it or not, you are going to have to live the rest of your life in a nation that despises the failure Bush far more than it ever disliked Jimmy Carter -- and you know the last 28 years have not been kind to Carter.

I recommend you read the following text in full:

Half of the 1,024 adults surveyed over the weekend "strongly disapprove" of the job President Bush is doing, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows.

This marks the first time Bush's "strongly disapprove" rating has hit 50% and is an increase from 44% the last time that question was asked about him, in late February 2006.

It also is the first time -- at least in in recent history -- that the job performance of any president has been strongly disapproved of by 50% of those surveyed nationally by Gallup, according to records shared with us by USA TODAY polling editor Jim Norman.

The president who came closest:

Richard Nixon, who in February 1974 -- six months before he resigned from office -- was "strongly" disapproved of by 48% of the public in Gallup's surveying. President Carter's highest "strongly disapprove" number: 33%, in July 1979. President Clinton's: 34%, in July 1994.

On the flip side of the questions, President Bush's "strongly approve" rating has fallen to a new low: 14%.


Hey, Whatfur, can I ask you a question?

Do you strongly approve of the job President Bush is doing?

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 12:27 AM
... Hell, they can't even win red districts in Mississippi... But it takes a pro life, pro gun blue dog to do it.

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 12:32 AM
"Played" is exactly what Obama was here and will be when he decides to sit down with Mahmoud.

And Big Wayne pointing to inconsiderate posters on LGF is pretty funny. Tell you what BW, they have open enrollment there every so often, why don't go there and share your obvious wisdom...you know...be the diplomat.

You wouldn't know this, since you share their views, but they don't tolerate dissent at LGF. I've had more than one account and numerous comments deleted over there. No comment I have ever left at LGF remained on the site for more than a couple of hours.

Most are deleted literally within minutes of being posted.

(I haven't wasted my time over there for a couple of years, so I suppose things may have changed. But I doubt it.)

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 12:33 AM
But it takes a pro life, pro gun blue dog to do it.

A fair point.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 01:12 AM
I really don't pay that much attention to the inside baseball of either party. I've heard the name floated but my impression of her is from her time as CEO of HP. I'm not sure that speaks to well of her abilities. Granted it was a tough time with the Compaq merger but she seemed to more resented than liked and the thing didn't go either smooth or produce anywhere near the financially boom she sold it as, from what I remember.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 01:17 AM
Can you name me one social conservative that doesn't base his socially conservative positions on his religious values. That is my original premise, that it is a religious position not a conservative one. You may conflate the two but I can assure you there s a difference. By the way I prefer baby swiss but swiss will do in pinch.

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 02:12 AM
A timely history lesson from "d" at Lawyers, Guns and Money (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/05/say-what.html).
________________________________

Another McHistory lesson:
“I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'’

Asked if he thought that former President Jimmy Carter, who struggled with the hostage crisis, was an appeaser, Mr. McCain replied: “I don’t know if he was an appeaser or not, but he terribly mishandled the Iranian hostage crisis.'’
The historical error in that first paragraph should speak for itself, but I'll simply note that (a) the hostage release had been negotiated prior to Reagan's inauguration; (b) the hostages were released literally minutes into his Presidency; and (c) if nothing else, the Reagan campaign was deeply concerned that the hostages not actually come home before the election in November. As for appeasing the religious extremists in Iran, I'll leave it to John McCain's memory to recall which of his favorite chief executives presided over a batch of illegal arms sales to the very people calling for "Death to America" throughout the early 1980s.

I understand that John McCain is going to continue to get away with saying flat-out-wrong shit about the contemporary Middle East, so I won't expect the press to ask any serious questions about his understanding of America's history in the region. But Christ....

________________________________

Note: All of the text between the lines is from LGM; unfortunately, BH.tv has disabled the INDENT tag, so it's impossible to properly format posts containing quoted material.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 02:20 AM
Actually you can embed quotes within quotes, which probably would have worked in this case. Try doing anything tabular though and you are really screwed.

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 02:56 AM
Actually you can embed quotes within quotes, which probably would have worked in this case. Try doing anything tabular though and you are really screwed.

You can use quote tags, but the real purpose of the quote tag is to quote other forum members. the quote tag also sucks because it italicizes all of the content, and because it places the word "quote" before the text.

Furthermore, the LGM post I quoted contained a quotation of its own, which would have required me to nest quote tags -- and that would have been an even bigger mess.

The appropriate tag for quoting text is the HTML <blockquote> tag, which is the equivilent of the INDENT tag in the forum.

Here's how it would look using the Quote tag:

Say What?

Another McHistory lesson:

“I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'’

Asked if he thought that former President Jimmy Carter, who struggled with the hostage crisis, was an appeaser, Mr. McCain replied: “I don’t know if he was an appeaser or not, but he terribly mishandled the Iranian hostage crisis.'’
The historical error in that first paragraph should speak for itself, but I'll simply note that (a) the hostage release had been negotiated prior to Reagan's inauguration; (b) the hostages were released literally minutes into his Presidency; and (c) if nothing else, the Reagan campaign was deeply concerned that the hostages not actually come home before the election in November. As for appeasing the religious extremists in Iran, I'll leave it to John McCain's memory to recall which of his favorite chief executives presided over a batch of illegal arms sales to the very people calling for "Death to America" throughout the early 1980s.

I understand that John McCain is going to continue to get away with saying flat-out-wrong shit about the contemporary Middle East, so I won't expect the press to ask any serious questions about his understanding of America's history in the region. But Christ....

Posted by d


It just looks like crap, and the nested quote tag is confusing to readers. BH.tv should enable the INDENT tag.

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 07:43 AM
If you weren't so out of touch with the American people (you elitist!), you would realize that BDS is a "disease" that afflicts the majority of your fellow countrymen. (God bless the wisdom of the American people!)

Whether you like it or not, you are going to have to live the rest of your life in a nation that despises the failure Bush far more than it ever disliked Jimmy Carter -- and you know the last 28 years have not been kind to Carter.

I recommend you read the following text in full:

Hey, Whatfur, can I ask you a question?

Do you strongly approve of the job President Bush is doing?

Small Wayne,

"Elitist"?, "out of touch with the American people"? What? Did you find that in the USA Today Whatfur poll?

It is nice that things like polls can reduce things down to very simple questions soas even people with limited faculties can participate.

I personally find it difficult to reduce an 8 year presidency into a 2 word description. I can tell you that those poll numbers would be alot different if it were not for Harriet Meyers, his immigration stance, and a couple other areas in which he spent his "political capital" as far as conservatives are concerned, badly.

Has he done some things right? Sure.

Seven years of economic growth with the starting point being the Clinton recession and then 9/11...and the whole time people like yourself beating negative drums only to have them silenced by successes. People on your side many times will cry out The Swift Boaters! Those damn Swift Boaters killed the Kerry campaign...when reality his "its the ecomomy stupid" when jobs were being added in massive junks month after month leading to 2004 killed the Kerry campaign.

The stock market also tanked after 9/11 and came back to record levels last year and were not fueled by the fluff and bologna of dotcoms and Y2K BS that fueled Clinton's stock market.

Inflation has been held in check.

I personally would not have made the Iraq decision...but do I need to trot out the Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi youTube videos to show their mindset being the same a Bush...some even before him. Here too I often wonder where we would be there without the constant negative drumbeat of Quagmires etc. from your side from day one while continuing today from the likes of YOUR Harry Reid and Nanci Pelosi and Murtha etc. Not to mention the 'Bush Lied people died' crowd who are more in love with slogans than facts. (And speaking of, if you think the release of the hostages at the start of the Reagan administration was because of shrewd bargaining by then President Carter well I would suggest you read more about it, before I call you delusional...bottom line the Iranians thought he was a boob and were quite pleased to slap him in the face with the release methodology...and now Obama wants to play checkers with one of the hostage takers.)

There's more but I have to get ready for work. I will just finish with the fact that under Bush we also have gone 7 years without another attack on our homeland and that too can be lumped in with Iraq/Afganistan successes.

I honestly feel Bush will be treated rather kindly by history because while history might include poll numbers it will include real numbers also. Harry Truman had very low numbers when he left office and people then were fond of disparaging him too.

Kind Regards

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 07:51 AM
You are not the only one to mention this for sure but as the saying goes life's a bitch and then you die

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 08:24 AM
Some wonder why not all of us are taken by Senator Obama's rhetoric. It may have something to do with our last President that sounded this same theme President Carter. Our Nation's Past and Future (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25953) Here are several quotes from that speech displayed, for simplicity in one block:"Nineteen seventy-six will not be a year of politics as usual. It can be a year of inspiration and hope, and it will be a year of concern, of quiet and sober reassessment of our nation's character and purpose. It has already been a year when voters have confounded the experts. And I guarantee you that it will be the year when we give the government of this country back to the people of this country.

"There is a new mood in America. We have been shaken by a tragic war abroad and by scandals and broken promises a home. Our people are searching for new voices and new ideas and new leaders.

"We have been without leadership too long. We have had divided and deadlocked government too long.

"It is time for America to move and to speak not with boasting and belligerence but with a quiet strength, to depend in world affairs not merely on the size of on arsenal but on the nobility of ideas.

"It is time for us to take a new look at our own government, to strip away the secrecy, to expose the unwarranted pressure of lobbyists.

"It is time for a nationwide comprehensive health program for all our people.

"We can have an American government that does not oppress or spy on its own people but respects our dignity and our privacy and our right to be let alone." Sounds awful familiar doesn't it? And we of a certain age should all remember just how well that presidency worked out shouldn't we?

I did find this one funny though given the nature of Senator Obama's vote demographics though Our Party was built out of the sweatshops of the old Lower East Side, the dark mills of New Hampshire, the blazing hearths of Illinois, the coal mines of Pennsylvania, the hard-scrabble farms of the southern coastal plains, and the unlimited frontiers of America. I guess that Democratic party died with the ascension of the Obama Democrats .

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 09:03 AM
Yes...eerily familiar.

Been meaning to use this...

"Hopeity, Hopeity, Change, Change" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylNwSv6c7m0)

deebee
05-16-2008, 11:10 AM
Bush may have been referring to Jimmy Carter in his Knesset remark -- if so...
in the words of SNL's Emily Latella, "never mind..."

Another female VP contender on McCain's shortlist is Jodi Rell, popular Governor of Connecticut.

bjkeefe
05-16-2008, 11:14 AM
deebee:

Another female VP contender on McCain's shortlist is Jodi Rell, popular Governor of Connecticut.

Very interesting thought. I forgot about her after I moved away from where I used to live -- in western Mass, close to the CT border. If McCain wanted to embrace the moderate, not-like-Bush image, this could work. However, it seems like he'd be writing off some of the highly conservative base of the GOP with this choice.

thouartgob
05-16-2008, 11:16 AM
Just out of curiosity, where are all these Mexicans who want to take back America? I've lived in several areas of Los Angeles in neighborhoods varying in economic status from very low-rent to more upscale. I have lived around Mexican immigrants at every stop and I have never met anyone who has brought up the impending secession that Mickey is so obsessed with. Do I need to move to Beverly Hills or Venice to finally open my eyes? Granted, I'm sure that there are SOME Mexicans interested in this sort of thing, but considering it's not exactly the "buzz" of any of the predominantly Mexican communities that I have lived in, maybe it's not such a pressing issue to actual Mexican immigrants as it is to Mickey.


....We are trying to hide it from the gringos man !!! by 2010 when we gain mucho power we take everything over. Viva Mexico !!

Just for the record in case mickey wasn't aware it is ILLEGAL to hire ILLEGAL immigrants. Mickey's beef should be more with corporations and business that flout the laws. Instead he only seems to complain about weak-kneed liberals and those devious mexican spies "claiming" to be here just for work. The bottom line is that it's about business, if business cared about our sovereignty etc. then they would change how they operate.

To add a spatial dimension to the argument :

Immigration Problem

||||||||||||||||||
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

bjkeefe
05-16-2008, 11:26 AM
Interesting perspective here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503306.html).

Related video here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/195384.php).

bjkeefe
05-16-2008, 11:36 AM
And on a related note: check out this video (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/195339.php). Ah, the intellectual depth of right wing radio people ...

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-16-2008, 11:45 AM
Undocumented workers follow the market.

It's as simple as that. No demand for their services, they don't come.

I am not opposed to the legal and temporary migration of underskilled and undereducated people into the United States when labor demands require it. In fact, we have a legal process in place for which hundreds of thousands of temporary visas are issued annually to enable employers to fill empty positions, and we may very well need to expand this program significantly.

What I am opposed to is giving uneducated and underskilled aliens a permanent legal foothold in the United States. We already have far too many people who lack the education and labor skills necessary to improve America's position in the 21st century. I see no reason to add millions more to this group through an amnesty/legalization program.

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 11:54 AM
I am not opposed to the legal and temporary migration of underskilled and undereducated people into the United States when labor demands require it. In fact, we have a legal process in place for which hundreds of thousands of temporary visas are issued annually to enable employers to fill empty positions, and we may very well need to expand this program significantly.
This is also known as "government regulaton" and a real capitalist would argue that it interferes with unfettered capitalism. The labor market, the supply of and demand for cheap labor, doesn't know or care anything about your government regulation of the labor market.

It's interesting, isn't it, how conservatives generally rail against the socialist inefficiencies of central planning and government shackles on free enterprise, except when they don't.

Immigration law is no more responsive to the needs of the market than any other kind of government interference with capitalism.



I see no reason to add millions more
Error: There's no "adding." They're already here. They've already been added.



I see no reason to add millions more to this group through an amnesty/legalization program.
I do.

Illegal status is a significant and substantial barrier to integration. Integration ameliorates the conditions you are worried about: uneducated and underskilled workers. It's a lot easier to gain skills and education as a legal resident.

As the Manhattan Institute's immigration reports says (note the text in italics):

Mexican immigrants experience very low rates of economic and civic assimilation. Immigrants born in Mexico, particularly those living and working in the United States illegally, lie at the heart of many current debates over immigration policy. The assimilation index shows that immigrants from Mexico are very distinct from the native-born upon arrival and assimilate slowly over time. The slow rates of economic and civic assimilation set Mexicans apart from other immigrants, and may reflect the fact that the large numbers of Mexican immigrants residing in the United States illegally have few opportunities to advance themselves along these dimensions.

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 11:59 AM
Bush may have been referring to Jimmy Carter in his Knesset remark -- if so...
in the words of SNL's Emily Latella, "never mind..."

Another female VP contender on McCain's shortlist is Jodi Rell, popular Governor of Connecticut.

Not only "never mind" but also as Newt pointed out last evening...Obama could have sided with the President and separated himself from the appeasement analogy (as Obama had already distanced himself from Carter and his Hamas meeting somewhat) ... but instead once again showing his ever present bad judgement he chose badly.

His advisors must keep a large supply of small sticks around for cleaning chit off of Obama's shoes.

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 12:12 PM
And G.W.'s mind is?
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/bush_munich_munich_munich.php

Resolute?

I'm sorry Graz...did you have something to say?

In case you had forgotten...GW already won his 2 elections and he is not running in this one.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 12:20 PM
Interesting perspective here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503306.html).

Related video here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/195384.php).

This is still during the time when both the US and Europe still thought that they could diplomatically get Hamas to drop there instance on the destruction of Israel. In the middle of that process Time and circumstances dictate what gets said and done in the diplomatic dance. Given a couple of years of intransigence and of rockets, launched blindly at civilian targets, the facts on the ground may have ameliorated what one believes talking can accomplish.

popcorn_karate
05-16-2008, 12:26 PM
pk:
Don't really buy the premise of your thought experiment, sorry. Put it this way: if you agree that eating ten pounds of salt a day would be a problem, would you also agree that any lesser amount is also a problem?


