PDA

View Full Version : The Week in Blog: Conservative Crackup


Bloggingheads
05-16-2008, 05:13 PM

Joel_Cairo
05-16-2008, 05:54 PM
Yeah yeah yeah, I know (http://kevinmccarthy.house.gov/) whom (http://flake.house.gov/) Conn meant, but still, I sure do love the sound of this. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11107?in=00:07:19&out=00:07:29)

David Thomson
05-16-2008, 06:34 PM
“Barry” Obama is a dishonest pacifist who believes America is ultimately responsible for evil in the world. When everything is said and done, it is our imperialist policies which have angered the denizens of the Third World. We supposedly created Bin Ladin and the other Islamic nihilists.

Joel_Cairo
05-16-2008, 06:37 PM
In the past, I've ragged on Bill for being too civil while Conn rams through his talking points (a kind of Hannity & Colmes problem). In the Global Warming section, though, I have to give props to Bill for pushing back & out-manuevering Conn : The whole time, Conn's premise remains that Heritage cornerstone that taxes are the worst possible thing on the face of the earth, and if one could chose death over taxes, the answer would be obvious. Thing is, some people (maybe even most people!) would actually rather be alive, even if it means paying taxes.

Conn seems hell-bent on getting Bill to concede that Global Warming counter-measures will require, in some way or another, taxation. Conn fought that one battle as if it were of absolute importance, without realizing that that's not what the war is about. It was wise of Bill to let Conn have this scrap of territory and then say, essentially, "so?" This leaves Conn looking a bit silly for having expended so much energy trying to corner Bill into conceding a point which really nobody but Conn & Co. consider dispositive.

Yes fighting global warming will be expensive in the near term, and yes it is worth it in the medium & long term. Can we move along now?

bjkeefe
05-16-2008, 06:44 PM
Yes fighting global warming will be expensive in the near term, and yes it is worth it in the medium & long term. Can we move along now?

Global warming is a lie. It's part of a plan put together by "Barry" Obama and other Harvard rent-seekers to raise taxes so high that the third-world denizens will be able to take over the United States and eat white people for lunch.

Go Inhofe!

Joel_Cairo
05-16-2008, 06:49 PM
Global warming is a lie. It's part of a plan put together by Ayers-Wright-"Barry"-Hussein-Obama-Bin-Ladin-Rezko and other Harvard rent-seekers to raise taxes so high that the third-world denizens will be able to take over the United States, outlaw flag-pins, and eat white people for lunch.

Go Inhofe!

I touched it up a bit. It gets tricky keeping those two separate in my head, so I figured I'd do a kind of composite.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 07:16 PM
Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration--is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.
Transcript at Democratic Primary Debate at The Citadel (http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2007_YouTube_Dems_Foreign_Policy.htm) video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dSPrb5w_k).

P.S. Lets see in his first 12 months President Obama will get transitioned into the White House, get his at will hires selected, in place and up to speed. With that minor task conquered the new staff will get his legislative agenda drafted and presented to the legislature and negotiate the agreements with these dictators so that world peace and harmony will blossom in month 13. Given his record of tenure with the Chicago Annenburg Project, that suffered for lack of organization, direction, and focus (paraphrased) this seems eminently doable buy a man with this record.

bjkeefe
05-16-2008, 07:38 PM
pisc:

You can nitpick about inconsistencies in the time spans all you want. I am just ecstatic that Obama's stated plan is to talk to these people.

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 08:28 PM
Bill did so well he deserves a little tail. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11107?in=00:27:58&out=00:28:05)

graz
05-16-2008, 08:31 PM
That is good!
Nice work.
Conn does inspire you after all.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 09:21 PM
I realize that bj and that is just what worries me. I actually like that the Senator has flip flopped on his debate position and is showing a much more mature understanding of how these things are actually done. I wish that he had come clean and said yes I said so in a televised debate and it came across poorly or what ever mea culpa he should choose rather than essentially denying what my eyes and my ears tell me. All this has done is reinforce my belief that he is unwilling to take responsibility for his actions and his words, and directly goes to the issue of trust.

If you believe that their is no communication going on with Iran through proxies, by this administration, I need some of what you are smoking. To believe that merely saying I am willing to talk is going to change the dynamics, on the ground, I'm afraid that hallucinogenics might be in order. We are at dichotomous positions with Iran with the nuclear issue and their sponsorship of terrorist, primarily Hamas and Hezbollah, being the dividing issues. The rest is business and can easily be worked out. Given the fundamentalist nature of the real power, in Iran, and the reach and influence these two groups give them, throughout the Middle East, it is unlikely that they will be willing to bargain them away given the historical goals of the Persians has been to rule the area. But they will be glad to talk to us as they did with the EU three while pursuing their path to greater power and influence through subjugation of others.

The negotiating field is very much in a state of flux right now visa vi Iraq. It is generally becoming better understood that Basra was not the failure that it was originally portrayed to be, it seems the press got it's Iraqi Tet at long last. The sanctions as minor as they are are biting and growing pressure from all side, even internal Iran ex-president rebuked over insurgent remarks (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVKHjHkBUfnGqKeF0XbtalgSYYpQ) are changing the dynamics to a much greater extent than will stating ones willingness to talk.

piscivorous
05-16-2008, 10:02 PM
There is a YouTube clip out that shows just a little more of the clip Fred Hiatt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-o2U4Y7DQ&eurl=http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/index.php?p=3186) used to make the claim, repeated by Senator Obama, about Senator McCain's negotiating with Hamas. It seems like it's another 100 years misrepresentation when you see the context of the whole segment. But it's not politics ass usual.

Update: Seems that the media is confirming this CNN Believes (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjQxOTc4MTYxNTY1ZWMwMzdjNjlhMmZmZmMwNTNhMTY=) or Fuller Rubin (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Fuller_Rubin.html).

Whatfur
05-16-2008, 11:22 PM
As if this (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11107?in=00:44:56&out=00:45:06) wasn't bad enough.

Unless Bush actually tied the guy to the bumper there is NO excuse for this (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11107?in=00:46:21&out=00:47:05) or Bill's failed answer.

BILL!!! You don't have to stand by EVERY liberal action in the country!! Ya know Bill, sometimes Conn is just plain correct and you can agree with him and you can be correct too.

(Kinda like Obama should have agreed with Bush the other day instead of the hissy fit) But who knows with that kind of judgement you may end up in Obama's cabinet.

I hope you choose to retract.

piscivorous
05-17-2008, 03:42 AM
Update: I hadn't seen this article before making the previous post but it address the issue of changing dynamics on the ground visa vi negotiating with Iran. Iran's role rises as Iraq peace broker (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080514/ts_csm/odocs_1). The title is a bit deceptive when you consider some of the content like Iran's intervention comes as previously undisclosed details are emerging of a secret meeting between Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, other senior Iraqi officials, and the commander of Iran's Qods Force, Brig. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, in April, after clashes with Sadr's Mahdi Army in Basra. In that meeting, General Soleimani "was deeply concerned" and "promised to stop arming groups in Iraq and to ensure that groups halt activities against US forces," according to a description given by a US official to the Monitor.

Soleimani gave Mr. Talabani a "message" for US Gen. David Petraeus, too. He noted that his portfolio includes Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon and that he was willing to "send a small team" to "discuss any issue" with the Americans.

Talabani and other senior Iraqi leaders told US Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General Petraeus that this "was an entirely different tone than we had ever heard from [Soleimani] before," and asked the Americans to "please take it seriously" and "test it," according to the official..
Seems like the Iranians, after canceling further talks not to long ago, have decided that it may be in their interest to talk.

Doubt on the US side runs deep, though Soleimani listed Iranian aims and even "common goals with the United States" in Iraq that virtually mirror stated US policy points, according to the description of the meeting.

"When we first saw it, we thought it was too good to be true," says the American official who provided details of the talks. "But there are so many layers of gray. Seems that they are fairly willing to accept our terms.

Soleimani also, according to the official, said that Iran would "not stand in the way of [Iraqi] efforts to negotiate an agreement with the US," which he termed a "good thing for Iraq," referring to a deal on the long-term status of American troops in Iraq.Gee that's awful nice of them.

I guess we will shortly find out if there is any meat on this bone.

bjkeefe
05-17-2008, 04:24 AM
Pisc:

Points taken. Nonetheless, I do not expect politicians to be able to be as specific as we might like on the campaign trail when talking about foreign policy, particularly as regards situations that are as subject to change as Iraq and Iran.

You can talk about individual items like Basra and the latest diplomatic play by Iran all you want and whether Obama said one thing at one time and a slightly different thing at another. I'm not going to debate these things. For me, they are insignificant. The bottom line is that McCain sounds like he basically wants to use the same approach as Bush has been using all along, and Obama wants to do things differently.

Whatfur
05-17-2008, 09:18 AM
Pisc:

The bottom line is that McCain sounds like he basically wants to use the same approach as Bush has been using all along, and Obama wants to do things differently.

This is pretty much a bandwagon jump. One of those "talking points", you frequently harp against. For pretty much 8 years McCain has been a thorn to most all Bush policies and methods.

**oh and it was appropriate for this thread to initially question the timing suggested in his Debate answer at least in response to the Diavlog as Mr. Scher certainly tried to white wash this issue utilizing it.

Whatfur
05-17-2008, 09:23 AM
As if this (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11107?in=00:44:56&out=00:45:06) wasn't bad enough.

Unless Bush actually tied the guy to the bumper there is NO excuse for this (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11107?in=00:46:21&out=00:47:05) or Bill's failed answer.

BILL!!! You don't have to stand by EVERY liberal action in the country!! Ya know Bill, sometimes Conn is just plain correct and you can agree with him and you can be correct too.

(Kinda like Obama should have agreed with Bush the other day instead of the hissy fit) But who knows with that kind of judgement you may end up in Obama's cabinet.

I hope you choose to retract.



Do you hear what I hear? (http://new.wavlist.com/soundfx/014/cricket-2.wav)

AemJeff
05-17-2008, 09:39 AM
You need affirmation,? Ok. The commercial, as Conn described it, was racially incendiary. The relationship of the Democratic party and southern racists does not indicate a clean slate in this regard. George Bush has many deep flaws, but support for racism isn't one of them.

bjkeefe
05-17-2008, 09:58 AM
This is pretty much a bandwagon jump.

If you want to put it that way, I won't argue. I do think it's more accurate to say I'm giving an oversimplified explanation to sum up my perceptions of the two candidates.

For pretty much 8 years McCain has been a thorn to most all Bush policies and methods.

I don't agree. I think he talked a good game against torture for a while, a few years ago, and I think he was right when he said that if the Iraq occupation is to be continued, it has to be done robustly. I'll also acknowledge some early opposition to Bush's tax policy. But generally speaking, he has quietly voted the party line and made big noise when he had his moments of Maverick (tm). Some documentation of that here (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/key-votes/).

Besides, all indications from him during the campaign are that he has come around to agreeing with Bush's approach on the big issues -- stay in Iraq forever, maintain a hawkish foreign policy attitude in general, preserve the Bush tax cuts for the rich, give a wink and a nod to the problem of global warming and other environmental issues, and appoint wingnuts to the Supreme Court (and other federal courts, presumably). As I see it, he has flip-flopped on enough positions that he took in the past that it's not particularly useful to look more than a couple of years back to make a good estimation of where he stands today.

oh and it was appropriate for this thread to initially question the timing ...

Okay. I don't think I said it was inappropriate, and if I did, I withdraw that characterization. I just think it's not particularly significant. To harp on it seems like playing gotcha with gnats. I think it makes you look like you're admitting that you don't have anything substantive to criticize Obama about in the foreign policy realm, but I'll let you make that judgment.

Whatfur
05-17-2008, 10:03 AM
You need affirmation,? Ok. The commercial, as Conn described it, was racially incendiary. The relationship of the Democratic party and southern racists does not indicate a clean slate in this regard. George Bush has many deep flaws, but support for racism isn't one of them.


Ahhhhhh....thanks now I feel better. And you I see also gave me affirmation on the previous vlogs thread when I realized like 10 posts previous that you were arguing for arguments sake in the Malkin/Ezra saga, because I knew you could not be that stupid/blind/partisan unless you chose to be.

*The crickets are for Mr. Scher however and he should know that I am inclined to carry that post in my shirt pocket until it starts to yellow or until he gives me reason to throw it away.

And yes, I did note and do take issue with your little caveat of "as Conn described it". If anyone can find this particular ad... I would appreciate it, but you can sure tell me how ANY use of this sad event could be spun into a political add.???..And the car/truck having a Bush bumper sticker does not cut it either.