No. I would say that by establishing the fact that there is such a thing as "too much salt" you lay the foundation for further discussion and debate about what the right amount is.

many people like Wil Wilkerson, Kerry Howley and other libertarian types espouse an open border, free flow of labor type of system - i.e. they say there is no such thing as too much salt.

sometimes people with more nuanced views end up sounding like Wil et. al. because they are convinced of the insincerity of people on the other side of the argument. So I was looking for a place to start agreeing, then we can see where we actually disagree, rather than just talking about xenophobia.

bjkeefe
05-16-2008, 12:29 PM
Sounds like the old IOIYAR (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/IOIYAR) defense to me.

Please don't try to tell me Hamas only started shooting rockets into Israel in the past two years when they had done so on plenty of occasions (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=hamas+rockets+2004..2006&btnG=Search) before, or that suddenly, there's nothing to gained by talking to them now if there was reason to talk to them before.

DoctorMoney
05-16-2008, 12:31 PM
This is also known as "government regulaton" and a real capitalist would argue that it interferes with unfettered capitalism. The labor market, the supply of and demand for cheap labor, doesn't know or care anything about your government regulation of the labor market.


Yeah, but your definition of 'real capitalist' is an economic anarchist. Unfettered capitalism would mean that we could ship boatloads of low wage workers in from Afghanistan and put them up in compounds while they make textiles with no minimum wage or labor laws to stop them.

Which, in certain parts of the country, is almost exactly what happens with Mexican immigrants now.

Everyone is for an immigration policy as is traditionally understood, except for some weird crypto conservatives who stand personally to gain from the weakened labor market and some weird crypto-hispanic racialists who believe that 'their people' stand to personally gain from non-enforcement.

The problem is, none of the folks who are profiting from the bad situation are willing to voice their side in an honest debate, so it's all done in code.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 12:41 PM
That is a convent interpretation of what I said. There was an election, around the end of January, Hamas won that election and considerable time energy and effort was put into trying to get them to reform. This effort went on for quite some months, lasting until sometime in the fall early winter when even the EU finally recognized the futility of it, abandoned it, and essentially cut of funding.

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 12:42 PM
This is still during the time when both the US and Europe still thought that they could diplomatically get Hamas to drop there instance on the destruction of Israel.

That's untrue. Your version is a nice attempt to run cover for both Bush and McCain, but it flatly contradicts reality, what Jamie Rubin says in his article, and what McCain says in the video.

The truth: "[J]ust after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections," McCain said, "Sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them... I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy ... [the need to talk to Hamas is] a new reality in the middle east."

I think if you reflect for a moment, or review Brendan's sources, you will agree that McCain flip-flopped for political reasons.

DoctorMoney
05-16-2008, 12:59 PM
Here are several quotes from that speech displayed, for simplicity in one block: Sounds awful familiar doesn't it? And we of a certain age should all remember just how well that presidency worked out shouldn't we?


So, as a 32 year old, let me ask:

What parallels do you draw between Carter's failure (as I am too young to know anything about it beyond what I've read) and Carter's rhetoric?

I guess I'm saying: I hear echoes of "America, Love it or Leave it" in McCain, which comes from a thoroughly discredited political movement that also worked out quite badly for conservatives of 20-30 years ago. Probably more discredited than Carter's movement, which was, what, touchy-feely Christianity and a failure to make progress in the Middle East that is still less disastrous by any objective standard than George W.'s policies.

But, I am still a young man. Perhaps you know something I don't? Please elaborate. Because it seems like you're drawing pretty empty parallels between generic political boilerplate phrases of two different eras.

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 01:06 PM
Yeah, but your definition of 'real capitalist' is an economic anarchist. Unfettered capitalism would mean that we could ship boatloads of low wage workers in from Afghanistan and put them up in compounds while they make textiles with no minimum wage or labor laws to stop them.

Which, in certain parts of the country, is almost exactly what happens with Mexican immigrants now.

Everyone is for an immigration policy as is traditionally understood, except for some weird crypto conservatives who stand personally to gain from the weakened labor market and some weird crypto-hispanic racialists who believe that 'their people' stand to personally gain from non-enforcement.

The problem is, none of the folks who are profiting from the bad situation are willing to voice their side in an honest debate, so it's all done in code.

I agree with almost everything you said, especially (but not only) the first two paragraphs. Conservatives like to lecture everyone about the inherent evils and inefficiencies of "gubmint regulation," except when they don't. Particularly, Thus Spoke was talking about the "demands of the labor market," but it is the demands of the labor market that draws millions of illegal immigrants across the border.

There are more than just "weird crypto conservatives" who favor the current regime, which you precisely describe as "no minimum wage or labor laws" — the Republican dream (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5492833). It's the entire business constituency of the Republican Party defending this system. Bush and McCain represent this class, as did a majority of Republican Senators until they were scared into shape by mass protest from the nativist base. The reason is simple: the corporate class wants cheap domestic labor. They are happy to outsource millions of jobs to the 3rd world, support NAFTA, GATT and other "free trade agreements" that undercut the America labor market, and hire millions upon millions of undocumented, illegal workers. Hiring undocumented workers is an economic norm for the business class in the American southwest, and they have defenders/advocates at the highest levels of government and the Republican Party.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 01:06 PM
I think in your mind he has. He is obviously is saying something different now than then. Is it political expediency or is it prudent reevaluation. As a fighter pilot Senator McCain was well versed in the Observe Orient Decide Act (OODA) loop (repeat) as exposed by and integrated into Air Force pilot training, by Forty Second Boyd (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/), amongst other colorful names, Major John Boyd. Flying in OH58Ds I had some brief exposure and training along these lines but for an combat pilot it is their life blood.

The link is to a 2 part piece, both of which are fairly long, and some will find some what to gung ho for their taste. I believe the pieces are both worth reading even for those that might find the ra ra a little too much..

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 01:15 PM
17+% inflation and 20+% interest rates is a pretty good place to start. Or was it the other way around if forget as I have tried to suppress most of memories from that period.

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 01:19 PM
I think in your mind he has. He is obviously is saying something different now than then. Is it political expediency or is it prudent reevaluation. As a fighter pilot Senator McCain was well versed in the Observe Orient Decide Act (OODA) loop (repeat) as exposed by and integrated into Air Force pilot training, by Forty Second Boyd (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/), amongst other colorful names, Major John Boyd. Flying in OH58Ds I had some brief exposure and training along these lines but for an combat pilot it is their life blood.

The link is to a 2 part piece, both of which are fairly long, and some will find some what to gung ho for their taste. I believe the pieces are both worth reading even for those that might find the ra ra a little too much..

Wow. That's brilliant!

Brilliant!

You need to copyright that, now.

I have to hand it to you, pisc. You're one sharp fellow.

When John Kerry flip flops, he's a wind-surfing Frenchie with no core values.

But when McCain does it, well! It's "prudent reevaluation" informed by fighter pilot training, the man's man, hardened to steel in combat and now able to leap contradictions in a single bound, willing to make the tough calls even if they happen to be politically expedient!

Damn. I'm impressed. If Kerry had you on staff in 2004, he would today be campaigning for his second term as president.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 01:33 PM
I can see you took the time to read them before getting so worked up!

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 01:35 PM
But, I am still a young man. Perhaps you know something I don't? Please elaborate. Because it seems like you're drawing pretty empty parallels between generic political boilerplate phrases of two different eras.

Yeah. You're right. That whole post (of pisc's) is pretty much a big non-sequiter. I think it's also dishonest. He says people like him don't like Obama because Obama reminds them of Carter. This is almost certainly not true. I would bet $5 that pisc didn't think of the Carter/Obama analogy until he found it here (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/hawking_retrochange_and_mispla.html).

Pisc doesn't like Obama because Pisc is a Republican.

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 01:38 PM
17+% inflation and 20+% interest rates is a pretty good place to start. Or was it the other way around if forget as I have tried to suppress most of memories from that period.

Heh. My brother bought his first car in 1980 (I think it was) when interest rates were 21.5%. Crazy.

I believe that was the highest rates went during that period.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 01:44 PM
Actually no I'm not.

graz
05-16-2008, 01:45 PM
Not only "never mind" but also as Newt pointed out last evening...
http://www.draftnewt.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt

Which "Newt" can be said to be objective or powerful?

harkin
05-16-2008, 01:57 PM
Good to know that Ezra's not the only person Mickey has weaseled out of debating.

Mickey should just do what Michelle Malkin did to the disingenuous E Klein:

Post a sample of his BS and ask him to show any sort of correction or mea culpa. (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/11/my-reply-to-respectable-liberal-blogger-ezra-klein-and-his-fellow-travelers/)

Ezra refused to own his numerous dishonest posts even when presented with evidence. Instead he ignored her and beat his chest as some sort of victor.

Classic extra bit of hilarity as he condemns anyone who criticized the now-disgraced and disowned ST Beauchamp. Anyone who points out fabrications or dishonesty is performing some sort of 'violent group ritual'? LOL


I would love to see Klein and Greenwald a competition on who could come up with the more hyperbolic langauage to describe someone who disagrees with them (or worse, points out their falsehoods).


There definitely are weasels in the woodpile.......but who they are requires a bit of fact-checking.

AemJeff
05-16-2008, 02:07 PM
Mickey should just do what Michelle Malkin did to the disingenuous E Klein:

Post a sample of his BS and ask him to show any sort of correction or mea culpa. (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/11/my-reply-to-respectable-liberal-blogger-ezra-klein-and-his-fellow-travelers/)

Ezra refused to own his numerous dishonest posts even when presented with evidence. Instead he ignored her and beat his chest as some sort of victor.

Classic extra bit of hilarity as he condemns anyone who criticized the now-disgraced and disowned ST Beauchamp. Anyone who points out fabrications or dishonesty is performing some sort of 'violent group ritual'? LOL


I would love to see Klein and Greenwald a competition on who could come up with the more hyperbolic langauage to describe someone who disagrees with them (or worse, points out their falsehoods).


There definitely are weasels in the woodpile.......but who they are requires a bit of fact-checking.

Wow. You're just absolutely clueless aren't you? Is the only standard available to you for judging the merits in a debate "Who's side am I on?" Malkin's participation on that exchange was repellent.

That latter judgment can be highlighted by the kind of blogger support (http://urbangrounds.com/2007/10/11/challenging-ezra-klein/) Michelle received during that exchange.

Big Wayne
05-16-2008, 02:08 PM
Actually no I'm not.

You just spend your free time defending them?

I did lurk on this forum for some time before I joined, and I don't think I've ever seen you say anything positive about any Democrat, or negative about any Republican, but of course i haven't read every one of your posts.

Aren't you at least functionally equivalent to a Republican, even if you refuse the label?

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-16-2008, 02:08 PM
This is also known as "government regulaton" and a real capitalist would argue that it interferes with unfettered capitalism. The labor market, the supply of and demand for cheap labor, doesn't know or care anything about your government regulation of the labor market.

It's interesting, isn't it, how conservatives generally rail against the socialist inefficiencies of central planning and government shackles on free enterprise, except when they don't.

Couple points:

1.) Immigration regulation is not merely an economic regulation; to view it through the same prism is to miss a fundamental and distinguishing characteristic (e.g., you aren't simply asking whether someone should be employed in the U.S., you're asking whether they should be able to become citizens and have a say in U.S. policymaking). Same goes with the regulation of food and drugs, the military, or child labor, among other things.

2.) There's many different strains of conservatism. For example, the conservatism of Edmund Burke, Friedrich Hayek, and Norman Podhoretz differ on the emphasis they place on culture, economics, and general welfare. To characterize all strains of conservatism as believing that pure capitalism should be the sole tenet shaping society is to mischaracterize conservatism. And to accuse people of being hypocrites when they don't behave as you've caricatured them comes off as rather trollish.


There's no "adding." They're already here. They've already been added.

As I tried to make clear in my last post, my concern is adding them to the list of underskilled and uneducated people who have a permanant legal standing to live in this country and participate in policymaking decisions. America is full of ignorant and low-skilled people shaping policy (some of whom occupy high positions of government), and it's a bad thing to actively enable millions more to participate. Our dumbing down may be inevitable (http://youtube.com/watch?v=upyewL0oaWA), but I don't think we should promote policies that push us further down that road. Increasing opportunities for U.S. employees to hire legal and temporary foreign workers, while also strengthening existing laws barring the hiring of illegal aliens, would likely cause a significant number of the illegal population to leave the United States. The current level of illegal immigration need not be permanent.

Secondly, I think an amnesty program would create an incentive for many more underskilled and undereducated people to illegally immigrate to the United States, in the hopes that they, too, would be given legal status one day.



Illegal status is a significant and substantial barrier to integration. Integration ameliorates the conditions you are worried about: uneducated and underskilled workers. It's a lot easier to gain skills and education as a legal resident.


Though the Manhattan Institute study mentions this as a possibile explanation for why illegal Mexican immigrants do so poorly compared to other immigrant groups, it provides no evidence that this is actually the case (and in fact, a whopping two sentences of the report are devoted to considering this possibility -- one in the executive summary and one in the actual report).

Additionally, while it is entirely reasonable to assume that Mexican immigrants signicantly lag behind other categories of immigrants because they are not legal residents, this does not explain why second- and third-generation Mexican-Americans (who are natural-born U.S. citizens) lag behind as well. Both Chapter 5 of the Manhattan Institute's study (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_53.htm) and other reputable studies (http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_502JGR.pdf) make clear this is the case. Why is this so? It's possible that there's a cultural explanation (Mexican culture does not priorize education and economic development as greatly as East Asian culture, for example, which may be why the children of Vietnamese and Korean refugees have greater success). However, I think the explanation might be much more straight-forward: people who have no education and no high-level skills typically do not do much to encourage their offspring to work hard in school and develop the tools needed to succeed in a high-tech society. In any event, it seems to me that a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants would be a very bad idea.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 02:29 PM
I would say that in many respects I am a libertarian. In many aspects I am as opposed to the Republican agenda as I am of the Democratic agenda. The problem I have with that libertarian label is that I don't agree with their isolationist foreign policy and their unrestrained enthusiasm for pure markets. I believe that it is a dangerous world and that sometimes one must take steps to mitigate that danger. I believe that there a degree of market regulation is a necessary and useful but it has gotten to the point in some areas where the government is getting very much into micro management and would prefer it scaled back. I do not believe that the government can tell you what you can or can't consume in the privacy of your home, or dictate to you which customers your business can or can't serve. I certainly don't support this current democratic contenders for many of the reasons I have enumerated here so that leaves me little choice, unless I wish to go with Ron Paul or one of the other couple of complete off the walls that are out there. In this election cycle it will appear to amount to the same thing but as with most things in life you take the good with the bad..

DoctorMoney
05-16-2008, 02:29 PM
17+% inflation and 20+% interest rates is a pretty good place to start. Or was it the other way around if forget as I have tried to suppress most of memories from that period.

And so which economic policies did Carter implement that led to such high inflation and interest rates?

And how does that have anything to do with the quotes in your original post?

Just trying to see if there's some serious point I should know more about. Call me unschooled, but I was always led to believe that the inflation of the late 70s was based on a consumer response to Vietnam, not unlike how our current downturn seems pretty clearly tied to the international market's reaction to our never ending Iraq story.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 02:46 PM
That is a good question. I don't think that it was so much policies he implemented but failure to implement anything that seemed would have a chance of actually doing anything about either the economic "malaise" the hostages in Iran or the soviet push into South Central Asia. The man of ideas form Plains seemed to lack any when the going got rough. I have not seen anything in Senator Obama's past that would lead me to have confidence that he has actually implemented anything of significance and the one independent evaluation of some of his work, in implementing a some trial reform in the the Chicago school system produced no beneficial results and was run so poorly that the Annenberg Foundation declined not to renew their grant.