Off to gather vitamin D.

bjkeefe
05-17-2008, 10:08 AM
Whatfur:

*The crickets are for Mr. Scher however and he should know that I am inclined to carry that post in my shirt pocket until it starts to yellow or until he gives me reason to throw it away.

if this is the kind of thing you're obsessing over, all I can say is, wow, you must have an exciting life.

Whatfur
05-17-2008, 10:12 AM
There is much here you are incorrect about, but its Saturday and the sun is shining and I smell Nueskes bacon and coffee, so I know my Princess is up and looking to please me...so have a good day...later.

Whatfur
05-17-2008, 10:15 AM
Whatfur:



if this is the kind of thing you're obsessing over, all I can say is, wow, you must have an exciting life.

Actually I do thank you. Which is why I am leaving and you will probably be posting here all day.

Bill Scher
05-17-2008, 10:24 AM
Whatfur, the crickets you heard happened happened between 10:30 PM and 8:30 AM, while I'm sleeping.

Here's a link to the script of the ad in question: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/ads2/adnaacp.html

Couple minor factual points to clear up: The ad was not done by "the Democrats," it was done by the NAACP National Voter Fund. It was a 2000 ad, not 2004.

As far as the ad itself, there was a radio ad and a TV ad featuring James Byrd's daughter. The radio ad went into a little more detail:

I still have nightmares thinking about him, the day three men chained him behind their pickup truck and dragged him three miles over pavement. I can see skin being torn away from his body. I can hear him gasping for air.

I can feel the tears in his eyes, the struggle of his brain as images of his life painfully bang through his head as the links of a heavy chain clinched around his ankles dragging him bump by bump until he was decapitated. [pause]

On June 7, 1998 this happened to my father, all because he was black. I went to Governor George W. Bush and begged him to help pass a hate crimes bill.

He just told me no.

I'm doing this commercial to ask you to call Governor Bush at 512-X and tell him to introduce a hate crimes bill in Texas.

The TV ad had a line that many Republicans thought was over the line:

when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate-crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.

If that's how she felt after Bush rebuffed her, I think she has every right to say it. Call it unfair if you want, that's a judgment call. Obviously, it's an emotional argument and not a legal argument about hate-crimes legislation.

But there was no intent to be "racially divisive." It was not trying to drive a wedge between races for political purposes. It was not poisoning the well of race relations by perpetuating racist stereotypes, like ads already done this year by some local Republican party organizations (as well as independent conservative groups). To use a favorite conservative phrase, it is not "morally equivalent" to many divisive practices used by the Republican Party dating back to the "Southern Strategy."

Having said that, I don't think it's an ad that Sen. Barack Obama would approve of. To quote from his historic speech (and I always, say, look to the speech!): "And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding."

Some people have a legitimate First Amendment concern in opposing hate crimes legislation, and obviously engaging the hate-crimes debate in the above way doesn't acknowledge that, and does not help us focus on our common ground.

So with Obama's wise guidance in mind, it's not an ad I would run again. But I still contend the ad was not in the league of the race-baiting anti-Obama ads we've seen already this year, and the "Southern Strategy" tactics referenced by Newsweek.

AemJeff
05-17-2008, 10:30 AM
And yes, I did note and do take issue with your little caveat of "as Conn described it". If anyone can find this particular ad... I would appreciate it, but you can sure tell me how ANY use of this sad event could be spun into a political add.???..And the car/truck having a Bush bumper sticker does not cut it either.

As Bill describes it (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=77581#poststop).

bjkeefe
05-17-2008, 10:35 AM
That sound you hear is not crickets. It is the pitter-patter of Whatfur running away. Uh, I mean, going out to lead his exciting life. Yeah, yeah, that's it.

graz
05-17-2008, 01:40 PM
So with Obama's wise guidance in mind, it's not an ad I would run again. But I still contend the ad was not in the league of the race-baiting anti-Obama ads we've seen already this year, and the "Southern Strategy" tactics referenced by Newsweek.

Thanks Bill. Context and nuance... things they just won't abide.
I sensed during the diavlog that you had to play Zen Master to Conn's red meat ripper.
He was getting riled up by some small points indeed.
If not for the fact that you guy's are in separate locales, he might have taken a bite out of you.
Of course he would do well to follow your lead and get a Dog or Cat. Studies show that the decrease in blood pressure can lead to greater clarity, patience and recognition of the value in opposing views.

lowellfield
05-17-2008, 02:01 PM
I think Bill went too far in trying to deny the economic cost of limiting carbon emissions, and in trying to deny that Obama has really started putting the rabbit back in the hat when it comes to meeting with unsavory actors.

Nonetheless, my doubts about whether the conservative movement is really as intellectually bankrupt as it seems are always put at ease by the performances of Conn Carroll.

look
05-17-2008, 03:47 PM
[/B] Couple minor factual points to clear up: The ad was not done by "the Democrats," it was done by the NAACP National Voter Fund. It was a 2000 ad, not 2004.

But there was no intent to be "racially divisive." It was not trying to drive a wedge between races for political purposes. It was not poisoning the well of race relations by perpetuating racist stereotypes, like ads already done this year by some local Republican party organizations (as well as independent conservative groups). To use a favorite conservative phrase, it is not "morally equivalent" to many divisive practices used by the Republican Party dating back to the "Southern Strategy."

Yes, what agenda could the NAACP National Voter Fund possibly be pushing? Absolutely apolitical, I'm sure.

graz
05-17-2008, 03:50 PM
Pisc:

Points taken. Nonetheless, I do not expect politicians to be able to be as specific as we might like on the campaign trail when talking about foreign policy, particularly as regards situations that are as subject to change as Iraq and Iran.

You can talk about individual items like Basra and the latest diplomatic play by Iran all you want and whether Obama said one thing at one time and a slightly different thing at another. I'm not going to debate these things. For me, they are insignificant. The bottom line is that McCain sounds like he basically wants to use the same approach as Bush has been using all along, and Obama wants to do things differently.
Mark Kurlansky on Nicholson Baker's "Human Smoke." (LA Times)
Not long ago, because there is no winter baseball in this country, I was channel surfing in search of amusement and ended up watching a debate of Republican presidential candidates. Sen. John McCain was attacking Rep. Ron Paul for opposing the Iraq war. He called Paul an "isolationist" and said it was that kind of thinking that had caused World War II. How old, I asked myself, is John McCain, that he is keeping alive this ancient World War II canard? Is it going to pass down to subsequent generations? All wars have to be sold, but World War II, within the memory of the pointless carnage that then became known as World War I, was a particularly hard sell. Roosevelt and Churchill did it well, and their lies have been with us ever since.



Isolationists, appeasers, dreamers... These are the tag lines McCain has been coached into providing as a rationale for discrediting his opponents. His opponents include the majority of Americans who aren't buying what his Iraq strategy is selling. Pick nits all you want, counter the historical interpretation of war as a product that needs to be sold. The difference in approach can only be made clearer every time Bush or McCain dare to delineate there failed rationale for continuation or McSame.

Not unlike Wonderment, I recognize the likelihood of obstacles to the best case offered by Obama. Yet the choice between stewards is clear.
Even if Obama or McCain will only be able to realize limited success in their respective Iraq strategies. Particularly as a result of the position that we have been boxed into. I'll take Obama's hope over McCain's fantasy (2013 reverie).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/mccain.2013/index.html?eref=rss_latest
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/05/16/mccain_iraq/

Wonderment
05-17-2008, 04:56 PM
Plug for "Human Smoke":

I promise any BHeads viewer that this book will reveal a lot to you about WWII that you never knew and illuminate what you thought you did know well. It's a paradigm-shifter. Definitely on my top-five list of books all Americans should read.

Whatfur
05-17-2008, 11:03 PM
Whatfur, the crickets you heard happened happened between 10:30 PM and 8:30 AM, while I'm sleeping.

...

So with Obama's wise guidance in mind, it's not an ad I would run again. But I still contend the ad was not in the league of the race-baiting anti-Obama ads we've seen already this year, and the "Southern Strategy" tactics referenced by Newsweek.

Mr. Scher,

After reading your response, although there certainly was new information, my first inclination was to respond with point by point arguments as to why I was still not swayed in my thinking. (You know, complete with witty questions like "Was that the Republican wing of the NAACP then?") However, as you were gracious enough to respond I will eat those arguments... unless you were interested...or could not guess them.

My second inclination was to blast you for responding the way you did, given the information that WAS available during the diavlog....as it was both Conn's recollection and your rebuttal that had me struck incredulous. But then it hit me that it probably was a good thing you lacked the additional facts now provided... as I can now see where your subconscious was telling you there was more to the story...not letting your conscious give in. I can certainly give you that, because it happens to me all the time.

Lastly, your hypothesizing that Obama would not utilize this sort of ad and projecting that on yourself led me to my third inclination which was to just thank you both for putting yourselves out there.

Thank you both.

Fur

AemJeff
05-17-2008, 11:32 PM
That was pretty well said. The final bit of sarcasm, parabolically focused with understatement, just crackled. This board is better when it isn't an echo chamber, when there's a fair amount of conflict, but it's better when we're not all always swinging our fists in great roundhouse blows.

Sgt Schultz
05-18-2008, 02:43 AM
The "Southern Strategy" is and always was a canard.
You could look it up.
Requires you exit your echo chamber though.

AemJeff
05-18-2008, 02:47 AM
Ok, now would you like to explain what you're talking about? We could look it up? Where? Is there some authoritative source for debunking liberal myths? ConservaSnopes.com?

Curtis
05-18-2008, 09:04 AM
Bill,
Get rid of those ridiculous looking bangs! Your baldness is really hot looking and growing bangs to try to cover it up make you look like a puffin! Trim the bangs back to the rest of your receding hairline and let your chrome dome shine!

harkin
05-18-2008, 11:29 AM
Why must all compassion be 'big government'?

One could certainly argue that the Welfare Reform Act was more compassionate than any handout that perpetuated misery. It was so successful that it even had at least one opponent saying "There may be something to the idea that long-term dependency on public assistance is detrimental”. When a liberal makes a bold concession like that, true progress is happening.

Other opponents to reform were so invested in it's failure with their predictions of child prostitutes and 'third world-style' poverty that they refuse to even acknowldge the success.

Kay Hymowitz makes a good case for the success of small-government compassion in her article How Welfare Reform Worked (http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_welfare_reform.html)

piscivorous
05-18-2008, 11:48 AM
It would be hard to miss as the paragraphs are deep within this AP report Iraq detains 1,000 in anti-al-Qaida crackdown (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080517/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq) so I'll quote the releant passages. Pelosi, a top Democratic critic of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, expressed confidence that expected provincial elections will promote national reconciliation.

She welcomed Iraq's progress in passing a budget as well as oil legislation, and a bill paving the way for the provincial elections in the fall that are expected to more equitably redistribute power among local officials.

"We're assured the elections will happen here, they will be transparent, they will be inclusive and they will take Iraq closer to the reconciliation we all want it to have," said Pelosi. She also met with Iraq's parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq. Wasn't it just January-February where she was claiming that there was no evidence of reconciliation going on. If only the US congress could accomplish as much in that time span.

Whatfur
05-18-2008, 12:11 PM
Plug for "Human Smoke":

I promise any BHeads viewer that this book will reveal a lot to you about WWII that you never knew and illuminate what you thought you did know well. It's a paradigm-shifter. Definitely on my top-five list of books all Americans should read.

I may just do that, however after reading the comments section about it on Amazon...I may not. One of those comments hit on exactly what I have always felt (and you have demonstrated here) that a huge problem with the pacifist ideal is their need to accept some pretty ludicrous moral equivalency.

It is very interesting how the book was put together by picking and choosing newspaper articles to back up the authors premise. Interesting to me as I actually started writing a book which will probably never be published, that does something very similar. I have compiled a bunch of newspaper (on and offline), blog posts, and magazine articles that contain either false or misleading information concerning our current President and his staff and the war in Afganistan and Iraq.

You would not believe some of the stuff out there...or maybe you would. ;o) Of course it includes a chapter on Danny Rathernottellthetruth and "Memogate", but that is not even a sliver of whats out there in attempts by some media to damn this President in any way they can by preying on the ignorance, laziness or blind partisaness of their readers.

A couple of my favorites...

Headline: Haliburton Gets Paid for Empty Trucks
Sub-headline: Civilian Truckers Lives Risked Driving Cargoless vehicles.

Story: Well...once you got past the first couple paragraphs you learn that these trucks were part of a convoy that would ALL load up at point A and drive and some would unload at point B and then others at Point C and then head back to A. So YES some of the trucks were empty after point B but everyone stayed in the convoy as they were a unit protected by ONE military unit...saving overall costs and increasing safety.

Another you may or may not remember from the very beginning of the War where when a car rammed though an American checkpoint and was subsequently fired upon killing all the occupants...who happened to be women and children. Well for 3 days, in those morning international press briefings ...that most of us watched before heading to work... whichever military officer was providing the briefing was hammered about it incessantly, dominating the briefing ...with leading questions that oozed with histrionic, damning portrayals of incompetance by our military and sorrowful, dramatic depictions of the poor women and children. This same story of course was gravitated to like flys to a rotting corpse by the media here...until...until...it was discovered that those women were forced through the checkpoint by Saddam loyalists who had kidnapped their husbands and other children threatening to kill them unless the women rammed the checkpoint. Then, "what were the odds" the story disappeared mostly WITHOUT report!!...as these same journalist just moved on to the next unvetted story they could attempt to castigate our military with. I personally was dumbfounded, (I know, I know, "what are the odds"), when I turned on the TV that fourth morning without having heard the truth yet and after 3 days of non-stop questioning about that issue the briefings had moved on like it never happened...NOT ONE question asking for a synopsis or follow up was made by these "professional" journalists from around the world. Go figure. I had to dig all day finally finding a military source with the answer and soon thereafter FOX news. So of course, most the public was left thinking about our incompetent military and their hair-triggers, killing civilians. This is what this President and this conflict has had to deal with for almost 8 years along with, you know, the "moral equivilency" of things like Abu Graib's human pyramid and soldiers being hung from an overpass, or Saddams son's pushing prison inmates off tall buildings just for fun. I guess when they hit the ground the poof of dust did look a little like "Human Smoke".

But anyway...I know...shorter Whatfur.

bjkeefe
05-18-2008, 12:27 PM
But anyway...I know...shorter Whatfur.

Not from me, anyway. I pretty much agree with you here.

I haven't read the book that Wonderment is talking about, but I have heard the author interviewed and read about the book. From these, it is my understanding that the book is composed of selected snippets, where the selection is driven by a preconceived thesis.

I'll grant that the book may be useful in some sense; e.g., to knock a little bit sheen off the "greatest generation" and "last good war" tropes, but I don't think the technique is respectable as a basis for a comprehensive argument.

If you do decide to continue with your book idea, I hope it won't be with the plan that your collection of articles "proves" that Bush was, in fact, a good guy and he was right to invade Iraq and things are going well over there. I'd be happy with a thesis along the lines of "when a war goes bad, observe how the anti-war side can sometimes be as ridiculous as the pro-war side."

Whatfur
05-18-2008, 12:39 PM
Not from me, anyway. I pretty much agree with you here.
...

If you do decide to continue with your book idea, I hope it won't be with the plan that your collection of articles "proves" that Bush was, in fact, a good guy and he was right to invade Iraq and things are going well over there. I'd be happy with a thesis along the lines of "when a war goes bad, observe how the anti-war side can sometimes be as ridiculous as the pro-war side."


Hmmmm..no...its theme at this point does not really make too many distinctions on the rightness or wrongness of the wars but more on the purposeful, if not systematic, damning of this President, his administration, and the execution of the war, using less than truthful techniques.

graz
05-18-2008, 12:54 PM
Hmmmm..no...its theme at this point does not really make too many distinctions on the rightness or wrongness of the wars but more on the purposeful, if not systematic, damning of this President, his administration, and the execution of the war, using less than truthful techniques.

O.K. how about the value of this war? Are you also proposing that the malign media influences are powerful enough to change the course in Iraq?

graz
05-18-2008, 01:09 PM
You and I both start with a brain of relatively equal weight.
The reasoning that takes place separately, which includes many similar influences yields different conclusions. We both read arguments and even propaganda from both sides of the spectrum. Yet the stuff we find most convincing happens to reinforce our original thinking. Go figure.
So what is the point of debate or conversation?

Well there is always Hopeity for Change.

bjkeefe
05-18-2008, 02:00 PM
Hmmmm..no...its theme at this point does not really make too many distinctions on the rightness or wrongness of the wars but more on the purposeful, if not systematic, damning of this President, his administration, and the execution of the war, using less than truthful techniques.

It's an interesting theory. I am inclined to think there wasn't very much of a systematic aspect, at least not at the beginning of the pushback. Rather, I would think that there were a number of individuals reacting to the way the invasion and occupation quickly went south, to the fact that no WMDs were discovered and other selling points were exposed as highly dubious, and to the realization of the complicity of the MSM in the sales job.

I suppose I could go along with the idea that once a critical mass had been reached, there was something of a tendency to believe the worst about the Bush Administration, as well as an echo chamber effect in the leftosphere. The two examples you cited earlier would support this. However, I think you'd really be picking up a lot of crumbs around the fringes, and I don't think that those would convince me that there is anything untrue about the larger set of dark beliefs about Bush and his cronies. I would add to that my suspicion that we have yet to hear the extent to which their corruption and incompetence pervaded every aspect of the Iraq fiasco.

Whatfur
05-18-2008, 02:49 PM
You and I both start with a brain of relatively equal weight.
The reasoning that takes place separately, which includes many similar influences yields different conclusions. We both read arguments and even propaganda from both sides of the spectrum. Yet the stuff we find most convincing happens to reinforce our original thinking. Go figure.
So what is the point of debate or conversation?

Well there is always Hopeity for Change.

Admittedly, part of my premise is that the dominant media, domestic and international, is skewed left (and on the international side, skewed anti-American). You and yours may want to talk about FOX or the Wall Street Journal, or the New York Post but generally refuse to admit they are really miniscule in proportion to BBC/CBS/ABC/NBC, NYT, Newsweek, Time etc. With that refusal you can make statements about how both sides propagandize this or that and perpetuate the elusion that this propaganda then is balanced overall. Sorry, its not. So I see you making a statement containing the words "similar influences" and I have to take issue as because of the lack of balance, my filter has to be running on high all the time...yours does not as you more often hear things that jive and substantiate your core beliefs more often and your response is "Yep" or "Of course".

There was a pretty good example of this recently in the Raj/Megan diavlog where I heard Raj make a statement about Bush blaming India for the worlds food woes. I don't expect you to admit it, but I would bet that statement for you went in one ear, had you adding it to the "That effing idiot Bush" list in your brain, and out the other ear and your brain moved on. In my case, it went in one ear and raised a flag propelling me to go find the actual statement which pretty much validated the fact that it was an overstatement, misrepresenting/stretching the truth, based on a headline. I think I linked to the actual article and provided the text of Bush's statements...and the other very telling thing was not just the article itself but the reading of comments there on "The Economic Times" site of mainly people outside the U.S. piling on with anti-American, anti-Bush rhetoric even though the text of what was said was right there for them to see. It may not be disturbing/telling to you, but it is disturbing/telling to me. (also... maybe telling, is that unlike Bill here, Raj (like a good Berkeley boy) could not be bothered with backing up his misrepresentation either with apology or argument and would rather just leave the statement like the headline to float out there and be absorbed by those not willing or wanting to think otherwise))

I actually have a really neat control group. My mother-in-law, who lives in a house I built next to mine when her health and the health of her husband started to falter. She is a Roosevelt democrat, through and through and she reads my states biggest newspaper (very left-wing) cover to cover every day and gets all her other news from the networks, DNC mailings to retired folks, etc. etc. I don't argue with her but engage her daily and even you would be amazed what she has been conditioned to believe...but she is old and I let her and I still drive her to vote every year.

But yes...I still hold out "Hopeity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylNwSv6c7m0)".

bjkeefe
05-18-2008, 03:10 PM
Whatfur:

Admittedly, part of my premise is that the dominant media, domestic and international, is skewed left (and on the international side, skewed anti-American). You and yours may want to talk about FOX or the Wall Street Journal, or the New York Post but generally refuse to admit they are really miniscule in proportion to CBS/ABC/NBC, NYT, Newsweek, Time etc.

Add at least these to to your side: The Washington Times and most of AM talk radio, the Richard Mellon Scaife-owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, USA Today, the hundreds of local papers owned by the Gannett Group, the empire owned by Rupert Murdoch (besides Fox News). Add also the fact that many of the so-called liberal news outlets make a special effort to hire conservative writers; e.g., the WaPo and Krauthammer, the NYT and Kristol, Brooks, and Ben Stein, and Time and Karl Rove.

Also, there's an important element that you who believe in the "liberal media" trope always forget: the MSM is hypersensitive to this accusation, and has been for at least a couple of decades now. Consequently, most of them work overtime to avoid giving any such impression, apart from the editorial page. They tend to be a lot tougher on Democratic politicians than they do Republicans. Think back to the way GWB was treated in 1999-2000, compared to Al Gore. Think of how much a pass John McCain has gotten this electoral season. Think of how uncritically the MSM treated the PR that the White House was handing out leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Ask yourself how many stories you have seen on any of the "liberal" networks about the Pentagon's coordination with "military analysts" over the past five years.

I don't expect you to agree with this, but I think you should at least bear in mind that many of us do see the MSM this way, as so infected with insecurities from the non-stop accusations of bias that it takes them forever to start telling the unvarnished truth. And one of those truths is this: The Bush Administration has been a disaster, and a few examples of exaggeration or incorrect attribution do not change that.

graz
05-18-2008, 04:00 PM
Whatfur:

We are giving the media too much credit anyway.
I would guess that your concern is for others (like your in-law) who aren't as equipped as you to filter and detect B.S, or lies.

It's less important to figure out which side is better funded and disseminated, than to be a careful reader and skeptic. And not all of it is tainted. Is there such a thing as objectivity? Maybe. And I like to think that my inclinations, leanings and stated goals aren't married to an ideology.

There is a market for your book, especially those already inclined to tilt your way. But I think that you recognize that most of the forum posters imagine themselves to be able to "separate the wheat from the chaff." The question for me is how am I going to get you to listen to my criticisms of Bush (e.g.) without insulting your sensibilities? Or inciting a counter strike for balance?
The Fox news "fair and balanced" slogan really means - fight back and counter. There reason for being -while obviously a profitable venture- is to counter what you call the "liberal media bias."

So your filter is running on "high" all the time, which I would argue tends to reinforce what you already know (believe) and need to defend (against the liberal media bias). This still doesn't validate your opinion more than mine. Nor does it prove your point that the deck is stacked against you media- wise. How do you measure that anyway, or answer Brendan's reply?

Wonderment
05-18-2008, 04:32 PM
I haven't read the book that Wonderment is talking about, but I have heard the author interviewed and read about the book. From these, it is my understanding that the book is composed of selected snippets, where the selection is driven by a preconceived thesis.

That may be what reviewers are saying, but it's not true. Baker is not pushing any particular thesis, as far as I can tell. He has been accused of being a pacifist (horrible crime!), and maybe he is, but it doesn't show in his book.

Kind of a paradox to have a preconceived notion that a book is based on a preconceived notion.

I'll grant that the book may be useful in some sense; e.g., to knock a little bit sheen off the "greatest generation" and "last good war" tropes, but I don't think the technique is respectable as a basis for a comprehensive argument.

Again, the book doesn't make any claim to have a "comprehensive argument" nor does the author argue in favor of pacifism. What you will get from the book is information about the run-up WWII that you never knew before.

bjkeefe
05-18-2008, 05:18 PM
Wonderment:

Bear in mind that I am also basing my impression upon hearing Baker in an interview.

piscivorous
05-18-2008, 05:39 PM
I'm not accusing you of this personally but in general the name calling and personal denigration is not conducive to measured dialog. Take for instance the oh popular slur "Bush is dumb." that gets thrown around here with regularity. The mere fact that he served as a reasonably successful Governor and got elected President twice tends to put the lie to this. The movie was enjoyable but Forest Gumps don't get elected to the Presidency twice. Considering President Carter there may be a case for once but not twice. Broad ad hominem attacks because you don't like the man and his policies, is not conducive to discussion but of return of equal vitriol. Once the ill will creeps in to the thread it cascades rather quickly due to everyones current sensitivity and nothing useful gets said or if it does it is lost to the emotion.

Whatfur
05-18-2008, 06:13 PM
It's an interesting theory. I am inclined to think there wasn't very much of a systematic aspect, at least not at the beginning of the pushback. Rather, I would think that there were a number of individuals reacting to the way the invasion and occupation quickly went south, to the fact that no WMDs were discovered and other selling points were exposed as highly dubious, and to the realization of the complicity of the MSM in the sales job.