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 03:07 PM
Wow. You're just absolutely clueless aren't you? Is the only standard available to you for judging the merits in a debate "Who's side am I on?" Malkin's participation on that exchange was repellent.

That latter judgment can be highlighted by the kind of blogger support (http://urbangrounds.com/2007/10/11/challenging-ezra-klein/) Michelle received during that exchange.

Maybe its just me Jeff,

But would not your surmisal/argument above carry more weight if you actually showed where Harkin was inaccurate in his or for that matter included via link that which you found "repellent"?

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 03:15 PM
Is is my one of my previous references to Jimmy Carter and Senator Obama. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=75924#post75924) I believe that there is one other out there but I don't really have the time to hunt and peck for it.

bjkeefe
05-16-2008, 03:18 PM
Maybe its just me Jeff,

But would not your surmisal/argument above carry more weight if you actually showed where Harkin was inaccurate in his or for that matter included via link that which you found "repellent"?

Seems to me if you follow AemJeff's link, you'll see a link to Malkin's response (reproduced here (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/11/my-reply-to-respectable-liberal-blogger-ezra-klein-and-his-fellow-travelers/).)

I guess it's a matter of taste, but I found her post fairly repellent.

AemJeff
05-16-2008, 03:26 PM
You're right. But Harkin already posted a link to Malkin's original post, and she links back to Ezra. I contend that a fair reading of both sides shows Ezra making a slightly snarky, but reasonable proposal, and Michelle sneering an inchoate over-the-top response. This isn't about the merits, where I (unsurprisingly) support Ezra's point of view (and it should be said, whether you agree or disagree with him, he has real chops on this issue); but about the tone. Ezra presented an argument, Michelle didn't even bother with a gesture towards one.

Either this is all evident from the exchange or it isn't; and, as I said, I don't think any fair reading could come to a different conclusion.

AemJeff
05-16-2008, 03:29 PM
Seems to me if you follow AemJeff's link, you'll see a link to Malkin's response (reproduced here (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/11/my-reply-to-respectable-liberal-blogger-ezra-klein-and-his-fellow-travelers/).)


Good point.

bjkeefe
05-16-2008, 03:36 PM
Impressive speech here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/195484.php). No more Mr. Nice Guy.

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 03:40 PM
http://www.draftnewt.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt

Which "Newt" can be said to be objective or powerful?

Not sure graz, but it kind of seems like you have already reached your quota for the week of making anything close to a valid point.

But as I am sure you were not watching you be the judge. (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=411635&sMPlaylistID=)

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 03:54 PM
Seems to me if you follow AemJeff's link, you'll see a link to Malkin's response (reproduced here (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/11/my-reply-to-respectable-liberal-blogger-ezra-klein-and-his-fellow-travelers/).)

I guess it's a matter of taste, but I found her post fairly repellent.

I had followed the link and I sure hope that is not what Jeff found sooooo repellent nor do I believe that it was...although I am sure he appreciates you covering for him.

Wonderment
05-16-2008, 04:00 PM
So I was looking for a place to start agreeing, then we can see where we actually disagree, rather than just talking about xenophobia.

That's a smart approach, Popcorn. I agree. But we also need minimal standards of mutual respect, and that means agreeing that xenophobia and racism are unacceptable, which I'm sure you do.

Immigration is a life and death issue. People die of thirst in the desert trying to get here and families are ruined when undocumented workers get deported. So when a racist like Mickey launches into his rants about how Mexicans, unlike all other ethnicities, resist assimilation because they want to take over the Southwest and reclaim their land, he asphyxiates rational discourse and simply insults people. Once he starts down the racist road, it's hard to listen to his more coherent arguments about how undocumented immigration affects wages.

graz
05-16-2008, 04:02 PM
Not sure graz, but it kind of seems like you have already reached your quota for the week of making anything close to a valid point.

But as I am sure you were not watching you be the judge. (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=411635&sMPlaylistID=)

Thanks for the link. Newt's points are interesting. As usual, they require further consideration - he is a smart guy.
But he is also undeniably partisan. This tends to discredit what is apparently offered as objective analysis into popsicles for the predisposed.

By the way, valid points can be tiresome and redundant.
Sometimes a link to a better expressed version of a position will suffice.

Appeasement versus negotiation is already a false dichotomy before we even pick sides. Do you think the two of us could agree that either of the candidates is equipped and will be required to employ diplomacy with suspect entities in the course of "Statecraft?"

bjkeefe
05-16-2008, 04:05 PM
I had followed the link and I sure hope that is not what Jeff found sooooo repellent nor do I believe that it was...although I am sure he appreciates you covering for him.

You don't find Michelle Malkin's juvenile and sarcastic post repellent. Pardon me if I don't faint in amazement.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 04:07 PM
You appear to be correct. Senator Obama has decided to make an issue of it. here is the quote in context This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

I see nothing in it that mentions Senator Obama nor for that matter the Democrats. The whole speech is basically about Israel and the WOT. But judge for yourself . Here are the links to the speech Part1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pILLElR7MMg), part2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyVPU2WbW4Y) and part3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INnQKekKWjY)

Of course the Presidents use of the term appeasement in the WOT to at least 2002 The Axis of Appeasement (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/550afrhr.asp) and you will find it a fairly common theme throughout his tenure. But I guess it is now a personal attack on Senator Obama.

Wonderment
05-16-2008, 04:10 PM
What's a "weird crypto-hispanic racialist"?

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 04:11 PM
You're right. But Harkin already posted a link to Malkin's original post, and she links back to Ezra. I contend that a fair reading of both sides shows Ezra making a slightly snarky, but reasonable proposal, and Michelle sneering an inchoate over-the-top response. This isn't about the merits, where I (unsurprisingly) support Ezra's point of view (and it should be said, whether you agree or disagree with him, he has real chops on this issue); but about the tone. Ezra presented an argument, Michelle didn't even bother with a gesture towards one.

Either this is all evident from the exchange or it isn't; and, as I said, I don't think any fair reading could come to a different conclusion.

Ummm...funny, you first pat your buddy on the back for a "good point" and then proceed to admit that it is the wrong one.

In any case...now that I have read the back and forth and being extremely fair minded...If I were Michelle I would probably agree to a debate just so I COULD share a stage with him. And after I punched the little weasel in the nose for his obvious misuse of the media to misrepresent me, I would pick him up off the floor and embarrass him intellectually.

Bottom line is, MM had every right to be offended by such shoddy work and to glorify it and call yours a "fair reading", is a joke.

AemJeff
05-16-2008, 04:14 PM
I see nothing in it that mentions Senator Obama nor for that matter the Democrats.

But, that's not how the game is played. Does a sitting President make direct attacks on domestic political opponents during speeches before foreign legislatures? Of course not. Everything is couched, indirect, and referential. The context is what matters and in this case the context is pretty clear.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 04:22 PM
i would agree that it is part of the game I edit the comment above to reflect one of the first references I can find when the president first used the term appeasement in reference to negotiating with terrorist it was in 2002. I believe that the good Senator was still Senator Obama in the Illinois legislator then but the phrase is defiantly about the Senator now.

DoctorMoney
05-16-2008, 04:34 PM
So, being from Chicago, it's no surprise that I like Obama and have some familiarity with him. (I don't agree that he hasn't done anything substantive. I wouldn't say that the Illinois state senate has been a hotbed of amazing progress, quite honestly, but Obama himself has been shrewd and forward thinking and certainly one of the good guys around these parts. And around here, most of the 'bad guys' are Democrats too, so I don't think he got his reputation purely on being a party man.)

But what you seem to be saying is that you can't really name what it was that Carter (a 4 year president) did or didn't do to counter the malaise, but you seem sure that Obama is just as.. well, just as 'whatever word you meant to use' as Carter is.

Listen, dude, if you wanna not like the guy because his style rubs you the wrong way, or you don't like how he's voted on gun control, or that he was against the war pretty clearly, then that's fair enough.

But you came on like you had a point to make. I'm asking you, please: make the point. What is it about Obama that strikes you as Carter-like, and what is it about that Carterness that was so bad for America? Because it seems like you're floating the 'feel-good empty suit' line without any specifics. And I think that the Carter-Obama analogy is highly not obvious.

Care to take an actual swing at it?

AemJeff
05-16-2008, 04:34 PM
Ummm...funny, you first pat your buddy on the back for a "good point" and then proceed to admit that it is the wrong one.


Say what? Brendan was right, you could easily backtrack from what I'd provided to the original debate.


In any case...now that I have read the back and forth and being extremely fair minded...If I were Michelle I would probably agree to a debate just so I COULD share a stage with him. And after I punched the little weasel in the nose for his obvious misuse of the media to misrepresent me, I would pick him up off the floor and embarrass him intellectually for the obvious "respectable", little, liberal creep he must be.

Obvious misuse of the media? What are you talking about?

As to the rest, give me a break. Ezra took the risk - had Malkin accepted the challenge, he'd have had to follow through. She took the cheap way out, sneering, asserted the correctness of her point of view, and completely avoided any risk of a public loss in the debate. If she didn't think Ezra had sufficient status to publicly challenge her she could have ignored him. Instead, she tacitly admitted that the challenge is worth answering, but ducked it and buried her cowardice in an ugly screed.

Ezra (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=10&year=2007&base_name=lets_debate):

"It’s militant leftist bloggers," writes Malkin, "who wouldn’t know a good-faith argument if it bit them in the lip." Let's have a good faith argument. I will debate Michelle Malkin anytime, anywhere, in any forum (save HotAir TV, which she controls), on the particulars of S-CHIP. We can set the debate at a think tank, on BloggingHeads, over IM. Hell, we can set up the podiums in the shrubbery outside my house, since that seems to be the sort of venue she naturally seeks out. And then if Malkin wants an argument, she can have one. We'll talk S-CHIP and nothing but -- nothing of the Frosts, or Congress, or her blog.

Michelle (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/11/my-reply-to-respectable-liberal-blogger-ezra-klein-and-his-fellow-travelers/):

Look! The wingnut complained about the health insurance market! Ergo, she is a HYYYYPPPPOCRITE. And stupid! And a Nazi bitch!

I chose those two grafs based on the "shubbery" reference, which was the snarkiest thing Ezra had to say and likewise the chose the most over-the-top quote from Malkin. I've also provided a link on each name back to the original posts.

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 04:40 PM
Oh, I'm sorry, so its the snarkyness, that's at issue here and not the fact that Ezra misrepresented her? Sorry...I would be a little snarky too..."what are the odds?"

Whatever.

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 04:52 PM
Thanks for the link. Newt's points are interesting. As usual, they require further consideration - he is a smart guy.
But he is also undeniably partisan. This tends to discredit what is apparently offered as objective analysis into popsicles for the predisposed.

By the way, valid points can be tiresome and redundant.
Sometimes a link to a better expressed version of a position will suffice.

Appeasement versus negotiation is already a false dichotomy before we even pick sides. Do you think the two of us could agree that either of the candidates is equipped and will be required to employ diplomacy with suspect entities in the course of "Statecraft?"

Maybe...at least on one end I sure hopeity so and on the other we know so.

...and now feel free to go shower as I am sure you feel dirty watching the evil FOX.

AemJeff
05-16-2008, 04:58 PM
Oh, I'm sorry, so its the snarkyness, that's at issue here and not the fact that Ezra misrepresented her? Sorry...I would be a little snarky too..."what are the odds?"

Whatever.

Whatfur, misrepresented her how? He quoted multiple paragraphs of what she had previously written and accused her of hypocrisy - a charge she levels against her opponents pretty frequently. She countered with more of what she'd written, a passage that didn't quite refute his original point. This is simple debate - there was nothing out of bounds on the part of either until her response to his challenge.

look
05-16-2008, 05:14 PM
I chose those two grafs based on the "shubbery" reference, which was the snarkiest thing Ezra had to say and likewise the chose the most over-the-top quote from Malkin. I've also provided a link on each name back to the original posts.I don't know, Jeff, was that snarkier than this:

If this is a policy argument you care so deeply about as to travel to the Frost family's house to see if they really deserved S-CHIP benefits, surely you'll want to set up a web cam and talk through the issue.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=10&year=2007&base_name=lets_debate

Ezra has his own tendency to 'screed,' as evidenced by this over-the-top, hair-tearing, more in sorrow than anger load:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=04&year=2006&base_name=hunting_slugs

Malkin lays claim to no such ignorance. A skilled and experienced rhetorical warrior, she saw the pale, white flesh of their throats and lunged. The vicious always seek out the weak. Rather than forgive their poorly-written, too-revealing press release, she published their oversight, opening them to danger and harm. If any of these students are hurt by a crazed Malkinite, the blood will drip from her hands, the guilt will burden her shoulders. But forgive her just the same, for there is nought else she can do.

(This was linked from your original Malkin post.)

AemJeff
05-16-2008, 05:35 PM
look, I'll take the example of snark you presented along with the one I chose. I'd ask you to compare either to the "nazi bitch" citation from Malkin. I have no problem with "snark," as such, by the way. I'm not above it in my own rhetoric, and I'm not even arguing against "sneering." But rhetorical games don't amount to an argument. Malkin, and Coulter for that matter, don't argue, they engage in pure ad hominem, virtually unsullied by references to things other than their interlocutors.

My defense of Ezra in this is comparative. Ezra can seem young and occasionally unbearably self-righteous. But he argues. And he's open to the arguments of others.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 06:08 PM
So, being from Chicago, it's no surprise that I like Obama and have some familiarity with him. (I don't agree that he hasn't done anything substantive. I wouldn't say that the Illinois state senate has been a hotbed of amazing progress, quite honestly, but Obama himself has been shrewd and forward thinking and certainly one of the good guys around these parts. And around here, most of the 'bad guys' are Democrats too, so I don't think he got his reputation purely on being a party man.)

But what you seem to be saying is that you can't really name what it was that Carter (a 4 year president) did or didn't do to counter the malaise, but you seem sure that Obama is just as.. well, just as 'whatever word you meant to use' as Carter is.

Listen, dude, if you wanna not like the guy because his style rubs you the wrong way, or you don't like how he's voted on gun control, or that he was against the war pretty clearly, then that's fair enough.

But you came on like you had a point to make. I'm asking you, please: make the point. What is it about Obama that strikes you as Carter-like, and what is it about that Carterness that was so bad for America? Because it seems like you're floating the 'feel-good empty suit' line without any specifics. And I think that the Carter-Obama analogy is highly not obvious.

Care to take an actual swing at it?Actually dude I spent quit a number of years in the Chicago area myself, Addison area, and get back there a couple of time a year so I am also aware of the peculiarities of IL politics. My family and friends would take some umbrage of your assessment the he is "one of the good guys around here", but that is a judgment call. The change theme of his is one of the areas. It is a oft used theme in politics and President Carter is not the only politician from which a similar list of quotes can be compiled but the two fall fairly close on the political spectrum scale so those particular set of comparison quotes seemed appropriate. President Carter was a relative neophyte in politics, a couple of terms in the state senate one as Governor so at lest he had some experience running something. Senator Obama spent a couple of terms in the state senate, 6 years I believe, and a partial term in the US senate.

I have serious questions about his ability to correctly asses the character of those he has chosen to incorporate into his life and that of his family, yes the Pastor Wright thing. His totally disingenuous Philadelphia speech concerning the good pastor Wright. It was a masterful piece of redirection and denial but didn't work so a manufactured controversy was used to let the Senator do what he should have done from the start. President Carter was also not very good at character judgment and said about the Ayatollah Khomeini "he is fellow man of faith and can be trusted" or words to that effect and offered pr advice to Yasser Arafat. Whom we were stuck with from that point forward. Add William Ayers and Tony Resko to Senator Obama's list of acquaintances and it starts to look like a pattern.