I suppose I could go along with the idea that once a critical mass had been reached, there was something of a tendency to believe the worst about the Bush Administration, as well as an echo chamber effect in the leftosphere. The two examples you cited earlier would support this. However, I think you'd really be picking up a lot of crumbs around the fringes, and I don't think that those would convince me that there is anything untrue about the larger set of dark beliefs about Bush and his cronies. I would add to that my suspicion that we have yet to hear the extent to which their corruption and incompetence pervaded every aspect of the Iraq fiasco.

Actually, I would like to hear more about this "complicity of the MSM" in the sales job. I would also like to hear more than generalities of "dark beliefs". Would you care to share a few? And "corruption and incompetence"? I thought the U.N. was part of a different diavlog. ;o)

And concerning how I come up with my media numbers. Viewer numbers, subscription numbers etc. and there have been various studies looking at negative stories vs. positive stories. (I see I will need to make the compilation of these part of the preface of my book, ;o) )There out there ...its not close. FOX news (which you all seem to know so much about, I would think THEIR viewer numbers must be alot higher than whats sampled), is still a flea on the butt of the Network viewerships. Bottom line, is these number you want to portray as balanced are not even close. But, its much like the percentages discovered in academia which are also often described as "fair and balanced" by those representing the 75% side.

brendan, graz, y'all and I, being political junkies do not come close to reprepresenting the common man and how they are affected by media.

Needed a break from putting in my garden, so back to the tiller.

graz
05-18-2008, 06:28 PM
And concerning how I come up with my media numbers. Viewer numbers, subscription numbers etc. and there have been various studies looking at negative stories vs. positive stories. (I see I will need to make the compilation of these part of the preface of my book, ;o) )There out there ...its not close. FOX news (which you all seem to know so much about, I would think THEIR viewer numbers must be alot higher than whats sampled), is still a flea on the butt of the Network viewerships. Bottom line, is these number you want to portray as balanced are not even close. But, its much like the percentages discovered in academia which are also often described as "fair and balanced" by those representing the 75% side.

brendan, graz, y'all and I, being political junkies do not come close to reprepresenting the common man and how they are affected by media.


So your battle is with the media? Are you performing a public service here on this forum?
Do you fancy yourself a crusader on a mission? To I don't know: Change media as we know it?
Sway the electorate towards the light?

Sure seems Hopeity to me.

P.S. So what if we scrutinize as much media as possible.
We are the common man - no disrespect intended.
One (wo)man, one vote. Even if created equal, surely we express our participation with degrees of difference. But do you figure that your better informed vote is worth more than your in-laws?
Now that would make for an interesting debate.

graz
05-18-2008, 06:52 PM
Bottom line, is these number you want to portray as balanced are not even close. But, its much like the percentages discovered in academia which are also often described as "fair and balanced" by those representing the 75% side.


If I were to stipulate the 75%, what would that give you.
How does this concern affect us, exactly?
And what accounts for the disagreements between the know-it-alls on your side and mine?
Are you complaining that the game is rigged against you?

Whatfur
05-18-2008, 07:42 PM
So your battle is with the media? Are you performing a public service here on this forum?
Do you fancy yourself a crusader on a mission? To I don't know: Change media as we know it?
Sway the electorate towards the light?

Sure seems Hopeity to me.

P.S. So what if we scrutinize as much media as possible.
We are the common man - no disrespect intended.
One (wo)man, one vote. Even if created equal, surely we express our participation with degrees of difference. But do you figure that your better informed vote is worth more than your in-laws?
Now that would make for an interesting debate.


Cripes Graz, You asked the question, I answered it.

No, they have a bunch of ink and all that.
No, I am here to learn and to get under your skin.
No, not really a crusade.
Yes, I would prefer they stick to reporting the truth. Opinion pages are fine but when the same editors write misleading headlines and or include stories that are more opinion than reporting on the front page or put reporting they do not wish to trumpet on the back pages...well thats another thing.
Yes, I can only try to do my part in swaying the electorate.

Yes, I believe an informed vote is a better vote.

My driving my mother-in-law in to vote is not because I think she votes smartly but it is out of respect for her...my bad.

Whatfur
05-18-2008, 07:53 PM
If I were to stipulate the 75%, what would that give you.
How does this concern affect us, exactly?
And what accounts for the disagreements between the know-it-alls on your side and mine?
Are you complaining that the game is rigged against you?


You tell me!

What accounts for the agreements?

Isn't it? You want to think that the 75% is just a natural progression. It's not.

bjkeefe
05-18-2008, 07:56 PM
Whatfur:

Actually, I would like to hear more about this "complicity of the MSM" in the sales job.

Judith Miller. The editorial board of the WaPo. The New Republic. Andrew Sullivan. Matthew Yglesias. Embedded reporters. That TV twit in Baghdad who kept saying "this is shock and awe!" over and over again. The frequent booking of neocons on talk shows. The refusal to check for conflicts of interests when hiring retired generals as "military analysts." These are just a few examples of people who uncritically swallowed what the Bush Administration was telling them about WMDs, hints at Saddam/terrorist connections, the ease with which the war would be won, and the righteousness of the cause.

If none of this rings a bell, you might watch Bill Moyers's recent documentary, "Buying the War (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html)" as one good place to start.

Another useful summary: On the Media's hour-long (audio) special, "5 Years of Covering Iraq (http://onthemedia.org/episodes/2008/03/21)."

You might also look at the NY Times's mea culpa, "The Times and Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html)."

I'm not going to go on, because I'm inclined to think you're going to disregard whatever I say in this area.

I would also like to hear more than generalities of "dark beliefs". Would you care to share a few?

Here are a few (here, "Bush" generally also means "the Bush Administration and its cronies): Bush came into office looking for an excuse to go to war. Bush had an inkling that a major terrorist attack was going to occur, and welcomed it, as a way to become a "war president" and to have an excuse to attack Iraq. Part of the considerations in the war planning involved how much money could be steered to Halliburton and similar companies. Bush has a simplistic view of the world, based largely on eschatological and manichean faith beliefs, is incurious about it, cares more about being seen as a tough guy than anything else, and is too lazy to do much work or to learn. Bush has no patience for points of view that contradict his own, and is especially prone to favor those who tell him what he wants to hear. Bush is in office primarily to serve the interests of the super-rich.

And "corruption and incompetence"?

To name a few: Katrina. The war in Iraq. Bin Laden still uncaptured. Halliburton overbilling. Blackwater. Telecom immunity. Diebold. Recess appointments. Justice Department packed with 150 graduates of Regent Law School. U.S. Attorney firings. Don Siegelman. Harriet Miers. Abu Ghraib. Cheney's secret energy task force (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2007/07/dribble-of-truth-leaks-out.html) meetings. Dyncorp (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/washington/23contractor.html). Star Wars (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/missiledefense). The missing White House emails. Refusal/inability/unwillingness to collect lease payments (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/business/26oil.html) from oil companies drilling on federal lands. Signing statements (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14181701). Parsons and Custer Battles (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle). Suppression of information; examples here (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14575.html), here (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004766.php), and here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/washington/11army.html).

Watch "Bush's War (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_frontlinebrbushswar_20 08-03-26)" if you want five hours worth of details on Iraq alone.

... there have been various studies looking at negative stories vs. positive stories.

As Professor Colbert reminds us, reality has a well-known liberal bias. It is not the job of the press to write puff pieces for the government. The fact that there are more negative stories written about the Bush Administration in particular says nothing about liberal bias. It says that there is a lot of shit to report.

graz
05-18-2008, 08:27 PM
Yes, I would prefer they stick to reporting the truth.
Here I go with the questions again.
How do you do that?
And your truth is not the same as mine or reporter xyz.

E.g. Dana Perino saunters to the podium and says: Blah. blah....
regarding the Presidents reaction to events in Iraq today.

Journalists then ask questions to mine the "underlying truth."

Would you wish that they just took dictation?
Haven't we learned that our good and gracious government operates in ways that are not necessarily in our best interest?
And don't we have a right to know?
Are you satisfied with a statement from the lovely Ms. Perino?

graz
05-18-2008, 08:36 PM
Yes, I believe an informed vote is a better vote.



What I am asking is do you think it should be afforded greater weight?
Or should we disqualify certain portions of the electorate who don't meet certain media savvy standards?

Whatfur
05-18-2008, 09:48 PM
Whatfur:



Judith Miller. The editorial board of the WaPo. The New Republic. Andrew Sullivan. Matthew Yglesias. Embedded reporters. That TV twit in Baghdad who kept saying "this is shock and awe!" over and over again. The frequent booking of neocons on talk shows. The refusal to check for conflicts of interests when hiring retired generals as "military analysts." These are just a few examples of people who uncritically swallowed what the Bush Administration was telling them about WMDs, hints at Saddam/terrorist connections, the ease with which the war would be won, and the righteousness of the cause.

If none of this rings a bell, you might watch Bill Moyers's recent documentary, "Buying the War (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html)" as one good place to start.

Another useful summary: On the Media's hour-long (audio) special, "5 Years of Covering Iraq (http://onthemedia.org/episodes/2008/03/21)."

You might also look at the NY Times's mea culpa, "The Times and Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html)."

I'm not going to go on, because I'm inclined to think you're going to disregard whatever I say in this area.



Here are a few (here, "Bush" generally also means "the Bush Administration and its cronies): Bush came into office looking for an excuse to go to war. Bush had an inkling that a major terrorist attack was going to occur, and welcomed it, as a way to become a "war president" and to have an excuse to attack Iraq. Part of the considerations in the war planning involved how much money could be steered to Halliburton and similar companies. Bush has a simplistic view of the world, based largely on eschatological and manichean faith beliefs, is incurious about it, cares more about being seen as a tough guy than anything else, and is too lazy to do much work or to learn. Bush has no patience for points of view that contradict his own, and is especially prone to favor those who tell him what he wants to hear. Bush is in office primarily to serve the interests of the super-rich.



To name a few: Katrina. The war in Iraq. Bin Laden still uncaptured. Halliburton overbilling. Blackwater. Telecom immunity. Diebold. Recess appointments. Justice Department packed with 150 graduates of Regent Law School. U.S. Attorney firings. Don Siegelman. Harriet Miers. Abu Ghraib. Cheney's secret energy task force (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2007/07/dribble-of-truth-leaks-out.html) meetings. Dyncorp (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/washington/23contractor.html). Star Wars (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/missiledefense). The missing White House emails. Refusal/inability/unwillingness to collect lease payments (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/business/26oil.html) from oil companies drilling on federal lands. Signing statements (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14181701). Parsons and Custer Battles (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle). Suppression of information; examples here (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14575.html), here (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004766.php), and here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/washington/11army.html).

Watch "Bush's War (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_frontlinebrbushswar_20 08-03-26)" if you want five hours worth of details on Iraq alone.



As Professor Colbert reminds us, reality has a well-known liberal bias. It is not the job of the press to write puff pieces for the government. The fact that there are more negative stories written about the Bush Administration in particular says nothing about liberal bias. It says that there is a lot of shit to report.

Most everything rings a bell with me...you will come to realize that.
There is so much wrong with what you just provided I cannot possibly address it all tonight and unfortunately things like Judith Miller continue to be masked in bad information. My feeling with her was not that she was a shill as much as she was played...most likely by the CIA and not necessarily always with helping the Bush Administration in mind. Just list the WaPo editorial board is a bit wide in scope, but at least they are part of the MSM which is more than I can say about the New Republic, Sullivan and Yglesius.

To lump "embedded reporters" is kinda strange. I'm guessing, anyone saying anything positive about the goings on in Iraq is in your mind is complicit so, you are correct we will not conclude anything here except to think of eachother as delusional.

Don't you understand that the right considers Bill Moyers about as big a left wing shill as one could possibly muster?

Every one of your Bush points are hearsay or your own opinion. Just the facts son.

Your incompetance points are opinion and you provide no detail so I am not
inclined to do so either.

Wow, I guess I was able to get it all in.

graz
05-18-2008, 11:01 PM
Most everything rings a bell with me...you will come to realize that.
There is so much wrong with what you just provided I cannot possibly address it all tonight and unfortunately things like Judith Miller continue to be masked in bad information. My feeling with her was not that she was a shill as much as she was played...most likely by the CIA and not necessarily always with helping the Bush Administration in mind. Just list the WaPo editorial board is a bit wide in scope, but at least they are part of the MSM which is more than I can say about the New Republic, Sullivan and Yglesius.

To lump "embedded reporters" is kinda strange. I'm guessing, anyone saying anything positive about the goings on in Iraq is in your mind is complicit so, you are correct we will not conclude anything here except to think of eachother as delusional.

Don't you understand that the right considers Bill Moyers about as big a left wing shill as one could possibly muster?

Every one of your Bush points are hearsay or your own opinion. Just the facts son.

Your incompetance points are opinion and you provide no detail so I am not
inclined to do so either.

Wow, I guess I was able to get it all in.

It would be easy to say that you have an answer for everything, except that you haven't really tackled a single point or example he offered. Aside from the secret CIA info you let out of the bag about J. Miller.

Good luck with your screed. I'm sure it will sell like hot-cakes with Nueske's Applewood on the side.

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 02:32 AM
And the car/truck having a Bush bumper sticker does not cut it either.
Conn got the date wrong, by four years, which isn't surprising. The ad was from 2000.

The "car/truck"? You don't know what it was?

It was a truck. And it didn't have a Bush bumper sticker.

The text of the ad is here: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/ads2/adnaacp.html

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 02:40 AM
That sound you hear is not crickets. It is the pitter-patter of Whatfur running away. Uh, I mean, going out to lead his exciting life. Yeah, yeah, that's it.

ROFL! He does work hard to present his life that way, doesn't he?

I've wondered if Whatfur is really Conn's sock puppet. At least half his posts are in "This Week in Blog" threads. And they have the exact same personality.

Just a hunch.

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 02:47 AM
Thanks Bill. Context and nuance... things they just won't abide.
I sensed during the diavlog that you had to play Zen Master to Conn's red meat ripper.
He was getting riled up by some small points indeed.
If not for the fact that you guy's are in separate locales, he might have taken a bite out of you.
Of course he would do well to follow your lead and get a Dog or Cat. Studies show that the decrease in blood pressure can lead to greater clarity, patience and recognition of the value in opposing views.

Conn hates Bill, and his loathing becomes more apparent with each diavlog. In this most recent installment, Conn twice responded to Bill by simply laughing at him. As if that was a form of debate. It's embarrassing to watch, to be perfectly honest. Trying to marginalize your opponent or his ideas by laughing at him might be effective for 12 year olds, or even some drunk frat boys. But it's way below the standards of BhTV.

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 02:58 AM
My second inclination was to blast you for responding the way you did, given the information that WAS available during the diavlog....as it was both Conn's recollection and your rebuttal that had me struck incredulous. But then it hit me that it probably was a good thing you lacked the additional facts now provided... as I can now see where your subconscious was telling you there was more to the story...not letting your conscious give in.
Can you be more specific about what Bill allegedly didn't know at the time of the taping that he did later? By my watching of their exchange, Bill appeared to know exactly which ad Conn was referring to, and was correct that it was being grossly mischaracterized by Conn.

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 03:17 AM
Conn laughs in Bill's face:

-- http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11107?in=00:24:09&out=00:24:34
-- http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11107?in=00:31:06&out=00:31:38

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 03:29 AM
Pisc,
You start out with this completely valid observation:

in general the name calling and personal denigration is not conducive to measured dialog. Take for instance the oh popular slur "Bush is dumb." that gets thrown around here with regularity.


Then, instead of pressing ahead with your point, you sidetrack yourself, so compelled you are to defend Bush, even though you are the one who brought up the criticism, and then only to illustrate your point. Alas, you go off on this tangent:

The mere fact that he served as a reasonably successful Governor and got elected President twice tends to put the lie to this. The movie was enjoyable but Forest Gumps don't get elected to the Presidency twice.


And then, apparently having completely forgotten your own point, you do the very thing you are suggesting is counterproductive:

Forest Gumps don't get elected to the Presidency twice. Considering President Carter there may be a case for once but not twice.


You conclude by saying:

Broad ad hominem attacks because you don't like the man and his policies, is not conducive to discussion but of return of equal vitriol. Once the ill will creeps in to the thread it cascades rather quickly due to everyones current sensitivity and nothing useful gets said or if it does it is lost to the emotion.

Good advice. You should take it.

Whatfur
05-19-2008, 03:54 AM
It would be easy to say that you have an answer for everything, except that you haven't really tackled a single point or example he offered. Aside from the secret CIA info you let out of the bag about J. Miller.

Good luck with your screed. I'm sure it will sell like hot-cakes with Nueske's Applewood on the side.

Sorry, but I asked for examples of complicity, he provided a bunch of names and no details... Link's to things by Bill Moyers and "Bush's War" that "I" also was suppose to peruse...a bunch of Bush left wing BS which even he will not be able to find any facts about...his incompetence things I will or have addressed at some point...

Bottom line is I asked the question he responded with nothing...thats fine...but why then should I do the homework.

You are a piece of work graz.

graz
05-19-2008, 04:07 AM
Sorry, but I asked for examples of complicity, he provided a bunch of names and no details... Link's to things by Bill Moyers and "Bush's War" that "I" also was suppose to peruse...a bunch of Bush left wing BS which even he will not be able to find any facts about...his incompetence things I will or have addressed at some point...

Bottom line is I asked the question he responded with nothing...thats fine...but why then should I do the homework.

You are a piece of work graz.

You presented yourself as a savvy news junkie. The examples are more than familiar to most. The links provided would offer you the facts you would otherwise deny (not homework). The disclaimer stated that some reading would be required. Enter at your own risk.

bjkeefe
05-19-2008, 05:49 AM
Whatfur:

It occurred to me while I was thinking of examples that your questions could be read as rhetorical or mocking; i.e., I was half-convinced that you were hoping to see just a short list of things which you thought you could debunk and thereby "win." Therefore, I decided to list a bunch of examples and not take the time to expound upon them, as a sort of test: would you acknowledge the worth of at least some of them, or would you just reject them all out of hand?

To echo what graz said, I figured most of the examples I gave would be familiar enough to anyone who has been paying attention over the course of the Bush Administration. Some of them I linked, since the names were not as immediately memorable, or did not get as much attention. Some of the other links were to other lists of examples that also spoke to your questions. It seemed to me that if you're planning on writing a book, doing a little reading, listening, and watching would not be the sort of thing you would shy away from.

I was also sorry to read your dismissal of Bill Moyers. I grant that he has well-known liberal leanings, but I think he is a highly respected and credible journalist. The Bush/Tomlinson hatchet job on him spoke volumes -- were he "just a shill," it should have been easy for the Bush Admnistration to ignore him. The documentaries of his to which I pointed do argue from a particular perspective, but I think a reasonable person could take that into account and evaluate the merits of his arguments from there.

I will also grant that there is some subjectivity to a few of the examples I offered, whether they spoke to media complicity, or the Bush Administration's incompetence and corruption, or the perspective that most of the country has developed about Bush. But when you add them all up, there's a rock-solid case. It is not for nothing that his approval ratings have sunk from 90% to below 30%. It is not for nothing that 82% of the population thinks the country is on the wrong track. It is not for nothing that Bush is frequently mentioned by historians and long-time political observers as the worst president ever. And to save you some typing: yes, I know they're all part of the LIEbrul media-academia conspiracy.

If you're just going to claim that it's all "left wing BS which even he [i.e., I] will not be able to find any facts about," there's no point in our discussing this any further. The facts are out there for anyone with an open mind to discover. Since you think it unreasonable to ask you to do any homework, I could even offer you reams more myself, but your response demonstrates that it would be useless for me to make the effort. I can see that you've got your mind made up and that you're bent on defending Bush's legacy no matter how what. Why anyone who is allowed to use pointy scissors should think this is a reasonable task I cannot imagine, but it's clear from your reaction that my time would be better spent, say, trying to convince David Thomson that Obama isn't out to get whitey.

Whatfur
05-19-2008, 12:27 PM
Whatfur:
...
I will also grant that there is some subjectivity to a few of the examples I offered, whether they spoke to media complicity, or the Bush Administration's incompetence and corruption, or the perspective that most of the country has developed about Bush. But when you add them all up, there's a rock-solid case.
...



I don't mind doing homework...just not yours. You want to try here and make it look like you threw out some obvious rebuttels and none are obvious to me. There are numerous stories that Judith Miller was involved in. Just throwing out The New Republic, and embedded reporters is ridiculous without some specifics. Not to forget Yglesius, whom I admit I do not know much about, but I know less about whomever the unnamed "twit" was you alluded to. So what? I am suppose to go read everything Matt Y. has written or everything that has appeared in the New Republic and first formulate YOUR argument so I can argue against it. Do you understand how silly that is? Does graz? Obviously not.

And you are correct if I say something is just "left wing BS" because you supply no facts...and then you still refuse to, claiming that its MY homework. You are correct there is no point in discussing it.

Later here, you admit you supplied not much more than a list of entities and then claim that even though you offered nothing substantive to back any of it up that just by sure volume I should take your word on it. Sorry...it doesn't "add" up.

And of graz, well I spent a little time examining the gambit of his posts in his profile and what I came up with is that he should be last one to point fingers at anyone for not being willing to do homework. What I found was a whole lot of questions and very few answers. Very little to learn from. I found a bunch of 'me too' posts, and piling on. Actually the first diavlog he approached me with I asked HIM to prove something that was based on an over-the_top general statement of his, and all he had to do was find an over-the-top general example... and he failed...only to later admit that...well...he may have been over-the-top.

Lastly Brendan, to be honest putting this post of yours along side your post up above about me running away from Bill's response (directly after I had just told you that I was leaving for the day) and I get distinctly different pictures of you. When Big Wayne (or is it Little Wang?) brought it back up, I kind of half expected you to retract it and admonish him as I thought when I did come back, I was rather fair to Bill without sticking it to you...when I certainly could/should have. I have to be honest and say that I did start writing something about a toy poodle nipping at heals...but left it unposted...until now.

Kind Regards

bjkeefe
05-19-2008, 12:46 PM
Whatfur:

We'll never agree on Bush, so I'll let your comments on that matter stand without rebutting.

As to your complaint about my "fleeing" comment, you have no leg to stand on. When you show other commenters a little respect, you'll get some in return. Try making it through a few posts without making kiddie jokes about people's names -- that'd be a good first step.

Whatfur
05-19-2008, 12:55 PM
Whatfur:

We'll never agree on Bush, so I'll let your comments on that matter stand without rebutting.



Not sure what those were...but ok.


As to your complaint about my "fleeing" comment, you have no leg to stand on.
...


I am content with knowing that you realize how small that comment was.

bjkeefe
05-19-2008, 12:58 PM
I am content with knowing that you realize how small that comment was.

I thought it was a harmless joke, but if you really took offense, I apologize.

graz
05-19-2008, 01:10 PM
[QUOTE=Whatfur;77814.

And of graz, well I spent a little time examining the gambit of his posts in his profile and what I came up with is that he should be last one to point fingers at anyone for not being willing to do homework. What I found was a whole lot of questions and very few answers. Very little to learn from. I found a bunch of 'me too' posts, and piling on. Actually the first diavlog he approached me with I asked HIM to prove something that was based on an over-the_top general statement of his, and all he had to do was find an over-the-top general example... and he failed...only to later admit that...well...he may have been over-the-top.

[/QUOTE]

Over the top, yes. Defensible, maybe. But the asking questions parts is how it works often. The arc of our shared posts has not been completely productive. I think we have made some headway though. It seems to me that you are treating it as a zero sum game. We should try some Bob Wright non-zero summnes (sic). We can both win in other words. But we have to agree to play the game.
This would include addressing responses as they come.
Accepting the offering in good faith (even snark).
Not having to redefine our platform every post.
I don't want to teach you anything, I want to argue with you.
And disagree as I think you will, but you seem to avoid reading, listening and responding to the prompts.
Instead, you post what you feel will instantly discredit anyone who questions your authority ( a la Cartman). What's the point of that? (a question by the way).
Just stay focused, minimize the generalizin', and dare yourself to persuade with more than bluster.
I should talk, huh?

look
05-19-2008, 02:41 PM
Conn hates Bill, and his loathing becomes more apparent with each diavlog.
Please supply evidence for this allegation.
In this most recent installment, Conn twice responded to Bill by simply laughing at him. As if that was a form of debate.Conn didn't 'simply' laugh, he went on to offer follow-up arguments.

Conn's ok, but I find him to be impatient, intellectually vain, and a bit of a bully. I would like to see him paired with a liberal who could match his aggression. It would be interesting to see how Conn would stand up to that.

graz
05-19-2008, 02:47 PM
Please supply evidence for this allegation.
Conn didn't 'simply' laugh, he went on to offer follow-up arguments.

Conn's ok, but I find him to be impatient, intellectually vain, and a bit of a bully. I would like to see him paired with a liberal who could match his aggression. It would be interesting to see how Conn would stand up to that.

look:
Check out this:http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10875

look
05-19-2008, 02:55 PM
look:
Check out this:http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10875

Heh. Thanks, graz, I'd forgotten about that one. And Ari did it so cordially.