Senator Obama has included a number of advisers that I feel President Carter would feel comfortable consulting with when it comes to Israel and Middle East peace if Douglas Brinkley's biography is to be believed "I am sick and tired of hearing about the holocaust" was a comment he made to Menachem Begin.

The Senator's seeming inability to not take responsibility for actions by blaming them on his staff Political Punch (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/06/obamas_staff.html)

That is actually more than I intended to say as much of it I have said before.


P.S. Care to take a swing at listing his accomplishments besides his originally geting elected to the IL Senate because he got his rivals removed form the ballot, or his primary rival for the US Senate removing himself after the Tribune got sealed court records released concerning a rather nasty and acrimonies divorce.

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 06:45 PM
P.S. Care to take a swing at listing his accomplishments besides his originally geting elected to the IL Senate because he got his rivals removed form the ballot, or his primary rival for the US Senate removing himself after the Tribune got sealed court records released concerning a rather nasty and acrimonies divorce.


Sheeeit pisc...I was saving those.

DoctorMoney
05-16-2008, 07:56 PM
Actually dude I spent quit a number of years in the Chicago area myself, Addison area, and get back there a couple of time a year so I am also aware of the peculiarities of IL politics. My family and friends would take some umbrage of your assessment the he is "one of the good guys around here", but that is a judgment call. The change theme of his is one of the areas. It is a oft used theme in politics and President Carter is not the only politician from which a similar list of quotes can be compiled but the two fall fairly close on the political spectrum scale so those particular set of comparison quotes seemed appropriate. President Carter was a relative neophyte in politics, a couple of terms in the state senate one as Governor so at lest he had some experience running something. Senator Obama spent a couple of terms in the state senate, 6 years I believe, and a partial term in the US senate.

I have serious questions about his ability to correctly asses the character of those he has chosen to incorporate into his life and that of his family, yes the Pastor Wright thing. His totally disingenuous Philadelphia speech concerning the good pastor Wright. It was a masterful piece of redirection and denial but didn't work so a manufactured controversy was used to let the Senator do what he should have done from the start. President Carter was also not very good at character judgment and said about the Ayatollah Khomeini "he is fellow man of faith and can be trusted" or words to that effect and offered pr advice to Yasser Arafat. Whom we were stuck with from that point forward. Add William Ayers and Tony Resko to Senator Obama's list of acquaintances and it starts to look like a pattern.

Senator Obama has included a number of advisers that I feel President Carter would feel comfortable consulting with when it comes to Israel and Middle East peace if Douglas Brinkley's biography is to be believed "I am sick and tired of hearing about the holocaust" was a comment he made to Menachem Begin.

The Senator's seeming inability to not take responsibility for actions by blaming them on his staff Political Punch (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/06/obamas_staff.html)

That is actually more than I intended to say as much of it I have said before.


P.S. Care to take a swing at listing his accomplishments besides his originally geting elected to the IL Senate because he got his rivals removed form the ballot, or his primary rival for the US Senate removing himself after the Tribune got sealed court records released concerning a rather nasty and acrimonies divorce.

Uh huh.

You lost me at Ayers. Anyone plugged in knows that Ayers stuff is beyond bullshit and has only made the rounds as conservative oppo stuff, and not even the good conservative oppo stuff. So, you can *say* that you know the political scene around here, but you just sound silly, because Ayers isn't remotely relevant and hasn't been in my lifetime.

Besides that, I have continuously asked you about Carter, and you gave me 3 hyperventilating paragraphs about Wright? Because Jimmy Carter .. had bad judge in character... and the Weathermen ... had some malaise... Good Times ... Norman Lear ... Israel?

look
05-16-2008, 09:01 PM
look, I'll take the example of snark you presented along with the one I chose. I'd ask you to compare either to the "nazi bitch" citation from Malkin. I have no problem with "snark," as such, by the way. I'm not above it in my own rhetoric, and I'm not even arguing against "sneering." But rhetorical games don't amount to an argument. Malkin, and Coulter for that matter, don't argue, they engage in pure ad hominem, virtually unsullied by references to things other than their interlocutors.

My defense of Ezra in this is comparative. Ezra can seem young and occasionally unbearably self-righteous. But he argues. And he's open to the arguments of others.
Jeff, when someone wants an honest debate the invitation shouldn't include snark.

As far as 'nazi bitch,' the word bitch was a highlighted link to what someone had called her, and I'm sure she's been called a nazi more than once in her blogging career.

I don't read Malkin or Ezra, but following most of the links from the SCHIP post, and then most of the links related to the UC Berkley incident, it seems to me that she is defending herself from unfair charges. Also, she does 'argue' in the SCHIP post.

The Ezra/Malkin relationship reminds me of the angelic little brother who never gets caught provoking his mean older sister.

AemJeff
05-16-2008, 09:30 PM
Jeff, when someone wants an honest debate the invitation shouldn't include snark.

As far as 'nazi bitch,' the word bitch was a highlighted link to what someone had called her, and I'm sure she's been called a nazi more than once in her blogging career.

I don't read Malkin or Ezra, but following most of the links from the SCHIP post, and then most of the links related to the UC Berkley incident, it seems to me that she is defending herself from unfair charges. Also, she does 'argue' in the SCHIP post.

The Ezra/Malkin relationship reminds me of the angelic little brother who never gets caught provoking his mean older sister.


look, here's a bit more of the context for "Nazi bitch." I've reformatted it slightly because she used italics to set it off, and the quote mechanism here would obscure that detail:

Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein and his Pavlovian (Yet Respectable) boosters are treating my 2004 post as proof-positive of my utterly flabbergasting HYPOCRISY!

Look! The wingnut complained about the health insurance market! Ergo, she is a HYYYYPPPPOCRITE. And stupid! And a Nazi bitch!

Continue flinging your peas. I do have a spit shield now.

This isn't a reference to something actually said, it's a characterization of Ezra's side of the conversation. There's nothing in what he actually said that remotely rates this level of bile. His snark may not be quite perfectly polite, but he does make his point with a pretty good approximation of civility. I don't think there's any way to characterize the SCHIP exchange in a way that Malkin doesn't come off unambiguously as the loser, even if Klein loses a couple of points for style.

look
05-16-2008, 09:33 PM
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

Here's an interesting set of articles from Counterpunch:

Recent US back channel feelers to Dahiyeh, where Hezbollah’s decision makers are sometimes present, reflect US calculations that given current trends in the Middle East, Hezbollah will play a major regional role.

According to US Senate Intelligence Committee sources, the efforts to date have run tepid and less ‘qualitative’ than informal Iran-USA contacts. US diplomat Thomas Pickering has revealed that he has been a participant in secret Iran-US ‘back channel’ discussions for the past five years. The subjects discussed include Iran’s nuclear program, the broader relationship between the two and US relations with Hezbollah. Other participants include former US diplomat William Luers and MIT nuclear expert Jim Walsh. While “unofficial”, the discussions, organized by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and the UN Association of the USA, are thought to be useful.

Dismissive of Republican Presidential candidate John McCain’s pledge to “drive Hezbollah out of Lebanon”, serious US officials want to engage the Lebanese Resistance partly because they are concerned with Israel remaining a Jewish state in the region.

The Bush administration no longer believes there is a viable military option - American, Israeli or combined - for destroying Hezbollah. The Party is deeply embedded in much of Lebanon and has broad support in the region. Recent reports indicate that some of its administrative staff is moving offices into Sunni areas including Tripoli and north Lebanon and that more Sunni, Christians and Druze are joining the Lebanese Resistance under Hezbollah leadership.
Even if there had been a US military option against Hezbollah, the war in Iraq has effectively eliminated it. American military strength has been exhausted in Iraq and Afghanistan and it has inadequate force to devote to a particularly dangerous third front. This is perhaps the greatest damage done by the Bush adventure in Iraq, where after five years there is no end in sight. The United States may be in Iraq for years to come with Israel ending up a victim of the Iraq adventure it instigated.

http://counterpunch.com/lamb04242008.html

The Pentagon's distrust of Israel reached new depths following the July 2006 war with Israel's use of the now ancient Lockheed Martin CBU-58 A/B cluster bomb unit. This bomb which was first used in Vietnam consists of a large canister which is designed to open in flight dropping 650 baseball sized bombs called BLU (Bomb Live Unit) 61 or 63 depending on the fusing, shocked and enraged some in the Pentagon.

As reported in the recent volume, The Price We Pay, the Pentagon at first did not believe reports that Israel still had any CBU-58's because they had been told that Israel used up their stockpile of the type in 1982. The CBU-58, it should be noted, was among those sent to Israel by Nixon from Vietnam in 1973!

Each one has a yellow tag on the 'mother bomb canister' that clearly states that the shelf life is '365 days'. Every one used by Israel and examined in Lebanon by this researcher following the July 2006 war showed this 365 days warning plus a manufacture date of March or August 1973.

Thus, according to the Pentagon and UN deminers, Israel dropped US bombs in 2006 that were up to 35 years out of date. This guaranteed, according to Pentagon specialists, that nearly 75 per cent of the CBU-58's that Israel dropped were duds and now lie around South Lebanon as land mines. Other US cluster bombs Israel used (M-42's and M-77's) had lower dud rates as widely reported by the United Nations and various researchers on the scene.

Pentagon anger and frustration was strongly expressed in the autumn of 2006 by Pentagon officials (see The Price We Pay, Chap. II). As one official who oversees arms shipments from US stockpiles to Israel commented:

"Those bastards (the Israeli military) know the rules and what the US Arms Export Control Act requires! The CBU 58's are decades out of date! We (the US) have not even had them in our weapons inventory since we last used them in 1991 during Desert Storm. They are now complete junk and I am amazed that any of them after 35 years even detonated. By using them this time in Lebanon Israel was illegally dropping landmines."

When asked why Israel would use them if they didn't function as designed, the official replied:

"They were emptying their closets of old shit so they can get the new M-26's. We (the Pentagon) don't resupply them (the Israelis) until their stockpile goes down to a certain level. They told us they didn't have any CBU-58's which are purely anti-personnel. The M-26 is the rocket fired cluster bomb [Ed: He was referring to the Honeywell manufactured Multiple Launch Rocket System that fires 7,728 M-77 bomblets up to 35 miles in less than one minute] the Israelis used across South Lebanon and will use again during their next war. We suspended shipments of the M-26 during the July war after we learned about the CBU-58 and Israeli lies about what they were doing with the M-26's in their inventory."

Some in the Pentagon are urging engagement with Hezbollah following the realization that Israel performed poorly in its latest attack on Lebanon. This included major military surprises such as the vulnerability of Israeli armor to Hezbollah anti-tank rockets which resulted in dozens of tanks hit and the greatest proportion of Israeli casualties among tank crews. On the first day of its ground offensive 27 Israeli troops were killed.

http://counterpunch.com/lamb04252008.html

The history matters more than anything else because solving a problem requires an understanding of cause and effect - and because the historical behavior that created the situation has not changed: The Israelis have not, for example, fully vacated the Lebanese territory they occupy, stopped violating Lebanese airspace, or provided badly needed firing data that might help demining crews clear unexploded ordnance that has killed or wounded 300 Lebanese since the end of the 2006 war.
"Believe it or not there are some plusses for the Bush administration if Hezbollah is strong", explained a Senate Intelligence Committee Staffer during an email exchange recently:

"It seems they (the Bush administration) don't see any really good options right now nor do they see certain long term American benefits if Hezbollah disarms. Some see a strong Hezbollah as a deterrent to regional interference in Lebanon. Hezbollah might be the stabilizing factor in the region the international community is looking for. Being Lebanese nationalists, if need be in the finally analysis they [Hezbollah] can be counted on to stand up to Syria, Israel or Iran for the good of their people and country."

http://counterpunch.com/lamb04262008.html

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 09:39 PM
Let's see the first paragraph compares their general lack of experience. Senator Obama actually has less.

The next two paragraphs compare their similar attitudes to similar ability to, in what is my opinion, correctly evaluate the people.

The third paragraph deals with what I think is basically a parallel thought process on how to deal with the Israel/Palistinian problem.

the fourth paragraph deals specifically with what I see is the Senator's inability to take responsibility for his word and actions. I really didn't think I needed to elaborate on President Carter's inability to do this because he amply demonstrates it on a regular basis. That last just having happened in the last week or so.

But I guess none of this meets your satisfaction. so be it.

By the way I'm real impressed with all the information that you have supplied about the Senator's myriad successes upon which you base your support.

look
05-16-2008, 10:02 PM
look, here's a bit more of the context for "Nazi bitch." I've reformatted it slightly because she used italics to set it off, and the quote mechanism here would obscure that detail:



This isn't a reference to something actually said, it's a characterization of Ezra's side of the conversation. There's nothing in what he actually said that remotely rates this level of bile. His snark may not be quite perfectly polite, but he does make his point with a pretty good approximation of civility. I don't think there's any way to characterize the SCHIP exchange in a way that Malkin doesn't come off unambiguously as the loser, even if Klein loses a couple of points for style.

Look! The wingnut complained about the health insurance market! Ergo, she is a HYYYYPPPPOCRITE. And stupid! And a Nazi bitch!
I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, as far as 'bitch.' She was referring directly to a Slate comment section entitled 'The Other Rightwing Bitch,' which I assume had linked to Ezra, as did the other two ('hypocrite' and 'wingnut complained' links). So are you saying that she shouldn't have held Ezra responsible for the words of others, and that innocent Ezra was 'only' responsible for accusing her of shrubbery skulking? In my opinon Malkin was defending herself against the general story that Ezra brought up by using the shrubbery shot.

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 10:39 PM
Uh huh.

You lost me at Ayers. Anyone plugged in knows that Ayers stuff is beyond bullshit and has only made the rounds as conservative oppo stuff, and not even the good conservative oppo stuff. So, you can *say* that you know the political scene around here, but you just sound silly, because Ayers isn't remotely relevant and hasn't been in my lifetime.

Besides that, I have continuously asked you about Carter, and you gave me 3 hyperventilating paragraphs about Wright? Because Jimmy Carter .. had bad judge in character... and the Weathermen ... had some malaise... Good Times ... Norman Lear ... Israel?

DoctorMouth,

Seeing as you have come on here demanding answers and so far providing little. You made the statement about how much a mover and shaker Obama was in Illinois. List his accomplishments for us eh? Because every time I go looking; I come up with him taking credit, or his party leaders giving him credit, for the work of others...with very little that he can call his own. Its already been discussed here previously including links to various examples and proof so if you are going to turn around and say "show me" I suggest you go do some searching here on your own as that side has already been provided. Now, this place is pretty much overrun with Obama supporters, so logically one would expect that we would have been also overrun with rebuttals...but NOPE just like you provide here we get hearsay and generalities. (Coincidently, much like Obama himself)

I think pisc has been pretty productive in politely providing you with the correct portrayals in defense of the peanut farmer post...
Can you provide something more than "Shrewd" and "Forward Thinking" for us? I bet you can't!

So Doc, put your money where your mouth is? (Did you see that coming? Ha)

AemJeff
05-16-2008, 10:39 PM
I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, as far as 'bitch.' She was referring directly to a Slate comment section entitled 'The Other Rightwing Bitch,' which I assume had linked to Ezra, as did the other two ('hypocrite' and 'wingnut complained' links). So are you saying that she shouldn't have held Ezra responsible for the words of others, and that innocent Ezra was 'only' responsible for accusing her of shrubbery skulking? In my opinon Malkin was defending herself against the general story that Ezra brought up by using the shrubbery shot.