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 03:04 PM
Please supply evidence for this allegation.
The evidence is in their diavlogs together, especially the more recent ones. It seems like he can barely stand talking to Bill. Conn does not project even a trace of warmth or respect. I don't think we can write this off as Conn's personality, because his icy demeanor and belittling tone are absent in his diavlogs with everyone else.



Conn didn't 'simply' laugh, he went on to offer follow-up arguments.
Well, sure. But so what? He shows an amazing lack of maturity and professionalism by responding with derisive laughter.



Conn's ok, but I find him to be impatient, intellectually vain, and a bit of a bully. I would like to see him paired with a liberal who could match his aggression. It would be interesting to see how Conn would stand up to that.
Conn is okay. Over the weekend, I watched the old diavlog with him and Matt Stoller, and it was like watching a different person. He made a lot of good points, and was basically friendly. I wish he could bring himself to treat Bill with the same respect and kindness he shows for other people.

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 03:06 PM
Heh. Thanks, graz, I'd forgotten about that one. And Ari did it so cordially.

And Conn was cordial, too. Again, this shows what is probably closer to his true personality.

Whatfur
05-19-2008, 03:14 PM
Please supply evidence for this allegation.
Conn didn't 'simply' laugh, he went on to offer follow-up arguments.

Conn's ok, but I find him to be impatient, intellectually vain, and a bit of a bully. I would like to see him paired with a liberal who could match his aggression. It would be interesting to see how Conn would stand up to that.

I think him and Robert Foley would be a nice matchup myself.

conncarroll
05-19-2008, 04:46 PM
Big Wayne is obviously not my biggest fan and I hold out no hope of winning him over, but I do want everyone to know that I do not hate Bill at all and I'm pretty sure he doesn't hate me either.
As someone who grew up in Oakland, California I have many high school friends I still see on a regular basis who are just as liberal and opinionated as Bill is. Having good honest disagreements with someone does not mean you hate them ... most of the time it just makes you respect them more.

look
05-19-2008, 04:49 PM
The evidence is in their diavlogs together, especially the more recent ones. It seems like he can barely stand talking to Bill. Conn does not project even a trace of warmth or respect. I don't think we can write this off as Conn's personality, because his icy demeanor and belittling tone are absent in his diavlogs with everyone else.




Well, sure. But so what? He shows an amazing lack of maturity and professionalism by responding with derisive laughter.




Conn is okay. Over the weekend, I watched the old diavlog with him and Matt Stoller, and it was like watching a different person. He made a lot of good points, and was basically friendly. I wish he could bring himself to treat Bill with the same respect and kindness he shows for other people.
I don't think what you have said rises to the level of proving loathing. That's a very strong charge. I think it's likely that his new job may be presenting new challenges to a young man with a young family, etc., and is also bringing even more to fore his inner conservative. It is evident he's grown weary of debating Bill; they've been matched up many, many times. OTOH Conn's demeanor has always been rather morose, for want of a better word.

I think this pairing has outlived its usefulness. Bill is too much of a lefty for Conn to find common ground with, I think, and the outcome stresses we, the viewers.

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 05:04 PM
I don't think what you have said rises to the level of proving loathing.
Nor will any post I ever put up on this forum on this subject rise to that level. I have far better ways to spend my time than reviewing their past diavlogs trying to assemble clips to prove the case. You (and others) will either find what I say rings true, or not, and I have no interest in carrying it any further than that.

Plus:
-- Past experience shows that exhaustive efforts to "prove" anything on a forum are, essentially, a waste of time. I'd be hard pressed to make the effort even if I thought there was a chance of persuading anyone. I have access to the same body of evidence as everyone else: the diavlogs themselves.

-- A more effective method for evaluating the accuracy of my charge would be to get other opinions. If nobody else sees what I'm seeing, I'd be inclined to think I am misreading the situation. I believe there has been discussion of Conn's treatment of Bill in the past, but again, I'm not going to go pouring over past threads to find "proof."



That's a very strong charge. I think it's likely that his new job may be presenting new challenges to a young man with a young family, etc., and is also bringing even more to fore his inner conservative.
It sounds like you are acknowledging some of the same things I'm noticing, but are open minded to other possible explanations. I appreciate that. And you're right: There could be other explanations.

Still: I don't know why we see it exclusively with Bill.


It is evident he's grown weary of debating Bill; they've been matched up many, many times. OTOH Conn's demeanor has always been rather morose, for want of a better word. I think this pairing has outlived its usefulness. Bill is too much of a lefty for Conn to find common ground with, I think, and the outcome stresses we, the viewers.
Good points.

look
05-19-2008, 05:19 PM
Nor will any post I ever put up on this forum on this subject rise to that level. I have far better ways to spend my time than reviewing their past diavlogs trying to assemble clips to prove the case. You (and others) will either find what I say rings true, or not, and I have no interest in carrying it any further than that.

Plus:
-- Past experience shows that exhaustive efforts to "prove" anything on a forum are, essentially, a waste of time. I'd be hard pressed to make the effort even if I thought there was a chance of persuading anyone. I have access to the same body of evidence as everyone else: the diavlogs themselves.

-- A more effective method for evaluating the accuracy of my charge would be to get other opinions. If nobody else sees what I'm seeing, I'd be inclined to think I am misreading the situation. I believe there has been discussion of Conn's treatment of Bill in the past, but again, I'm not going to go pouring over past threads to find "proof."




It sounds like you are acknowledging some of the same things I'm noticing, but are open minded to other possible explanations. I appreciate that. And you're right: There could be other explanations.

Still: I don't know why we see it exclusively with Bill.



Good points.

I withdraw the word 'prove,' and substitute 'demonstrate probability.' And as I said, this weariness, if it exists, has grown over time, possibly from over-familiarity. And because it hasn't always been this way, I give Conn the benefit of the doubt, not that it's necessary, as Conn just posted his thoughts.

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 05:24 PM
Big Wayne is obviously not my biggest fan and I hold out no hope of winning him over, but I do want everyone to know that I do not hate Bill at all and I'm pretty sure he doesn't hate me either.
As someone who grew up in Oakland, California I have many high school friends I still see on a regular basis who are just as liberal and opinionated as Bill is. Having good honest disagreements with someone does not mean you hate them ... most of the time it just makes you respect them more.

Hi Conn,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. "Hate" and "loathing" were probably unfortunate word choices on my part. What I believe I'm noticing is genuine contempt. I hope I'm wrong. I've watched most of your past diavlogs, pre- and post-Heritage, and it's only in the last few where I am seeing this side to your personality -- and only with Bill.

I will readily admit I could be wrong and may be misreading the situation. I'll withhold further comment until you and he diavlog again.

As for "not being your biggest fan." I actually enjoy your diavlogs. And while you're conservative and I'm liberal, I would gladly call myself a fan. But I also like Bill, which is why I don't like seeing him mistreated.

Cheers, and thanks again for the response.

look
05-19-2008, 05:24 PM
I think him and Robert Foley would be a nice matchup myself.

I don't know Robert Foley, do you have a link? I think Matt Duss from the DV yesterday with Eli would be good. He pushed back quite a bit.

By the way, I found the Alter/Shlaes diavlog where they each discuss their FDR books:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/370

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 05:29 PM
I withdraw the word 'prove,' and substitute 'demonstrate probability.'
And that, too, is more than I'm going to work to demonstrate. What I will do is make an off the cuff assertion. (This is a forum, not an academic journal.) And people can either tell me I'm full of it, or that they agree, or something in between.

There are a lot of things it is worth the effort to prove, but this isn't one of them. I'm already sorry we've spent so much time on it, and I definitely appreciate your alternative explanations as they may be truer than my own.




And as I said, this weariness, if it exists, has grown over time, possibly from over-familiarity. And because it hasn't always been this way, I give Conn the benefit of the doubt, not that it's necessary, as Conn just posted his thoughts.
Anyway, I hope both gentlemen continue to appear, with one another or others. I just hope Conn stops using gales of laughter as a form of argument, and stops treating Bill with what, at least to me, seems like disrespect.

look
05-19-2008, 05:34 PM
And that, too, is more than I'm going to work to demonstrate. What I will do is make an off the cuff assertion. (This is a forum, not an academic journal.) And people can either tell me I'm full of it, or that they agree, or something in between.

There are a lot of things it is worth the effort to prove, but this isn't one of them. I'm already sorry we've spent so much time on it, and I definitely appreciate your alternative explanations as they may be truer than my own.





Anyway, I hope both gentlemen continue to appear, with one another or others. I just hope Conn stops using gales of laughter as a form of argument, and stops treating Bill with what, at least to me, seems like disrespect.
Thanks for your thoughts, and welcome to the board.

:)

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 05:35 PM
I don't know Robert Foley, do you have a link? I think Matt Duss from the DV yesterday with Eli would be good. He pushed back quite a bit.

By the way, I found the Alter/Shlaes diavlog where they each discuss their FDR books:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/370

I think whatfur might be referring to Robert Farley of Lawyers, Guns and Money (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/).

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 05:50 PM
Thanks for your thoughts, and welcome to the board.

:)

Thank you! :D

look
05-19-2008, 05:54 PM
I think whatfur might be referring to Robert Farley of Lawyers, Guns and Money (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/).

He would be good, too.

Whatfur
05-19-2008, 08:11 PM
Yes...of course...Farley. Sorry.

And I am fairly new here so maybe I have not seen any degradation in the meetings between these too. I actually enjoy them while also enjoying the "mixing it up" with Amanda and Ari they recently employed also.

And I don't mind Carroll responding sometimes in utter disbelief accompanied by a little laughter sometimes either. Criticism of that by someone whose recent post directed at me where he jumped in a day late and context short while piling on started with "ROFL" ...followed by a post directed at me that was laughable in its oversight...is a bit disingenuous

Look...thanks for the link.

Big Wayne
05-19-2008, 11:20 PM
Glenn Greenwald talks about the pernicious liberal influence at the liberal Washington Post:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/17/parker/index.html

I love the parts about how Obama lacks the proper "bloodlines" to be president, hint hint. My favorite is when she uses the pages of one of the most prestigious papers in the world to say that Barack Obama and John Edwards are a couple of wussy faggots.

Thank you, liberal media!

graz
05-20-2008, 12:04 AM
Criticism of that by someone whose recent post directed at me where he jumped in a day late and context short while piling on started with "ROFL" ...followed by a post directed at me that was laughable in its oversight...is a bit disingenuous

Stop your whining... Big Wayne (that's what you call him - right?) hit the nail on the head.
On that day you ran away from answering the posts as you do on most days.
Your excuses and deflections aren't fooling anyone.
As Clint Eastwood said: " A man's got to know his limitations."
When will you say hello to yours?

Best Regards
Your funny friend

Big Wayne
05-20-2008, 01:40 AM
Matt Yglesias weighs in on the evil liberal media:


Don't Vote for the Half-Breed
19 May 2008 05:08 pm

Somebody sent me this Kathleen Parker column (http://jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker051408.php3) a few days ago all outraged and I scanned it and didn't quite get the outrage. Here's the lede:

That's how 24-year-old Josh Fry of West Virginia described his preference for John McCain over Barack Obama. His feelings aren't racist, he explained. He would just be more comfortable with "someone who is a full-blooded American as president."

When I read this in a fog, not realizing who Parker was, I just assumed that was a set-up for a column about racist opposition to Barack Obama and skipped past the rest. But no! Parker is endorsing Fry's allegedly non-racist sentiments here. And yet, how could sentiments get any more clearly racist than by making explicit references to alleged deficiencies in Obama's bloodlines? Parker later cashes out the concept more thoroughly as "It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots." Again, blood equity? Heritage? That's not racist code words, she's just saying directly that Obama lacks the appropriate ancestry to be President and also that in virtue of his ancestry he's probably lazy.

Jon Chait notes (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/19/obama-versus-the-true-volk.aspx)the similarity to some traditional tropes of anti-semitism, "a device that's historically been used to deny the possibility that rootless, cosmopolitan Jews can be full members of a society." More broadly, it nicely dovetails with the anti-immigrant sentiment currently blossoming on the right as we learn that people with unduly recent roots abroad lack what it takes for full-bloodedness. How disgusting.


Conservatives are so precious.

Whatfur
05-20-2008, 10:44 AM
graz,

Go through the previous posts, and you will see I ran from nothing, not to mention addressing it immediately when I got back.

More piling on by the little girl who once again adds nothing to the discussion and who wouldn't have the balls to say anything close to me in person. Its good that these blogs give you the ability to imagine what its like to be a man much less a big man.

Bill Scher
05-20-2008, 03:03 PM
Big Wayne is obviously not my biggest fan and I hold out no hope of winning him over, but I do want everyone to know that I do not hate Bill at all and I'm pretty sure he doesn't hate me either.
As someone who grew up in Oakland, California I have many high school friends I still see on a regular basis who are just as liberal and opinionated as Bill is. Having good honest disagreements with someone does not mean you hate them ... most of the time it just makes you respect them more.

I like Conn too!

handle
05-20-2008, 08:09 PM
graz,

Go through the previous posts, and you will see I ran from nothing, not to mention addressing it immediately when I got back.

More piling on by the little girl who once again adds nothing to the discussion and who wouldn't have the balls to say anything close to me in person. Its good that these blogs give you the ability to imagine what its like to be a man much less a big man.

Graz is a girl? Then she probably wouldn't have balls... <insert Ann Coulter joke here, apologies to Mickey>

The man with a filter (Bush colored glasses?) provides valuable insight into the thread title:
Re: The Week in Blog: Conservative Crackup

First we get an overbearing Whatfur, then he's defensive, then belligerent, THEN he's a victim. You get piled on because you are an arrogant bushie.
I don't like entitled clueless granola crunchers either. when are we going to find the middle in this country and use some common sense?
ex. : Why don't I like the bush war? $5000 a minute that's why! What else do you need? Thank bush it lowered gas prices though ......

P.S. mood swings are a symptom of MANipause! Sorry folks, whutfur started the playgound stuff...

graz
05-20-2008, 08:43 PM
I don't like entitled clueless granola crunchers either. when are we going to find the middle in this country and use some common sense?


I do like me some steel-cut Irish oatmeal and soy milk in the mornin'.

I can't say that I honestly know what the middle means. I don't mind extremes, or passion, but I do value clarity, concision and an ability to try on for size that true test of intelligence: The ability to hold two opposing strains of thought in mind simultaneously. This isn't schizoid - it is the basis for understanding and honesty.

handle
05-20-2008, 08:51 PM
Sorry graz, I didn't mean you, I just meant the opposite extreme from whatfur.
I wouldn't lump anyone that quotes Eastwood in with the radical socialist crowd.

The far left as well as the far right are creating an political climate in which opportunists (i.e. bush-cheney) step in, and rob us of our rights, our money, our sons and daughters and our worldwide respect as a country.

graz
05-20-2008, 08:57 PM
Sorry graz, I didn't mean you, I just meant the opposite extreme from whatfur.
I wouldn't lump anyone that quotes Eastwood in with the radical socialist crowd.

Thanks, I really didn't take it to heart, but after posting I found something that ought to make DT jump up and post:
http://www.yale.edu/opa/campus/2005_freshman/20050827_salovey.html

P.S. It might be a slog for those not fond of homework and such.
But I suggest a nice Chianti and fava beans if not some white wine and Brie. Because a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.

handle
05-20-2008, 09:33 PM
Nice address...
I also threw this in the last post:
"The far left as well as the far right are creating an political climate in which opportunists (i.e. bush-cheney) step in, and rob us of our rights, our money, our sons and daughters and our worldwide respect as a country."

I hold both parties equally responsible, I hope we CAN start to move toward less partisan thinking, but the multiple viewpoints in my mind all involve stopping the hemmoraging. I am leaning, as a first step, towards putting down the knife.

graz
05-20-2008, 09:58 PM
I hold both parties equally responsible, I hope we CAN start to move toward less partisan thinking, but the multiple viewpoints in my mind all involve stopping the hemmoraging. I am leaning, as a first step, towards putting down the knife.

My sense is that the thinking will stay far apart. Sound governance will be a result of numerical power combined with effective leadership. No weapons are necessary, but fights will remain. If the solutions to stanching the blood flow include compromises (votes) that are bipartisan, fine. But the goals you stated can be equally shared by opposing party members that otherwise stand apart on many issues.

Whatfur
05-20-2008, 10:55 PM
Graz is a girl?
...



Handle,

wHen I was typing my nOte to graz about him juMping in, piling On, and adding nothing while adding he is just the type of person the internet is made for and then saw you do the same (once again) it hit me that maybe you two were made for eachother (http://www.gaythugdating.com).

Sorry I embarrassed you so thoroughly in that earlier diavlog that you feel the need to continuously follow me around and take pot shots.

Get over it.

AemJeff
05-20-2008, 11:10 PM
Damn, dude... taunting? Will you now blow raspberries in their general direction?

thouartgob
05-21-2008, 12:17 AM
The "Southern Strategy" is and always was a canard.
You could look it up.
Requires you exit your echo chamber though.

Hey look what I found

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

mmm whats inside ?

"In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to methods of winning elections in the South in the latter decades of the 20th century by exploiting racial anxiety among white voters.

Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Richard Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[1] but merely popularized it.[2] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."[3]

While Phillips was concerned with polarizing ethnic voting in general, and not just with winning the white South, this was by far the biggest prize yielded by his approach. Its success began at the presidential level, gradually trickling down to statewide offices, the Senate and House, as legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP"

what else

"Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Prof. Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******.".[12] "


Just in case you believe Bob Herbert to be a liar ( race hustler, appeaser, yada yada ...)

Following the 2004 re-election of President George W. Bush, in which few African Americans voted for Bush and other Republicans, Ken Mehlman, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee and Bush's campaign manager, delivered several speeches at meetings with African-American business, community, and religious leaders in which he apologized for his party's use of the Southern Strategy in the past. Said Mehlman, "By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."[17]

Well Ken dresses too well so you can't trust him.

Obviously a quick once through wikipedia doesn't imply ontological certitude but it hints that there might have been something like a southern strategy floating around.

Whatfur
05-21-2008, 12:21 AM
Just messing with them. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KPZnlTcwvw)

Are you here to pile on too? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH3vvXi8k8M)

thouartgob
05-21-2008, 12:21 AM
This ironically showed up about Lee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#Atwater_apologizes

Atwater issued a number of public and written letters to individuals to whom he had been opposed during his political career, including Dukakis. In a letter to Tom Turnipseed dated June 28, 1990, he stated, "It is very important to me that I let you know that out of everything that has happened in my career, one of the low points remains the so called 'jumper cable' episode," adding, "my illness has taught me something about the nature of humanity, love, brotherhood and relationships that I never understood, and probably never would have. So, from that standpoint, there is some truth and good in everything."[6]

In a February 1991 article for Life Magazine, Atwater wrote:

My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The '80s were about acquiring -- acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn't I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn't I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don't know who will lead us through the '90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul.

handle
05-21-2008, 01:05 AM
Handle,

wHen I was typing my nOte to graz about him juMping in, piling On, and adding nothing while adding he is just the type of person the internet is made for and then saw you do the same (once again) it hit me that maybe you two were made for eachother (http://www.gaythugdating.com).

Sorry I embarrassed you so thoroughly in that earlier diavlog that you feel the need to continuously follow me around and take pot shots.

Get over it.



didja see that? he spelled HOMO! CLEVER HATE MONGER! I thought graz was a girl... make up your mind.
You were on the diavlog? I thought you were just a helpless poster on the forum that all the meanies were "piling on" pooooor you. Big girls don't cry whatfur.

I'm following you 'cause I want a bushie pay for posts job like you.

AemJeff
05-21-2008, 01:21 AM
Just messing with them. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KPZnlTcwvw)

Are you here to pile on too? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH3vvXi8k8M)

Do you see me piling on? I'm afraid I'm going to get a reputation as a wannabe hall-monitor - something I really have no use for. I obviously don't have a problem with a good fight - I get into plenty of them. But I try to argue without getting pissed off (which is not to say that never happens.) But I think good advice for everybody is stick to talking about what's been said, schoolyard taunts are just boring - that goes for your opponents, as well as you. This is a good forum, I don't want to see it get buried in inanity.

graz
05-21-2008, 01:22 AM
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/_NEW/x_dc_obama_brush_080417.300w.jpg

bjkeefe
05-21-2008, 07:46 AM
graz:

Well played!

Whatfur
05-21-2008, 08:18 AM
Whoda guessed that Brendan, even after apologizing for his misguided post would get back into it...wouldn't want to feel left of out the little tea party.

Nice group.

Notice how conservatives seldom feel the need to hop on a "little girl" pile on.

Pretty funny stuff.

p.s. concerning my "bold"ness...if the handle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KPZnlTcwvw) fits.

bjkeefe
05-21-2008, 08:41 AM
Notice how conservatives ...

tend to be excessively whiny and thin-skinned. Yes, I agree. Complaining about my "piling on" for giving a nod to graz for a clever response to your tantrums is a fine example of this.

As I said before, Whatfur, you're far more likely to be addressed in a polite and respectful tone when you offer one yourself. I challenged you to try to put up a few posts free of personal insults. You can't or won't do that. So stop feeling sorry for yourself when you get some in return.

Whatfur
05-21-2008, 09:39 AM
Whatever Brenden...projection has alway been a tool of the left.

Face it, this is your life, and you just like to dance with the rest of the little girls (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsWpvkLCvu4) here as it fulfills your need for belonging.

Happy Hominid
05-21-2008, 04:05 PM
If for no other reason, I now like Bill.

handle
05-21-2008, 04:43 PM
Whatever Brenden...projection has alway been a tool of the left.

Face it, this is your life, and you just like to dance with the rest of the little girls (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsWpvkLCvu4) here as it fulfills your need for belonging.

This is an embarrassment to conservatives. The extreme right and the extreme left speak for small minorities, thank god. (leave my god alone, whatfur if you please) Fascism is not conservative.
I could do a much better job of defending your point of view, because I am not in denial about my hate or anger, or the fact that the bush-cheneys are carpetbaggers, who are out out lie cheat and steal us out of our dignity, security, and our constitutional form of government, Or my gayness? Pretty sure I'm not, but if whatfur wants to call me that, then it's OK with me. What kind of conservative gets behind all this and more? A fox news watching redneck! My neck is a little red too, but I know BS when I smell it. Turn off the fox and the rush and think for yourself, if I can do it so can you!
See ya... I'm following you to the next thread! This is fun! yeee ha!

Whatfur
05-21-2008, 06:31 PM
This is an embarrassment to conservatives. The extreme right and the extreme left speak for small minorities, thank god. (leave my god alone, whatfur if you please) Fascism is not conservative.
I could do a much better job of defending your point of view, because I am not in denial about my hate or anger, or the fact that the bush-cheneys are carpetbaggers, who are out out lie cheat and steal us out of our dignity, security, and our constitutional form of government, Or my gayness? Pretty sure I'm not, but if whatfur wants to call me that, then it's OK with me. What kind of conservative gets behind all this and more? A fox news watching redneck! My neck is a little red too, but I know BS when I smell it. Turn off the fox and the rush and think for yourself, if I can do it so can you!
See ya... I'm following you to the next thread! This is fun! yeee ha!

OMG...what the hell are you talking about. Ha! Guess I struck a nerve. I suggest you take a Midol.

handle
05-21-2008, 06:34 PM
I'm just trying to help you become transcendent, or leave, which ever comes first!

handle
05-21-2008, 06:59 PM
Or get me a job posting for $ like yours, I need the money 'cause your oil prez.
is killing me at the gas station. and the piggly wiggly, and the 7-11, and oh yea, he sent my nephew who signed up in the national guard to guard some other persons nation, where it's 110 degrees in the shade and just about everyone there want to kill him. Thank god they don't have any WMDs!
That's right I'm angry, and I know who's really screwing me over, do you?
Wanna call my nephew a girl? do ya? They have girls over there too 'ya know how do you think they would feel about you using their gender as an insult?
you hit a lotta nerves with me but not 'cause you call me names, but because you give all of us a bad name.

piscivorous
05-21-2008, 10:15 PM
Or get me a job posting for $ like yours, I need the money 'cause your oil prez.
is killing me at the gas station. and the piggly wiggly, and the 7-11, and oh yea, he sent my nephew who signed up in the national guard to guard some other persons nation, where it's 110 degrees in the shade and just about everyone there want to kill him. Thank god they don't have any WMDs!
That's right I'm angry, and I know who's really screwing me over, do you?
Wanna call my nephew a girl? do ya? They have girls over there too 'ya know how do you think they would feel about you using their gender as an insult?
you hit a lotta nerves with me but not 'cause you call me names, but because you give all of us a bad name.Jesus even the NY Times is figuring it out Operation in Sadr City Is an Iraqi Success, So Far (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/world/middleeast/21sadr.html) almost.

Whatfur
05-21-2008, 11:24 PM
Wanna call my nephew a girl?