I'm saying that if you pull out a gun in a boxing match, you've lost. If you can't effectively modulate your arguments in a debate you come off looking bad. Even when you're being goaded, if you lose your cool it counts against you. Ezra sounded like he had the facts, he made a gesture toward an impartial forum, and his sarcasm bit because it referred to valid issues. The "shrubbery stalking" bit, for example, was a reference to family she'd harassed (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/09/graeme-foster-what-would-you-do-if-this-was-snooping-around-your-house/) as a part of her campaign against SCHIP. For her part, I'm not the first person to say she sometimes seems unhinged. Her post was just nasty and bitter and made no points that weren't insults or tit-for-tat.

I don't know about the Slate reference - she didn't link her quote to it and it reads like words she's putting in his mouth. If it was a quote from someone other than Klein, at a minimum she should have identified the source - if there was any justification for bringing it up in that context, at all.

Here's another link (http://ianschwartz.com/2007/10/10/michelle-malkin-under-attack-for-exposing-frost-family/) to an account of her dealings with the Frost family, from a source less hostile to her.

look
05-16-2008, 11:16 PM
I'm saying that if you pull out a gun in a boxing match, you've lost. If you can't effectively modulate your arguments in a debate you come off looking bad. Even when you're being goaded, if you lose your cool it counts against you. Ezra sounded like he had the facts, he made a gesture toward an impartial forum, and his sarcasm bit because it referred to valid issues. The "shrubbery stalking" bit, for example, was a reference to family she'd harassed (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/09/graeme-foster-what-would-you-do-if-this-was-snooping-around-your-house/) as a part of her campaign against SCHIP. For her part, I'm not the first person to say she sometimes seems unhinged. Her post was just nasty and bitter and made no points that weren't insults or tit-for-tat.

I don't know about the Slate reference - she didn't link her quote to it and it reads like words she's putting in his mouth. If it was a quote from someone other than Klein, at a minimum she should have identified the source - if there was any justification for bringing it up in that context, at all.

Here's another link (http://ianschwartz.com/2007/10/10/michelle-malkin-under-attack-for-exposing-frost-family/) to an account of her dealings with the Frost family, from a source less hostile to her.

I think we may be talking past each other. The links I'm talking about are embedded in the second paragraph beneath the third gray quote box:

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/11/my-reply-to-respectable-liberal-blogger-ezra-klein-and-his-fellow-travelers/

I know what 'shrubbery' referred to, but what you call stalking, she would call investigative reporting. Have you read her side of it?

I don't think Ezra's inclusion of the shrubbery reference can be considered a gesture made in good faith. One more opportunity to be brushed aside, as Mickey did, and then a claim of victory. It doesn't impress me.

AemJeff
05-17-2008, 12:03 AM
I think we may be talking past each other. The links I'm talking about are embedded in the second paragraph beneath the third gray quote box:
My bad, the links don't show in the formatting and I didn't roll over the right words. I don't think that changes very much, though. The paragraph I highlighted was more justifiably angry than I allowed, but still doesn't have much to do with Ezra. Following the link under "complained" you find this:
I'm also, apparently, now a "fellow traveler" of Klein's, which will come as news to folks who actually know what they're talking about. Her utterly disproportionate responses aren't, IMHO, any better justified because she's irritated by the peanut gallery. Where is Ezra's responsibility for what they're saying? I liked your comparison, BTW, of Ezra to a bratty brother - that gets the tone of his side of this about right.


I know what 'shrubbery' referred to, but what you call stalking, she would call investigative reporting. Have you read her side of it?

I don't think Ezra's inclusion of the shrubbery reference can be considered a gesture made in good faith. One more opportunity to be brushed aside, as Mickey did, and then a claim of victory. It doesn't impress me.

Quite. I have read her side of it, I think she crossed a line when she (and Free Republic posters) spilled too many details of the Frost's lives publicly. Again I'm not in this discussion because I think Ezra is blameless. I started this because characterizing Michelle's role in this as anything other than offensive strikes me as risible. Whatever foul balls Ezra was responsible for, Michelle's response was vile in comparison and I think she ought to count it as a serious humiliation.

look
05-17-2008, 12:49 AM
My bad, the links don't show in the formatting and I didn't roll over the right words. I don't think that changes very much, though. The paragraph I highlighted was more justifiably angry than I allowed, but still doesn't have much to do with Ezra. Following the link under "complained" you find this:
Her utterly disproportionate responses aren't, IMHO, any better justified because she's irritated by the peanut gallery. Where is Ezra's responsibility for what they're saying? I liked your comparison, BTW, of Ezra to a bratty brother - that gets the tone of his side of this about right.




Quite. I have read her side of it, I think she crossed a line when she (and Free Republic posters) spilled too many details of the Frost's lives publicly. Again I'm not in this discussion because I think Ezra is blameless. I started this because characterizing Michelle's role in this as anything other than offensive strikes me as risible. Whatever foul balls Ezra was responsible for, Michelle's response was vile in comparison and I think she ought to count it as a serious humiliation.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I think the bottom line is that this is the clash of Malkin's schtick with Ezra's schtick. She plays the over-the-top harridan, he the obnoxious wiz kid. It's selling. As I said, I don't read either, but I sympathize with Malkin in both of the cases mentioned above. I'll close for now.

piscivorous
05-17-2008, 12:49 AM
I missed your comment earlier the page sometimes reloads as I click on a comment and the little green icon for unread comments is no more. Don't know if it's Firefox of Phorum but it can be maddening when trying to participate in more than one thread. Sorry for the delay.

I shall make this brief, just a few links that might offer some different insight to Lebanon.
Pity Lebanon’s Shia community (http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=42984)
Hezbollah’s weapons of mass delusion (http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=42894)
Hezbollah's Third Botched Coup Attempt (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/05/hezbollahs-thir.php)
Jumblatt's Men Set Back Iran's Militia in Lebanon (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/05/jumblatts-men-s.php)

These should make wonderment happy as it seems that the March 14th forces deliberately stood down and put the lie to Hezbollah's claim that their weapons were only for fighting Israel. Now it is up to the rest of the world to step up and see to it that March 14th are given the chance to prove their passivity was worth the risk.

look
05-17-2008, 12:55 AM
I missed your comment earlier the page sometimes reloads as I click on a comment and the little green icon for unread comments is no more. Don't know if it's Firefox of Phorum but it can be maddening when trying to participate in more than on thread. sorry for the delay.

I shall make this brief, just a few links that might offer some different insight to Lebanon.
Pity Lebanon’s Shia community (http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=42984)
Hezbollah’s weapons of mass delusion (http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=42894)
Hezbollah's Third Botched Coup Attempt (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/05/hezbollahs-thir.php)
Jumblatt's Men Set Back Iran's Militia in Lebanon (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/05/jumblatts-men-s.php)

Thanks, pisc, I'll look at these.

As far as the little green icons, I find I can usually hit the 'back' button and it takes me back to the previous page with the icons still lighted.

That 'Barack Obama and Me' article was amazing...thanks.

AemJeff
05-17-2008, 01:01 AM
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I think the bottom line is that this is the clash of Malkin's schtick with Ezra's schtick. She plays the over-the-top harridan, he the obnoxious wiz kid. It's selling. As I said, I don't read either, but I sympathize with Malkin in both of the cases mentioned above. I'll close for now.

Fair enough. I'm constitutionally incapable of not being offended by Malkin, or fellow travelers, like Coulter. I understand that sympathy for Malkin is something that someone might feel, but I have no empathetic understanding of that emotion. http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif

piscivorous
05-17-2008, 01:07 AM
I tend to open multiple tabs and some times that over 50 confusion sets in and I wind up closing the original and all is lost at that point.

Happy Hominid
05-17-2008, 02:51 AM
I guess we don't need to hear from him anymore (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11042?in=00:49:46&out=00:49:52).

themightypuck
05-17-2008, 08:40 AM
Perhaps Bob didn't ignore my brilliant idea of a Blogginheads calendar after all. My suggestion that Mickey be offered the Mr. October spot and this giveaway (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11042?in=00:31:39&out=00:31:42) suggest someone may be paying attention.

bjkeefe
05-17-2008, 12:43 PM
Mickey threw down the gauntlet. Here's the response (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/05/kaus-calls-me-out.html).

Happy Hominid
05-17-2008, 06:06 PM
"the blistering visage of Mickey Kaus."

LOL!

handle
05-17-2008, 08:24 PM
Don't worry Doc
I think Whutfur gets pay for posts. He always tries to get in a dig
involving your handle. (money where your mouth is) it's reeeel funny.
I keep asking him to get me on the payroll, but so far, his silence speaks volumes. I'm ignoring him, I suggest you do the same...

PS Get this: he actually links to FOX news right here in this forum! A Newt Gingrich quote, no less!
Fair AND balanced! Now that's easy to ignore...

handle
05-17-2008, 08:56 PM
Yea, I concede "aisle" is the wrong term, but reading this thread, and many others like it, it it begins to look to me more like a "universe".
They may be close on the obvious policy issues but I think the methodologies are vastly different. One Dem (Obama) claims to have the ability to transcend partisanship, but we've heard that from Bush. He also alludes to an intention of reinventing washington political systems, something the Bushies actually did (too well). The Clinton camp, I think, has more of a "can't join 'em beat 'em" approach.
I only hope that Obama can deliver not only the white house, but capable administration, and not get mired in the kind of extreme partisan sandbagging that tied the hands of the Carter white house.
Still, I think offering the veep spot would go a long way towards not only healing the party, but showing he is the man who can bridge aisles or universes, he purports to being.

Plus, it's "Dick Cheney" type security. No one messed with Bush, I think, 'cause just look what's waiting in the wings.(I kid! I kid!)

look
05-18-2008, 02:48 AM
I missed your comment earlier the page sometimes reloads as I click on a comment and the little green icon for unread comments is no more. Don't know if it's Firefox of Phorum but it can be maddening when trying to participate in more than one thread. Sorry for the delay.

I shall make this brief, just a few links that might offer some different insight to Lebanon.
Pity Lebanon’s Shia community (http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=42984)
Hezbollah’s weapons of mass delusion (http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=42894)
Hezbollah's Third Botched Coup Attempt (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/05/hezbollahs-thir.php)
Jumblatt's Men Set Back Iran's Militia in Lebanon (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/05/jumblatts-men-s.php)

These should make wonderment happy as it seems that the March 14th forces deliberately stood down and put the lie to Hezbollah's claim that their weapons were only for fighting Israel. Now it is up to the rest of the world to step up and see to it that March 14th are given the chance to prove their passivity was worth the risk.


Well, it's an interesting situation...three more article by Franklin Lamb portray Hezbollah as boy scouts who leave IOUs after they confiscate food from private homes:
http://counterpunch.com/lamb05082008.html
http://counterpunch.com/lamb05092008.html
http://counterpunch.com/lamb05102008.html

I don't recall it being addressed in your links, but is the Lebanese Army sympathetic to Hezbollah? And my question, isn't it important to have a force to ward off Israel? And how do the Christians, as Hez allies, see this current state of affairs?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/world/middleeast/18lebanon.html?ref=middleeast

look
05-18-2008, 02:59 AM
Fair enough. I'm constitutionally incapable of not being offended by Malkin, or fellow travelers, like Coulter. I understand that sympathy for Malkin is something that someone might feel, but I have no empathetic understanding of that emotion. http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif

Could we possibly find anything sillier to argue about???

;)

'Night.

vandelayexim
05-18-2008, 03:15 AM
I've seen here that Mickey's comments are being equated with something by David Duke or Louis Farrakhan, just flat out racist and xenophobic. This is totally hysterical and wrong.

I've noticed a proclivity among those who favor comprehensive immigration reform to dismiss opponents as "racist and xenophobic." The effect is an attempt rule such views out of bounds from the get go and avoid responding to them. I think that is what's happening here.

Just because one opposes the terms of comprehensive immigration reform and wants to seriously improve enforcement of current immigration laws, does not make one "racist and xenophobic." This is a simple point that comprehensivists frequently will not grant. Why? Because it's easier to argue against David Duke in the marketplace of ideas than a reasonable person who simply disagrees with you.

vandelayexim
05-18-2008, 03:35 AM
From the Institute of Latino Studies at U. of Notre Dame:

"Mexican immigrants delay naturalization longer and have a lower rate of becoming US citizens than almost all other nationalities. Recent cohort studies show that about 35% of Mexican legal immigrants become citizens as opposed to 59% among residents of all other countries." (footnote below).

Nancy F. Rytina, IRCA Legalization Effects: Lawful Permanent Residence and Naturalization through 2001, Office of Policy and Planning, Statistics Division, US Immigration and Naturalization Service (October 2002), 3–4.


I think Mickey's getting at this issue, which is an issue of academic as well as political importance. He has a theory as to why and wants to discuss it. What makes that "racist or xenophobic.?"

Wonderment
05-18-2008, 04:20 AM
I've noticed a proclivity among those who favor comprehensive immigration reform to dismiss opponents as "racist and xenophobic." The effect is an attempt rule such views out of bounds from the get go and avoid responding to them. I think that is what's happening here.

Reasonable people can debate the merits of comprehensive immigration reform. Disagreeing with progressive points of view on immigration is neither xenophobic nor racist.

Mickey Kaus, however, is on a lunatic crusade to disparage Mexicans, stir up right-wing hatred against our community, and propagate the wingnut meme that Mexicans irrendentists want to "reclaim" the Southwest.

That notion is at least as nuts as David Duke worrying that integration of African Americans threatens "white" culture, and it's about a millimeter shy of Farrakhan-type assertions that white folks are devils.

If you think that Mexicans want to organize riots at the border to urge that "Aztlán" secede from the USA (as Mickey has suggested), you have probably never actually met a real Mexican.

Most of my family was born in Mexico, including my spouse and my two daughters. I lived in Mexico for 12 years and have lived in heavily Mexican-American Southern California for 20. Trust me, Mickey is out there on the xenophobic lunatic fringe. He is a paranoic hate-mongerer.

Whatfur
05-18-2008, 04:15 PM
Reasonable people can debate the merits of comprehensive immigration reform. Disagreeing with progressive points of view on immigration is neither xenophobic nor racist.

Mickey Kaus, however, is on a lunatic crusade to disparage Mexicans, stir up right-wing hatred against our community, and propagate the wingnut meme that Mexicans irrendentists want to "reclaim" the Southwest.

That notion is at least as nuts as David Duke worrying that integration of African Americans threatens "white" culture, and it's about a millimeter shy of Farrakhan-type assertions that white folks are devils.

If you think that Mexicans want to organize riots at the border to urge that "Aztlán" secede from the USA (as Mickey has suggested), you have probably never actually met a real Mexican.

Most of my family was born in Mexico, including my spouse and my two daughters. I lived in Mexico for 12 years and have lived in heavily Mexican-American Southern California for 20. Trust me, Mickey is out there on the xenophobic lunatic fringe. He is a paranoic hate-mongerer.

Thank you for the biography as it as well as your comments show you to be totally objective in this matter.

bjkeefe
05-18-2008, 04:24 PM
Thank you for the biography as it as well as your comments show you to be totally objective in this matter.

I hardly think anyone can claim objectivity in this, you included. Also, I think it's valuable for people to bring different perspectives to this, and any other, debate.

graz
05-18-2008, 04:24 PM
Thank you for the biography as it as well as your comments show you to be totally objective in this matter.
But not off the mark.

Whatfur
05-18-2008, 05:45 PM
I've seen here that Mickey's comments are being equated with something by David Duke or Louis Farrakhan, just flat out racist and xenophobic. This is totally hysterical and wrong.

I've noticed a proclivity among those who favor comprehensive immigration reform to dismiss opponents as "racist and xenophobic." The effect is an attempt rule such views out of bounds from the get go and avoid responding to them. I think that is what's happening here.

Just because one opposes the terms of comprehensive immigration reform and wants to seriously improve enforcement of current immigration laws, does not make one "racist and xenophobic." This is a simple point that comprehensivists frequently will not grant. Why? Because it's easier to argue against David Duke in the marketplace of ideas than a reasonable person who simply disagrees with you.


You're correct graz...not off the mark at all.

Yes, Mickey is a bit paranoid I think about the strength of the Reconquista movement...but that does not say it does not exist.

Wonderment... the boy who puts the fist in pacifist.

"Lunatic" indeed.

graz
05-18-2008, 06:21 PM
You're correct graz...not off the mark at all.

Yes, Mickey is a bit paranoid I think about the strength of the Reconquista movement...but that does not say it does not exist.

Wonderment... the boy who puts the fist in pacifist.

"Lunatic" indeed.
We know that you have mastered the art of insulting comeback.
How about discrediting the actual point. You concede Mickey's paranoia, why not take the further step of using his words and disproving the contention. Why not? Because his words won't allow it.

Wonderment: Quote:
"Reasonable people can debate the merits of comprehensive immigration reform. Disagreeing with progressive points of view on immigration is neither xenophobic nor racist."

Whatfur
05-18-2008, 07:26 PM
We know that you have mastered the art of insulting comeback.
How about discrediting the actual point. You concede Mickey's paranoia, why not take the further step of using his words and disproving the contention. Why not? Because his words won't allow it.

Wonderment: Quote:
"Reasonable people can debate the merits of comprehensive immigration reform. Disagreeing with progressive points of view on immigration is neither xenophobic nor racist."


Graz,

Maybe its just me, but someone being concerned about reconquista does not put him in the category of lunatic, racist, xenophobe.

Funny you point at me while pulling one of the few reasonable, non-insulting sentences from Wonderment's post. Ok, Ok from now on I will block out the rest of his/your comments and only address those that don't offend me or others. I am just not used to the protocol here yet...

Me, insulting/smartass bad...Everyone graz appreciates doing the same thing good. <repeat>
<repeat>...

You had to snicker at the "fist in pacifist thing though". ;o)

graz
05-18-2008, 07:30 PM
I am just not used to the protocol here yet...

Me, insulting/smartass bad...Everyone graz appreciates doing the same thing good. <repeat>
<repeat>...


I resemble that remark.
I don't know what it is either.
I'm just wingin' it also

Wonderment
05-18-2008, 09:33 PM
Maybe its just me, but someone being concerned about reconquista does not put him in the category of lunatic, racist, xenophobe.

It's not just you. It's you and Mickey.

Whatfur
05-19-2008, 03:11 PM
It's not just you. It's you and Mickey.


Actually, you would be surprised.

However, just wondering ...what do you think about Mexico itself becoming the 51st state as opposed to Mexico taking over part of the U.S. I mean, why would they want to drag those states down to Mexico's level.
Of course...we then would need the fence built at Mexico's southern border.

Instant citizenship for all!!!

Only half kidding...I know, I know....the arrogance!! Almost as much as the Reconquistas.

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 04:23 PM
Couple points:

1.) Immigration regulation is not merely an economic regulation....
Sure, all of this is true. It's also true that any other form of regulation has some fundamental and distinguishing characteristics that set it apart.



2.) There's many different strains of conservatism.....
Fair enough. I guess it just gets old listening to conservatives (in general) use the totemic "economic regulation" as meaning "always and automatically bad, with no need for debate" when it suits them, but suddenly ignore the argument when they favor direct government interference with free markets.



As I tried to make clear in my last post, my concern is adding them to the list of underskilled and uneducated people who have a permanent legal standing to live in this country and participate in policymaking decisions.
That's a perfectly reasonable concern. I was just pointing out that we are now past the point of their being added to the labor pool. They've been added. They are already on the list of underskilled and relatively less educated people in our labor pool, if not the list of those who have a permanent legal standing to live in this country. The latter concern is far less important to the stability of labor markets than the former.



America is full of ignorant and low-skilled people shaping policy (some of whom occupy high positions of government), and it's a bad thing to actively enable millions more to participate. Our dumbing down may be inevitable (http://youtube.com/watch?v=upyewL0oaWA)
That's an entertaining and amusing video, but I don't think it is an accurate reflection of the heritability of IQ. Overall, it's a pretty pessimistic and, dare I say, elitist, view of humanity. Fact is dumb hicks, while fun for elites to laugh at, can raise smart kids who become produtive members of society. IQ does not correlate to wealth or education.



but I don't think we should promote policies that push us further down that road.
That's the road we've been on since the founding of the nation. Practically everyone living here is descended from immigrants, most of humble origin. If your pessimistic view of the human race were valid, we never would have become the most advanced nation on earth. And it seems like you are suggesting there is something especially awful about Mexican immigrants. The video you linked to, plus some of your other comments, almost make it seem as if you think illegal immigrants are sub-human, permanently part of an underclass that can never raise smart children who become educated professionals or even productive members of society. I don't share that view.



Increasing opportunities for U.S. employees to hire legal and temporary foreign workers, while also strengthening existing laws barring the hiring of illegal aliens, would likely cause a significant number of the illegal population to leave the United States. The current level of illegal immigration need not be permanent.
Maybe it would. But if your concern is really the viability of the labor market (at the low end), you aren't going to get there with the kind of temporary worker programs proposed by Republicans. The programs I've seen simply provide legal means to undercut the low end of the labor market, basically doing little more than creating 3rd world labor pools within our borders. They still skirt labor laws such as the minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, rights to benefits such as disability, health care and unemployment, deny of political rights, and exclude the workers from any direct participation in civil society. It's a step above slavery, and several steps below anything we should embrace as a modern member of the civilized first world.



Secondly, I think an amnesty program would create an incentive for many more underskilled and undereducated people to illegally immigrate to the United States, in the hopes that they, too, would be given legal status one day.
Sure, there's probably some truth to that, but the inexorable forces at work are of supply and demand. Even if everyone living south of the border knew with certainty they would never become citizens, millions would still be drawn across the border simply to reap the economic benefits.

Business owners want illegal labor because it's cheaper than legal labor. The problem is that if we provide amnesty and citizenship to the millions of illegal immigrants, they will no longer appeal to the business owners. Instead, the owners will continue to look for -- and successfully attract -- millions of new illegal immigrants. We will never get out of this cycle if we don't

1- Get serious about enforcement, severely punishing employers who hire undocumented workers. The question is how much of an enforcement regime we can tolerate.

2- Stabilize and improve the economies south of the border so there is less incentive to come north. Maybe if people in Mexico could find decent work at home, they wouldn't come here.



while it is entirely reasonable to assume that Mexican immigrants signicantly lag behind other categories of immigrants because they are not legal residents, this does not explain why second- and third-generation Mexican-Americans (who are natural-born U.S. citizens) lag behind as well. Both Chapter 5 of the Manhattan Institute's study (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_53.htm) and other reputable studies (http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_502JGR.pdf) make clear this is the case. Why is this so? It's possible that there's a cultural explanation (Mexican culture does not prioritize education and economic development as greatly as East Asian culture, for example, which may be why the children of Vietnamese and Korean refugees have greater success). However, I think the explanation might be much more straight-forward: people who have no education and no high-level skills typically do not do much to encourage their offspring to work hard in school and develop the tools needed to succeed in a high-tech society.
Those are two theories, and there may be some truth to them. (No single theory will explain the entire phenomenon.) Another likely explanation (in my view) is that Mexican Americans are highly concentrated into relatively homogeneous populations along the border; they are not well integrated into the American melting pot. There are entire communities that are almost exclusively composed of 1st-3rd generation Mexicans, and therefore by definition have less exposure to the culture you are expecting them to integrate with.

What I would like to see are the rates of assimilation for Mexicans who move into predominantly non-Mexican communities. I have little doubt that when Mexicans move into predominantly non-Mexican communities, the rates of assimilation are much closer to the norm.

Of course, this theory directly conflicts with the theories you are advancing that blame Mexican culture as inherently inferior to non-Mexican culture.

BTW: It's worth noting that there is a historical tendency to blame poverty on the biological or cultural inferiority of whichever ethnic group happens to be disproportionately poor, in whatever time or place we find them. We said this of the Irish, Chinese, Italians, Germans, Native Americans, and others, at various times in our history. We have always said it about blacks.

The current target for this analysis is "illegal immigrants." I don't think it was valid then, and I don't think it's valid now.

piscivorous
05-19-2008, 04:24 PM
Actually to annex Mexico would require annexing about 25-30 states that make up the Federation of Mexico. some of these are small and could and should be combined. I don't know perhaps it would get us to senator Obama's 57 States.

look
05-25-2008, 01:12 AM
Come clean, Pisc, were you surprised Hezbollah got their way?

bjkeefe
05-25-2008, 05:46 PM
... the campaign to destroy the first serious female candidate for President

==============================
From: Peggy Noonan
To: Hillary Clinton
Re: complaints of sexism

STFU (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121148557268715077.html).
==============================

No doubt PN has had it in for HRC for years, but still, she makes a good case.

piscivorous
05-25-2008, 05:49 PM
Well, it's an interesting situation...three more article by Franklin Lamb portray Hezbollah as boy scouts who leave IOUs after they confiscate food from private homes:
http://counterpunch.com/lamb05082008.html
http://counterpunch.com/lamb05092008.html
http://counterpunch.com/lamb05102008.html

I don't recall it being addressed in your links, but is the Lebanese Army sympathetic to Hezbollah? And my question, isn't it important to have a force to ward off Israel? And how do the Christians, as Hez allies, see this current state of affairs?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/world/middleeast/18lebanon.html?ref=middleeast

It is not so much a matter of sympathy but of a compromised armed forces. While Syria was occupying Lebanon it was essentially in control of the armed forces. The officers that got appointed and promoted were to Syria's liking with little if any concern about loyalty to the nation of Lebanon. This lead to a serious corruption problem, not unusual in Arab armed forces, but unique in that the it divided the loyalties of much of the officer core. Are your more loyal to the state or your proctors that are responsible for your current status. The second problem with this is that the armed forces were diminished to essentially a patronage organization, not trained to be an effective force for if they were then there would have been no need for the Syrian occupation forces. If they had become an independent effective force they would have eventually become rivals to those very occupation forces. the third problem with the armed forces is typical of multi ethnic, multi sect Arabic nations. The same fractures that tend to keep these countries divided are reflected in the armed forces. If you are going to order your forces to the street, too confront the aggressor, and a large proportion of the armed forces see themselves as part of the group that they must now confront, will that percentage show up and if they do will the preform.

The ward of Israel is the same old chicken and egg argument. Would there be a need fend off Israel if the forces that are attacking and threatening Israel were not in Lebanon? I don't believe that Israel has territorial designs in Lebanon so Hezbollah's claim to be the protectors of Lebanon pretty much a canard. As this latest round of confrontation has exposed for the hypocrisy that it is.

Don't quite know how the Christian supporters of Hezbollah see it. I have not found a site that I think gives a candid or informative view of the situation from their perspective.

In regard to your post below:
The only thing that really surprised me is that it happened so quickly. The politics of Lebanon has since the civil war ended been a matter of conflicting parties from opposite sides of the spectrum coming to a compromise that none of them can really live with but it is better than another 15 or so years of civil war. The agreement essentially reestablishes the status quo. Will this buy enough time for the sides to finally figure out how to live with one another, I am personally skeptical of that, as the sides are diametrical apart on the real basic fundamentals.

bjkeefe
05-25-2008, 09:37 PM
http://www.taylormarsh.com/images2/HuffPo_FP3.jpg

piscivorous
05-25-2008, 11:26 PM
Michael Young post Something radically new after Doha (http://michaelyoungscolumns.blogspot.com/2008/05/something-radically-new-after-doha.html) is pretty much how I see the situation. I could never speak to the specifics, that he is able to elaborate on, but the general thrust of the argument is what I perceive.

pod2
05-26-2008, 12:41 AM
The ward of Israel is the same old chicken and egg argument. Would there be a need fend off Israel if the forces that are attacking and threatening Israel were not in Lebanon? I don't believe that Israel has territorial designs in Lebanon so Hezbollah's claim to be the protectors of Lebanon pretty much a canard. As this latest round of confrontation has exposed for the hypocrisy that it is.



It is a testament to the fundamental delusional nature of the US political culture on Israel that you can so casually dismiss Hezbollah's claims about protecting Lebanon/Syria without an attempt to make an argument. Pretty much everywhere else, such a claim would require a fairly exhaustive recourse to data. After all, it is Israel that continues to occupy the Golan, after having invaded it militarily and occupied it. Israel has repeatedly invaded Lebanon and then used its illegal invasion to bargain for territory. Hezbollah has not merely claimed to be protectors of Lebanese and Syrian territory, it has indisputably worked as resistance and antagonists to Israeli aggression. In response, if Hezbollah had invaded Israel, taking Haifa and Tel Aviv, extensively bombing apartment building and hospitals throughout both cities, we could have a discussion of "chicken and egg." As it is, only one party has invaded the other, and attempts to discount the need for "protection" ring a bit hollow.

piscivorous
05-26-2008, 11:52 AM
In May 1967 before the Six-Day War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights) of 1967, Hafez Assad, then Syria's Defense Minister declared: "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."[45][46]

During the Six-Day War of 1967 Syria's shelling greatly intensified and the Israeli army captured the Golan Heights on 9-10 June I guess that removing your enemy from the high ground, from which they a shelling you, is not a really good reason to go take that position away from them, and not surrender it back to them, after kicking their ass, so they can shell you at some later date and time of their choosing.

look
05-27-2008, 01:47 AM
It is not so much a matter of sympathy but of a compromised armed forces. While Syria was occupying Lebanon it was essentially in control of the armed forces. The officers that got appointed and promoted were to Syria's liking with little if any concern about loyalty to the nation of Lebanon. This lead to a serious corruption problem, not unusual in Arab armed forces, but unique in that the it divided the loyalties of much of the officer core. Are your more loyal to the state or your proctors that are responsible for your current status. The second problem with this is that the armed forces were diminished to essentially a patronage organization, not trained to be an effective force for if they were then there would have been no need for the Syrian occupation forces. If they had become an independent effective force they would have eventually become rivals to those very occupation forces. the third problem with the armed forces is typical of multi ethnic, multi sect Arabic nations. The same fractures that tend to keep these countries divided are reflected in the armed forces. If you are going to order your forces to the street, too confront the aggressor, and a large proportion of the armed forces see themselves as part of the group that they must now confront, will that percentage show up and if they do will the preform.

The ward of Israel is the same old chicken and egg argument. Would there be a need fend off Israel if the forces that are attacking and threatening Israel were not in Lebanon? I don't believe that Israel has territorial designs in Lebanon so Hezbollah's claim to be the protectors of Lebanon pretty much a canard. As this latest round of confrontation has exposed for the hypocrisy that it is.

Don't quite know how the Christian supporters of Hezbollah see it. I have not found a site that I think gives a candid or informative view of the situation from their perspective.

In regard to your post below:
The only thing that really surprised me is that it happened so quickly. The politics of Lebanon has since the civil war ended been a matter of conflicting parties from opposite sides of the spectrum coming to a compromise that none of them can really live with but it is better than another 15 or so years of civil war. The agreement essentially reestablishes the status quo. Will this buy enough time for the sides to finally figure out how to live with one another, I am personally skeptical of that, as the sides are diametrical apart on the real basic fundamentals.Thanks for your thoughts and the Young link. Is there any place with more complicated politics?? As far as Israel, aren't they interested in acquiring up to the Litani River in Southern Lebanon? As far Hezbollah, as one of the articles I linked stated, they have superior communications and strength. Shouldn't the compromise for now be (wink, wink) that they will aid in building up and strengthening the Lebanese Army?

Amazing stuff all over the ME currently.

look
05-27-2008, 03:08 AM
Former Foreign Correspondent of the Year (http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media) unpacks the misogyny of Chris Matthews, NBC, and the campaign to destroy the first serious female candidate for President:



The wise and kind-hearted souls on this board will have no difficulty, I'm sure, dismissing this cold-eyed analysis of the campaign to destroy the enemy: an intelligent, competent woman, as some sort of bitter, hateful attack on the candidate of light, hope and unity.

Seasoned political observer Andrew Stephen echoes many of the observations made by individuals un-impressed with the suspect credentials of the money-making machine.

Inside Obamaland all is sunshine and joy as the happy bots toil and funnel cash towards the greater good of America and the world that is Obama. The line is being drawn now by Andrew Sullivan and company: folks who do not 'get' Obama are basically racist, or un-educated.

Glenn Lowry is a 'hater'. Andrew Stephen is not American...etc, etc, etc. The good news for me, is that many others see the hateful lies and truth-twisting of Obama supporters in the cold, hard light of day.

History is being written outside the bubble by historians un-hinged from the Obama tit, by academics who don't rely on first-person claims to authenticate fact-based analysis. Some around the word will clap should Obama succeed in plunging a knife in the heart of the Hillary 'zombie'.

Bob Wright's hate is on full display, along with that of all on the right and left who refer to this remarkable woman as 'the Clintons'.

Folks are paying attention. Good to see.ks, it's impossible to separate out Hillary's personality and past from any sexism directed against her. No matter how you fry it, they ran an awful campaign. If nothing else, they should have been smart enough to realize, as far as references to race, to never ever go there. At any rate, I don't think the general incompetence of her campaign, or her husband's asinine behavior, boded well for her presidency.

Until we have an Olympia Snowe or Barbara Boxer running for president we won't know the actual level of sexism in this country.

pod2
05-29-2008, 03:06 AM
I guess that removing your enemy from the high ground, from which they a shelling you, is not a really good reason to go take that position away from them, and not surrender it back to them, after kicking their ass, so they can shell you at some later date and time of their choosing.

Just think of the many times that Hezbollah, Syriah, and the Lebanese military (either alone or in concert with others) have run their tanks and troops into Haifa and Tel Aviv, strafing northern Israel with helicopter gunship fire, missile attacks, or US-supplied f-16 bombing raids. Helpless camps of Israeli refugees have been subjected to sieges, week-long bombings by helicopters and jets, and, finally, incursions by Syrian-sponsored militias who massacred helpless Israeli women and children while Hezbollah surrounded the camps in Gallilee and Samaria.

Hezbollah must be completely deranged to think that an international audience would think that Lebanon, particularly the Lebanese Palestinian population, would need defense from Israeli violence.

AemJeff
06-01-2008, 06:09 PM
Just think of the many times that Hezbollah, Syriah, and the Lebanese military (either alone or in concert with others) have run their tanks and troops into Haifa and Tel Aviv, strafing northern Israel with helicopter gunship fire, missile attacks, or US-supplied f-16 bombing raids. Helpless camps of Israeli refugees have been subjected to sieges, week-long bombings by helicopters and jets, and, finally, incursions by Syrian-sponsored militias who massacred helpless Israeli women and children while Hezbollah surrounded the camps in Gallilee and Samaria.

Hezbollah must be completely deranged to think that an international audience would think that Lebanon, particularly the Lebanese Palestinian population, would need defense from Israeli violence.

Don't you think your summary maybe ought to have included suicide bombers, rocket attacks, and general assaults on Israeli civilians? The Israelis aren't angels by any measure, but the Palestinians don't qualify for that status, either.

pod2
06-01-2008, 09:36 PM
Don't you think your summary maybe ought to have included suicide bombers, rocket attacks, and general assaults on Israeli civilians? The Israelis aren't angels by any measure, but the Palestinians don't qualify for that status, either.

I am not aware of the history of Hezbollah suicide bombers, but I'm definitely open to the possibility.

As for "rocket attacks," I think that bombing civilian populations is despicable, and I think that Hezbollah is responsible for war crimes. Any time that news organizations, or bloggingheads posters for that matter, tally Hezbollah civilian victims and compare them to Lebanese or Palestinian refugee civilian casualties, I applaud that approach. Israeli civilians do not deserve to be killed any more than Lebanese or Palestinian civilians. My problem is when only one class of human being is counted.

As for "general assaults," I'm still unclear about what you mean.

My original point is that Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations have been under repeated, extremely violent and deadly assaults by US supported IDF attacks in a way that completely overshadows the pitiful rocket attacks that Hezbollah has managed to launch. That's all. Hezbollah's claim of defense is more credible than the IDF's.

AemJeff
06-01-2008, 10:56 PM
I am not aware of the history of Hezbollah suicide bombers, but I'm definitely open to the possibility.

As for "rocket attacks," I think that bombing civilian populations is despicable, and I think that Hezbollah is responsible for war crimes. Any time that news organizations, or bloggingheads posters for that matter, tally Hezbollah civilian victims and compare them to Lebanese or Palestinian refugee civilian casualties, I applaud that approach. Israeli civilians do not deserve to be killed any more than Lebanese or Palestinian civilians. My problem is when only one class of human being is counted.

As for "general assaults," I'm still unclear about what you mean.

My original point is that Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations have been under repeated, extremely violent and deadly assaults by US supported IDF attacks in a way that completely overshadows the pitiful rocket attacks that Hezbollah has managed to launch. That's all. Hezbollah's claim of defense is more credible than the IDF's.

Evidence for Hezbollah funding of suicide bombers seems easy to find. By "general assaults" I mean that rocket attacks and bombers aren't the only tactics Hezbollah has available. I fault Hezbollah (and the Palestinian political factions) for using attacks on civilians tactically, which I believe is a clear distinction from the Israelis, who, while I think they should take a great deal more care regarding civilian casualties, don't seem generically disposed toward a callous disregard for civilian lives - certainly not as a matter of policy. The "repeated, extremely violent and deadly assaults" affect civilians to the degree they do, because the Arab factions strategically use their own populations as cover. It's a cynical ploy, and I wish the Israelis were better at not taking the bait, but I place more of the moral culpability on the shoulders of the Arab factions than I do on the Israelis.

pod2
06-01-2008, 11:20 PM
Evidence for Hezbollah funding of suicide bombers seems easy to find. By "general assaults" I mean that rocket attacks and bombers aren't the only tactics Hezbollah has available. I fault Hezbollah (and the Palestinian political factions) for using attacks on civilians tactically, which I believe is a clear distinction from the Israelis, who, while I think they should take a great deal more care regarding civilian casualties, don't seem generically disposed toward a callous disregard for civilian lives - certainly not as a matter of policy. The "repeated, extremely violent and deadly assaults" affect civilians to the degree they do, because the Arab factions strategically use their own populations as cover. It's a cynical ploy, and I wish the Israelis were better at not taking the bait, but I place more of the moral culpability on the shoulders of the Arab factions than I do on the Israelis.

You seem fairly reasonable. Would you object to including, within the debate, a posting of the numbers of Palestinian and Lebanese civilian dead in comparison with the number of Isreaeli civilian deaths?

AemJeff
06-02-2008, 10:06 AM
You seem fairly reasonable. Would you object to including, within the debate, a posting of the numbers of Palestinian and Lebanese civilian dead in comparison with the number of Isreaeli civilian deaths?

I think those numbers are certainly within the scope of what we're talking about. I don't have the time to look them up right now (must appear at office today) but I'll posit that they're severely lopsided with far fewer Israelis affected.

Please do post them.

pod2
06-05-2008, 01:39 AM
I think those numbers are certainly within the scope of what we're talking about. I don't have the time to look them up right now (must appear at office today) but I'll posit that they're severely lopsided with far fewer Israelis affected.

Please do post them.

Quoting the IDF, Israeli combatant deaths in the 2006 Lebanese incursion are 120. Hezbollah combatant deaths 532.

As for civilian casualties, the totals accd. to UN and Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs tallies are the following

Israeli civilian deaths:43
Lebanese civilian deaths: 1,191

This is beyond one order of magnitude difference and severely impacts any claim of self defense, especially given that civilian casualties occur exclusively within the confines of international borders.

1,191 civilian deaths approaches the number of deaths in the WTC. AND YET, Hezbollah, Lebanon, nor Syria have begun the shock and awe campaign that Bush, or Barak saw as necessary in the first five years of the millennium. Both of above mentioned 'retaliations' resulted in far greater civilian losses that the ones being avenged. But this just emphasizes the degree to which some innocent lives count for more than others.

AemJeff
06-05-2008, 11:00 PM
Quoting the IDF, Israeli combatant deaths in the 2006 Lebanese incursion are 120. Hezbollah combatant deaths 532.

As for civilian casualties, the totals accd. to UN and Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs tallies are the following

Israeli civilian deaths:43
Lebanese civilian deaths: 1,191

This is beyond one order of magnitude difference and severely impacts any claim of self defense, especially given that civilian casualties occur exclusively within the confines of international borders.

1,191 civilian deaths approaches the number of deaths in the WTC. AND YET, Hezbollah, Lebanon, nor Syria have begun the shock and awe campaign that Bush, or Barak saw as necessary in the first five years of the millennium. Both of above mentioned 'retaliations' resulted in far greater civilian losses that the ones being avenged. But this just emphasizes the degree to which some innocent lives count for more than others.

I'm not here to tell anybody that Israeli foreign policy is benign. My contention is that, in hiding among civilians, and in intentionally targeting civilians, the Lebanese and Palestinian factions are morally culpable in ways that the Israelis are not. The argument that the Israelis have overreacted is easy to accept. However, I can't blame the Israelis for mounting attacks against areas where they have intelligence indicating the presence of ordinance or enemies. The deaths of civilians at Israeli hands occur because their enemies see tactical and strategic advantages - one of the advantages from the Palestinian/Hezbollah point of view is that the Israelis can be trusted to hesitate before mounting an attack on a civilian area. To my way of thinking that is a key moral distinction.

I blame those deaths on those who choose to treat civilian lives as chits in their struggle - something I find morally repugnant.

pod2
06-08-2008, 02:12 AM
I'm not here to tell anybody that Israeli foreign policy is benign. My contention is that, in hiding among civilians, and in intentionally targeting civilians, the Lebanese and Palestinian factions are morally culpable in ways that the Israelis are not. The argument that the Israelis have overreacted is easy to accept. However, I can't blame the Israelis for mounting attacks against areas where they have intelligence indicating the presence of ordinance or enemies. The deaths of civilians at Israeli hands occur because their enemies see tactical and strategic advantages - one of the advantages from the Palestinian/Hezbollah point of view is that the Israelis can be trusted to hesitate before mounting an attack on a civilian area. To my way of thinking that is a key moral distinction.

I blame those deaths on those who choose to treat civilian lives as chits in their struggle - something I find morally repugnant.

Thanks for this response. Really, too much to go into in any depth right now. I'm curious about all of this moral high ground business, though. Does it not give one pause that civilian casualties on one side are 15-20 times higher than on the other?

Saying that one side's soldiers hide themselves within the civilian population is just another way of saying that one side has a military that is highly funded (by the tune of billions of dollars per year from the global hyperpower) and that the other is basically a pitiful excuse for an army that can hardly afford rocket launchers, let alone build and protect training facilities, anti-aircraft artillery, an air force, tanks, helicopter gunships, you get the idea.

This is how a people who resist vastly overpowering military forces behave. They try to get weapons and money from whoever will back them (see the American Revolutionaries and French monies.) They disguise themselves within the local populations (see the ANC in South Africa, the Partizans in Yugoslavia, the French resistance, the American Revolutionaries, the Afghan resistance to the Soviet occupation, the Zionist resistance -- Irgun and Haganah-- to Mandate and Arab forces, and so on.)

It is also a point worth reiterating that Israel and the IDF is one of the most highly funded and armed military machines in the world, and that it has invaded and wreaked havoc across southern Lebanon (up to and including Beirut) twice in the last 25 years, while neither Syria nor Hezbollah has made even a single incursion with armed forces into even Haifa, let alone Tel Aviv.

I'm just saying that there is a significant disparity in

a) military power
b) civilian and innocent deaths
c) aggressive military acts
d) grievances within the populations (there are not as many Israeli refugees stranded in poverty awaiting the UN-recommended (if not mandated by UNDHR-- see esp. article 13) return to their homes as there are Palestinian refugees awaiting similar repair)

AemJeff
06-08-2008, 03:31 AM
You ask if the huge disparity in the number of civilian casualties on either side gives me pause. I hope the answer to that isn't too obscure. My argument isn't that the Israelis occupy the moral high-ground. I think they do, relative to their opponents; but the distinction is that the Israelis don't, to my parsing of events, deliberately use civilians lives as yet another tool of warcraft. I think they're too callous, by far. I think Likud governments are disasters, and I think the West Bank settlements are obscenities.

I think you're being far too generous to the Palestinian factions and Hezbollah. I don't care about the weakness of their position - deliberately targeting noncombatants is an unacceptable practice. They not only target Israeli citizens, they make deliberate use of their own civilian populations' lives for the propaganda value when the Israelis retaliate. The loss of Arab life is at least as much their fault (and I'm arguing that they deserve far more than half the blame) as it is the Israelis.

I have sympathy for the Palestinians, but they are not well served by anybody in this conflict, least of all the factions we've been discussing. While I believe the abstract cause is just - the struggle, as it has been played for as long as I've been aware of it, only deligitimizes and weakens their moral standing.

I'm not sure what you think the Israeli government could do that would be substantially different. They can't not respond to threats - and they face a significant existential threat. So except for showing a greater degree of judiciousness in their responses, what would you have them do?

pod2
06-09-2008, 12:03 AM
You ask if the huge disparity in the number of civilian casualties on either side gives me pause. I hope the answer to that isn't too obscure. My argument isn't that the Israelis occupy the moral high-ground. I think they do, relative to their opponents; but the distinction is that the Israelis don't, to my parsing of events, deliberately use civilians lives as yet another tool of warcraft. I think they're too callous, by far. I think Likud governments are disasters, and I think the West Bank settlements are obscenities.


It's heartening to read this. Are you aware that your personal tax dollars are supporting and sanctioning these 'obscenities'? If the settlements are, in fact, obscenities to your thinking, then I think that you and I can agree on some immediate steps that the Israeli government can take to reduce or eliminate their own participation in war crimes and to embark on a road to peaceful reconciliation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


I think you're being far too generous to the Palestinian factions and Hezbollah. I don't care about the weakness of their position - deliberately targeting noncombatants is an unacceptable practice. They not only target Israeli citizens, they make deliberate use of their own civilian populations' lives for the propaganda value when the Israelis retaliate. The loss of Arab life is at least as much their fault (and I'm arguing that they deserve far more than half the blame) as it is the Israelis.

Here I think you run into a little bit of trouble. Did you notice the argument I made about other resistance movements throughout history? Did these movements live among the populations whose causes they purported to champion? Did the French resistance, when it attacked German military installations within the Rhone valley, disappear within the French civilian population, risking violent reprisals from the German occupation? Can you apply this to all of the other cases of resistance that I mentioned in a previous post? If you don't want to address these dynamics, at least have the courtesy of dismissing them, instead of pretending that I have not posted an argument. Massive civilian deaths are primarily the responsibility of those who launch the missiles, who send the Tomahawks, who surround the refugee camps and shell them with tank artillery.



I'm not sure what you think the Israeli government could do that would be substantially different. They can't not respond to threats - and they face a significant existential threat. So except for showing a greater degree of judiciousness in their responses, what would you have them do?

Thank you for bringing up this crucial question. It is crucial because the actions of the Israeli side are more important to our consideration because
a) as the most powerful actor (by an order of magnitude or more), its actions help determine the course of events much more than the pitiful retaliations or appalling, but limited, atrocities committed by the Syrian/Hezbollah side.
b) because my tax dollars are directly sanctioning the Israeli military, I am more directly responsible for the actions of this side. Thus, any atrocities committed by IDF are on my hands in a way that the actions of Hezbollah fanatics are not.

To point the way to an answer to your question, "What would you have them do?" I would point towards the Saudi, Arab League, and UN sanctioned plans that have been around for more than twenty years. (Indeed, in the case of the UN, the resolutions have been around since 1967 (UNSCR 242)).

In short, establish an international border along the green line, with some mutually acceptable adjustments and territorial trade-offs already suggested in some of the 2000 Taba rhetoric (though NOT in the actual Taba proposals presented to Arafat).

Allow for some kind of shared sovreignty of Jerusalem, allowing some part for a Palestinian presence protecting Al-Aqsa and other important religious sites, while ensuring Israeli presence to protect the temple and other important sites.

Provide some acknowledgment of the severe refugee crisis of Palestinians who have been unlawfully evicted, ethnically cleansed, or forced out of their homelands and prevented from returning. This acknowledgment should include some kind of material support for the refugees without allowing for whole-scale return of the refugees (as such complete and unconditional return would in fact endanger the existence of the state of Israel).

There is some Israeli popular support for measures 1 and 2. There is OVERWHELMING international consensus, and UN Security Council and General Assembly support for all three (particularly Security Council Resolutions 194, 242, 252, 446, actually too many to count. These security council and General Assembly resolutions are often dismissed out of hand, but these kinds of resolutions were often cited as justifications for the invasion of Iraq.) The Saudis want to see this happen, the Arab League is in support of this, and the only ones standing in the way are Israel and the US (check out the history of US security council vetos and General Assembly votes on this issue. It's remarkable.

AemJeff
06-10-2008, 09:41 AM
Pod2, your prescriptions sound reasonable - but go beyond my the level of my detailed knowledge and I can't really comment, except to say that I'm skeptical of the goodwill of the Saudis and the Arab League.

I don't accept that the Arab factions we're discussing are a "resistance movement" in the sense you'd have them. The use and/or funding of suicide bombers is enough - alone - to discredit their legitimacy. The use of their own populations as human shields is equally appalling. You and I are not, I think, going to agree on this. As I've said, I don't think anyone could argue that the Palestinian population don't have a legitimate, serious complaint. They're in an appalling position. Blaming the Israelis isn't an adequate response to that. The Israelis have an "order of magnitude" more military power than their neighbors because they're under threat from those neighbors. (And have the ability to get what they need from us.) You seem to blame them for responding to that threat at all. I think they could modulate their responses better, but I don't think I have the moral authority to condemn them for fighting for their own survival.

pod2
06-12-2008, 01:21 AM
Pod2, your prescriptions sound reasonable - but go beyond my the level of my detailed knowledge and I can't really comment, except to say that I'm skeptical of the goodwill of the Saudis and the Arab League.

I don't accept that the Arab factions we're discussing are a "resistance movement" in the sense you'd have them. The use and/or funding of suicide bombers is enough - alone - to discredit their legitimacy. The use of their own populations as human shields is equally appalling. You and I are not, I think, going to agree on this. As I've said, I don't think anyone could argue that the Palestinian population don't have a legitimate, serious complaint. They're in an appalling position. Blaming the Israelis isn't an adequate response to that. The Israelis have an "order of magnitude" more military power than their neighbors because they're under threat from those neighbors. (And have the ability to get what they need from us.) You seem to blame them for responding to that threat at all. I think they could modulate their responses better, but I don't think I have the moral authority to condemn them for fighting for their own survival.

If these factions are not a resistance movement then who is? As for suicide bombers, I would agree that there are some sick elements, but I don't see the fundamental difference in using helicopter gunships to destroy a refugee camp in the West Bank knowing that there will be considerable Palestinian civilian casualties and sending a suicide bomber into a checkpoint, knowing that there will be significant civilian casualties.

Irgun and Haganah, when they knew it was their only option, bombed the King David Hotel, massacring UN envoys, civilian officials, and plenty of innocent bystanders.

Do you mean to suggest, that, if it were possible, Hezbollah suicide bombers would choose to kill themselves rather than send cruise missiles or artillery shells into Israeli installations? I suggest that the use of suicide bombers is more a product of pragmatics than of moral degradation.

AemJeff
06-14-2008, 12:50 PM
If these factions are not a resistance movement then who is? As for suicide bombers, I would agree that there are some sick elements, but I don't see the fundamental difference in using helicopter gunships to destroy a refugee camp in the West Bank knowing that there will be considerable Palestinian civilian casualties and sending a suicide bomber into a checkpoint, knowing that there will be significant civilian casualties.

Irgun and Haganah, when they knew it was their only option, bombed the King David Hotel, massacring UN envoys, civilian officials, and plenty of innocent bystanders.

Do you mean to suggest, that, if it were possible, Hezbollah suicide bombers would choose to kill themselves rather than send cruise missiles or artillery shells into Israeli installations? I suggest that the use of suicide bombers is more a product of pragmatics than of moral degradation.

I think you and I don't apply the same moral calculus. The Israelis err on the side of harshness, in my opinion. That's a bad thing, unequivocally. The Israelis are, and always have been, under threat. They respond to that threat by attacking military targets who sometimes hide in civilian populations. Innocent people therefore die. That is something that has been true of every conflict since the beginning of civilization, and will always continue to be true. Hezbollah, Hamas, the militant parts of the PA (al-Aqsa Martyrs, etc...) target innocents deliberately - civilians are not secondary casualties. They don't limit their attacks to "Israeli installations," they target buses, cafes, schools. That isn't a "resistance movement," it's the deliberate and malicious murder of children. I believe the Palestinian people have legitimate issues with the appalling state in which they're forced to exist. I believe that the people actually fighting for the Palestinians damage the Palestinian cause and undermine the moral weight of that cause.

pod2
06-15-2008, 09:52 PM
I think you and I don't apply the same moral calculus. The Israelis err on the side of harshness, in my opinion. That's a bad thing, unequivocally. The Israelis are, and always have been, under threat. They respond to that threat by attacking military targets who sometimes hide in civilian populations. Innocent people therefore die. That is something that has been true of every conflict since the beginning of civilization, and will always continue to be true. Hezbollah, Hamas, the militant parts of the PA (al-Aqsa Martyrs, etc...) target innocents deliberately - civilians are not secondary casualties. They don't limit their attacks to "Israeli installations," they target buses, cafes, schools. That isn't a "resistance movement," it's the deliberate and malicious murder of children. I believe the Palestinian people have legitimate issues with the appalling state in which they're forced to exist. I believe that the people actually fighting for the Palestinians damage the Palestinian cause and undermine the moral weight of that cause.

I totally appreciate the fact that you are not simply an apologist for the occupation, the settlements, the civilian atrocities, etc. I completely agree with your condemnation of the Hezbollah and Hamas targeting of civilians. This is sick behavior, and comes out of a bigoted narrative and lots of personal and cultural destruction and humiliation. However, there are some fundamental issues morally that are not addressed by your comments. Sorry if this is repetitive, but,

1) My money, my elected government, my country is responsible for the massive civilian casualties and oppression carried out by the IDF. The money I work hard for each day is, in some part, dedicated to paying for helicopter gunships, settlements, and tanks that are used to murder Lebanese and Palestinian women and children. This is not a point that is in dispute factually. If my country were spending something to the tune of 2-4 billion dollars each year, and running diplomatic cover 24-7 for Hamas or Hezbollah, I would protest VIGOROUSLY, even though neither of them are currently setting up checkpoints in Tel Aviv or closing the airports in Tel Aviv. Because I am materially and diplomatically a party to the crimes of the Israeli state, I have a greater responsibility for them.

2) Setting aside intent (though hardly conceding the point), I have to say again, the IDF has killed more than 10 times as many civilians as Hamas or Hezbollah. Maybe it was an accident, but still. I am just saying that the crimes of the IDF and those of Hezbollah are not quite the same. 10 times as many murders surely must matter in someone's moral calculus. I don't think that those arguing in support of Israel are saying that they are, despite these figures, morally equal to Hezbollah. They are saying that Hezbollah are terrorist monsters who deserve to be exterminated, while the IDF and the Israeli state deserve billions of my tax money each year. I don't know how you (ok maybe not you personally) get from killing 14 times as many civilians to unassailable moral suasion. Killing that many civilians is not right, especially if those ratios have been fairly stable for the entire 40 year occupation. Check out the ratios of the second intifada in the 2000-2002 era. It's comparable, if not worse, and yet it was Hamas and the PA who are terrorists, and the IDF who deserves massive tax subsidies.

To reiterate, Hezbollah and their tactics are reprehensible, and I would argue that they don't deserve my monetary or diplomatic support. The state of Israel has killed more than 10 times as many civilians, and does not deserve my monetary or diplomatic support. Killing more innocent people 'by accident' is not a way to earn my nation's diplomatic, military, and economic support.

AemJeff
06-15-2008, 10:32 PM
I totally appreciate the fact that you are not simply an apologist for the occupation, the settlements, the civilian atrocities, etc. I completely agree with your condemnation of the Hezbollah and Hamas targeting of civilians. This is sick behavior, and comes out of a bigoted narrative and lots of personal and cultural destruction and humiliation. However, there are some fundamental issues morally that are not addressed by your comments. Sorry if this is repetitive, but,

1) My money, my elected government, my country is responsible for the massive civilian casualties and oppression carried out by the IDF. The money I work hard for each day is, in some part, dedicated to paying for helicopter gunships, settlements, and tanks that are used to murder Lebanese and Palestinian women and children. This is not a point that is in dispute factually. If my country were spending something to the tune of 2-4 billion dollars each year, and running diplomatic cover 24-7 for Hamas or Hezbollah, I would protest VIGOROUSLY, even though neither of them are currently setting up checkpoints in Tel Aviv or closing the airports in Tel Aviv. Because I am materially and diplomatically a party to the crimes of the Israeli state, I have a greater responsibility for them.

2) Setting aside intent (though hardly conceding the point), I have to say again, the IDF has killed more than 10 times as many civilians as Hamas or Hezbollah. Maybe it was an accident, but still. I am just saying that the crimes of the IDF and those of Hezbollah are not quite the same. 10 times as many murders surely must matter in someone's moral calculus. I don't think that those arguing in support of Israel are saying that they are, despite these figures, morally equal to Hezbollah. They are saying that Hezbollah are terrorist monsters who deserve to be exterminated, while the IDF and the Israeli state deserve billions of my tax money each year. I don't know how you (ok maybe not you personally) get from killing 14 times as many civilians to unassailable moral suasion. Killing that many civilians is not right, especially if those ratios have been fairly stable for the entire 40 year occupation. Check out the ratios of the second intifada in the 2000-2002 era. It's comparable, if not worse, and yet it was Hamas and the PA who are terrorists, and the IDF who deserves massive tax subsidies.

To reiterate, Hezbollah and their tactics are reprehensible, and I would argue that they don't deserve my monetary or diplomatic support. The state of Israel has killed more than 10 times as many civilians, and does not deserve my monetary or diplomatic support. Killing more innocent people 'by accident' is not a way to earn my nation's diplomatic, military, and economic support.

Not repetitive, and I appreciate that you're trying to make a principled case in a thicket of complicated, morally murky motivations and actions. I disagree with you mostly in tone, and in the direction in which my conclusions tend to lean. Where I do differ is less in the facts, but in which facts have the greatest significance. I can't condemn anybody for fighting hard when their survival is at stake. I can't not do so when certain moral boundaries that I believe to be inviolate are crossed - particularly when doing so seems to be a matter of policy rather than randomly overstepping acknowledged boundaries in the heat of the moment.

To illustrate that last point, I don't hold the U.S. responsible for what happened at Haditha, for instance - though I think the specific Marines involved are guilty of murder, I don't believe the Marine Corps shares that guilt. If, however, those Marines had been acting consistently with specific orders, then the Corps, and indeed the U.S. generally, would have to bear the moral responsibility for that grotesque act.

I don't believe that Israeli policy includes deliberate targeting of civilians. I think it's evident that the same can't be said for Israel's opponents, at least not for those we've named. While I agree with you that the casualty numbers tell a story, and I certainly believe that the Israelis are guilty of overreacting - I think it's unfair to expect them not to react at all, or not lethally. No State can possibly cede the strategic advantage that creating a policy of zero tolerance for civilian casualties would create. So the argument becomes how much is enough, how much is too much. That kind of quantitative argument does not, in my opinion carry the same force as one involving the crossing of absolute boundaries - which, as I've said many times, I strongly believe the deliberate targeting of innocents is unambiguously so.

A State's primary moral responsibility is obviously to secure its own citizens from threats - allowing an enemy the simple expedient that hiding among civilians would make it invulnerable is an intolerable policy. That's why, in my opinion, the Arab deaths at Israeli hands are at least as much the moral responsibility of the Arab leaders, as they are of the Israelis. Israel's opponents know full well that Israel can't ignore that threat and so they callously expose their countrymen to to Israeli retaliation because it gives them a strategic advantage.

Finally I think the question of whether my tax money funds either side of this conflict (and it in fact funds both) is distinct from any moral judgments I might (and obviously do) make.

pod2
06-15-2008, 11:19 PM
Finally I think the question of whether my tax money funds either side of this conflict (and it in fact funds both) is distinct from any moral judgments I might (and obviously do) make.

The previous section of your post deserves some consideration and response, but let me focus for a second on this sentence.

I focus on it, because I honestly don't believe you subscribe to it.

If you personally are beating up 6 year olds on a local playground, I think that the moral judgments you make about this behavior is important. If you hear about some bully in some playground in another city beating up 6 year olds, and then condemn them, I don't give you many points for 'moral judgment.'

This is the same principle by which we dismissed the Soviet, Chinese, or possibly even Cuban objection to the size of US prison populations. It's easy, cheap, and basically without moral content to condemn behavior for which you have no responsibility or solution. It's crucial to condemn and act to end behavior in which you are directly implicated.

To argue otherwise is to take up the case of the hypocrite in its purest form. I don't believe you are a hypocrite, and I don't believe your assertion that your direct participation in one side is completely 'distinct' from your moral judgment.

AemJeff
06-15-2008, 11:34 PM
The previous section of your post deserves some consideration and response, but let me focus for a second on this sentence.

I focus on it, because I honestly don't believe you subscribe to it.

If you personally are beating up 6 year olds on a local playground, I think that the moral judgments you make about this behavior is important. If you hear about some bully in some playground in another city beating up 6 year olds, and then condemn them, I don't give you many points for 'moral judgment.'

This is the same principle by which we dismissed the Soviet, Chinese, or possibly even Cuban objection to the size of US prison populations. It's easy, cheap, and basically without moral content to condemn behavior for which you have no responsibility or solution. It's crucial to condemn and act to end behavior in which you are directly implicated.

To argue otherwise is to take up the case of the hypocrite in its purest form. I don't believe you are a hypocrite, and I don't believe your assertion that your direct participation in one side is completely 'distinct' from your moral judgment.

I guess I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is that my moral judgment is not affected by how my taxes are spent. My personal feeling of moral responsibility is another matter. Regarding the latter, I don't think I've said a word in this thread.

pod2
06-15-2008, 11:43 PM
I guess I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is that my moral judgment is not affected by how my taxes are spent. My personal feeling of moral responsibility is another matter. Regarding the latter, I don't think I've said a word in this thread.

But, as taxpayers, voters, and participants in a nominal republican democracy, any discussion of politics and morality is shot through with questions of responsibility, otherwise, it's just a parlor game played by apparatchiks.