Nope just you and those like you and as far as your nephew... I would thank him for his service and tell him how sorry I was for him to have to put up with the stigma of having such an embarrassment for an uncle, .... your boyfriend Keith Olbermann labels him a cold blooded killer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7rUHpRg1Ik). Maybe your PMS type rant is a little misdirected.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 07:17 AM
Jesus even the NY Times is figuring it out Operation in Sadr City Is an Iraqi Success, So Far (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/world/middleeast/21sadr.html) almost.

Ah. Once again, an appealing tree has been selected while ignoring a largely diseased forest.

For a tree of a different sort, you might have a listen to this (http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail3576.html).

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 09:00 AM
Ah. Once again, an appealing tree has been selected while ignoring a largely diseased forest.

For a tree of a different sort, you might have a listen to this (http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail3576.html).I guess that Mr Wright is only seeing the trees (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11236?in=00:35:56&out=00:36:12) at this point.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 09:04 AM
I guess that Mr Wright is only seeing the trees (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11236?in=00:35:56&out=00:36:12) at this point.

Nice appeal to authority, but it fails to convince me that Iraq is going well just because someone else points out the same tree.

The only positive thing that can be said for sure about the Iraq situation is that it's not as bad as it was when it was at its worst in terms of violence. Even that's not particularly impressive, since much of that is as much due to completion of ethnic cleansing and ongoing bribery of the various militias as it is to anything else.

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 09:43 AM
Nice appeal to authority, but it fails to convince me that Iraq is going well just because someone else points out the same tree.

The only positive thing that can be said for sure about the Iraq situation is that it's not as bad as it was when it was at its worst in terms of violence. Even that's not particularly impressive, since much of that is as much due to completion of ethnic cleansing and ongoing bribery of the various militias as it is to anything else.I don't really consider Mr. Wright an authority on the situation in Iraq, more like an ostrich with his head in the sand that has finally reared it's head and noticed the real world around him. "...it's not as bad as it was when it was at its worst..." now that is a real piece of Malthusian logic.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 10:13 AM
"...it's not as bad as it was when it was at its worst..." now that is a real piece of Malthusian logic.

You'll have to elaborate on that term if you expect me to take you seriously. What does a hypothesis about population growth and food-growing technology have anything to do with the Iraq quagmire?

And did you listen to the link I offered on the electricity situation?

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 10:18 AM
You'll have to elaborate on that term if you expect me to take you seriously. What does a hypothesis about population growth and food-growing technology have anything to do with the Iraq quagmire?

It sounds good, that's what.

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 10:20 AM
You'll have to elaborate on that term if you expect me to take you seriously. What does a hypothesis about population growth and food-growing technology have anything to do with the Iraq quagmire?

And did you listen to the link I offered on the electricity situation?

I think Matt Yglesias has the definitive response (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/352?in=00:38:33&out=00:41:00) to Pisc's eternal hopefulness:

David Brooks has discovered that if we stay in Iraq forever, or not forever, but indefinitely. If we just stay month after month, dozens of Americans will die this month, dozens will die the next month, dozens will die the next month. This will be done at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, it will perpetually raise the prospect of some kind of international incident with the Iranians and so on and so forth, it will shred out credibility all around the world, lead to more Al Qaeda terrorism, so on and so forth.

But, if we just keep our troops there forever at enormous expense, then at some point in time, Iraq will be a non-disintegrated society, and then I, David Brooks, will never need to admit that my advocacy of this was a mistake, and that my apologetics in favor of [the war were mistaken].

Six months ago, when I was saying this surge was a great idea, I was wrong. I was wrong a year before that, about the latest thing. And that in fact consistently for years, I have been coming up with new and new and new rationales for why we can't leave Iraq. Each time they prove false, but look, I'm a clever guy, so I can spin out a new one.

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 10:27 AM
But then again Mr Yglesias thinks Senator Obama is another President Carter (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/only_time_will_tell.php) so what does he know!

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 10:29 AM
It sounds good, that's what.

Yeah, it smacked of throwing around a fifty-cent term in lieu of an actual argument to me, too. I notice Pisc has already changed the subject.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 10:32 AM
But then again Mr Yglesias thinks Senator Obama is another President Carter (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/only_time_will_tell.php) so what does he know!

Boy, Pisc, that's a stretch, even for you. Matt does not think Obama is Carter. He is merely expressing a moment of dark speculation -- a worst-case scenario.

But, hey, I know you love them cherries, so keep right on pickin' 'em.

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 10:33 AM
Boy, Pisc, that's a stretch, even for you. Matt does not think Obama is Carter. He is merely expressing a moment of dark speculation -- a worst-case scenario.

But, hey, I know you love them cherries, so keep right on pickin' 'em.

Was I just mistaken when I initially had the impression that Pisc was remotely serious and honest?

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 10:39 AM
Was I just mistaken when I initially had the impression that Pisc was remotely serious and honest?

I don't think he's unserious or dishonest. I do think he's so driven by certain beliefs that he's got a selection bias in his choice of supporting evidence and viewpoints, and/or is so determined to "win" that he's not above using the kitchen sink approach.

Well, maybe there's a touch of dishonesty in ever refusing to acknowledge that the opposing argument has more merit. I dunno. Depends on your definition of "dishonest," I guess.

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 10:44 AM
I don't think he's unserious or dishonest. I do think he's so driven by certain beliefs that he's got a selection bias in his choice of supporting evidence and viewpoints, and/or is so determined to "win" that he's not above using the kitchen sink approach.

Well, maybe there's a touch of dishonesty in ever refusing to acknowledge that the opposing argument has more merit. I dunno. Depends on your definition of "dishonest," I guess.

I don't think his insistence that George Bush is God or that the surge is working is dishonest, so I'll agree with you there. But his saying that the LA Times confirmed the story that Obama had to be restrained when he lost his temper cannot possibly be construed as anything but outright lying. It could have been a careless mistake, but he was given a chance to correct it, and refused. I don't know how the conclusion that he's a willfull liar can be avoided.

I don't know if you saw that thread....

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 11:07 AM
I don't know if you saw that thread....

I did, but I'd hesitate to call that lying. It seemed to me that it could as easily have been another instance of reaching for supporting evidence and interpreting it only in a way that bolsters the sought-after conclusion. In short, spin.

I do agree that when you pointed out the error in his argument, it would have been more classy him to acknowledge that. I guess after long experience, I tend to treat his silence and subject changing as doing this implicitly. More a case of being dishonest by omission than commission, in other words -- not admirable, but less than an outright lie.

YouppiMontreal
05-22-2008, 11:11 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7iiZlb_Yzzo

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 11:33 AM
I did, but I'd hesitate to call that lying. It seemed to me that it could as easily have been another instance of reaching for supporting evidence and interpreting it only in a way that bolsters the sought-after conclusion. In short, spin.

I do agree that when you pointed out the error in his argument, it would have been more classy him to acknowledge that. I guess after long experience, I tend to treat his silence and subject changing as doing this implicitly. More a case of being dishonest by omission than commission, in other words -- not admirable, but less than an outright lie.

But it wasn't omission or silence, it was continuing insistence through to the end of the discussion that the LA Times story confirmed that Obama was physically restrained. The LA Times confirmed no such thing. And Pisc knows it.

Even the execrable NRO admitted as much.

I don't know about you, but I think Swift Boating needs to be challenged. When hacks and liars post their slimely untruths on forums, they need to be called out, not comforted and excused. I don't understand the instinct to create more room for Pisc to Swift Boat Obama with his lies.

I think Kerry's failed campaign amply demonstrates the problem with ignoring, excusing, and tolerating liars.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 11:41 AM
Big Wayne:

I can't disagree with any of that, especially the necessity of swiftly debunking the Swiftboat-style attacks.

I guess I just have trouble calling someone a liar. It's a very serious accusation in my book, and I hesitate to bandy it about when we're talking about partisans talking politics. To me, most of what Pisc throws out there I'd call unmerited extrapolation, cherry-picking the data, mistaking the trees for the forest, FUD-spreading, excessive spin, and like that. But your case is pretty solid here.

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 11:42 AM
Took me awhile to get 50+minutes to listen to it. It is good assessment of the trials and tribulations of trying to rebuild/upgrade/replace the electrical infrastructure in Iraq. He covered many arguments I have mentioned in previous comments here. Antiquated technology, availability of spare parts, maintenance, constant setbacks due to insurgency/criminal attacks on the infrastructure etc. I was surprised to hear his take on the gas turbine vs steam plant construction because I have read a couple of different articles talking about new plants being built that had 3 year time spans to completion , primarily in a negative light, decrying that it was going to take much longer to bring them on line due to security concerns and costs. It was also news to me that the transition to Iraqi ownership of the transmission reconstruction effort, I had not seen anything on this prior.

I was also surprised to hear the demand side of the issue addressed, as it is so often ignored when the issue is presented by the MSM and pundits. He confirms that avg electrical production now surpasses the pre-war production and that demand has skyrocketed so production still lags demand. His take on the free nature of electricity in Iraq, leading to the blossoming demand, was a argument I found interesting.

All in all it was 50+ minutes that was well spent. Confirmed much of what I knew and thought and added some unique perspectives as well.

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 11:46 AM
Big Wayne:

I can't disagree with any of that, especially the necessity of swiftly debunking the Swiftboat-style attacks.

I guess I just have trouble calling someone a liar. It's a very serious accusation in my book, and I hesitate to bandy it about when we're talking about partisans talking politics. To me, most of what Pisc throws out there I'd call unmerited extrapolation, cherry-picking the data, mistaking the trees for the forest, FUD-spreading, excessive spin, and like that. But your case is pretty solid here.

Yeah, I hear you. And I agree that it's a serious charge. I've read a lot of Pisc's posts and never identified anything before I would call lying. That's why I was genuinely baffled and dismayed by his treatment of the LA Times story.

If I had to guess, and maybe I'm just being kind, I'd say Pisc made a careless and stupid mistake, and then (despite his age) refused to admit it.

I had a hard time admitting I'd made mistakes until probably my 30's. But at some point, you have to grow up and recognize that people will have more respect for you if you just frankly state, "I goofed."

This is a lesson Bush never learned, and apparently neither has his acolyte, Pisc. The effect is they both look stupid and dishonest.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 11:53 AM
BW:

Can't disagree with that, either.

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 11:54 AM
I just found this post by Jay Ackroyd:

Morality
Posted by Jay Ackroyd

I went to see Rick Perlstein talk about Nixonland at a book signing last night.

At one point he noted that in private communication in 1966, Nixon said the Vietnam War couldn't be won. And yet he spent the next 7 years Red-baiting anybody who said so, and, once in office, let literally millions of people be killed rather than lose the wedge it made between Democratic voters.

Lying the entire time.


Millions of people dead so Republicans could have a weapon to bash Democrats.

The parallels to our current affairs.

And don't forget: All this is done by the "pro life" party, the party of "Christian values."

People are so easily fooled.

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 11:57 AM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When Mr Yglesias returns to the heady years of 1976-1977 that can only be a reference to President Carter. When he admits his on shilling for President Carter that is a reference to President Carter. "A new president from the outside promising change, and a new bumper crop of "watergate class" members of congress ready to shake things up. But it all went to shit" is clearly a reference to the failed term of President Carter.
So while you may dismiss, out of blindness or partisanship, and deny the linkage in this post to President Carter and the liberal dream that fell short is ludicrous. Perhaps this should be a good place to insert the "denier" label and up the dialog level.

handle
05-22-2008, 04:04 PM
So what is the national guard for anyway? Obviously not disaster relief anymore. What about the women in service? What about my job? You can save your liberal hate rant, in case you haven't figured it out, I'm your worst nightmare, a conservative with a brain. I told you I don't like the left either. But you just ignore anything that makes you look bad. If you don't want to appear ignorant I suggest you wise up, get civil, or take it back out on the playground where you picked up this behavior.

handle
05-22-2008, 04:16 PM
Jesus even the NY Times is figuring it out Operation in Sadr City Is an Iraqi Success, So Far (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/world/middleeast/21sadr.html) almost.

$5000 per minute, gas is ~$4/ gal., a six month operation turned into six years.
If they really suspected WMD's, wouldn't it be kinda bad strategy to campaign right through the middle of the country? Are you guys gonna give up when we are all broke? I doubt it.

handle
05-22-2008, 04:43 PM
Nope just you and those like you and as far as your nephew... I would thank him for his service and tell him how sorry I was for him to have to put up with the stigma of having such an embarrassment for an uncle, .... your boyfriend Keith Olbermann labels him a cold blooded killer. Maybe your PMS type rant is a little misdirected.
Wait, are you saying I'm gay or a girl? You are mixing your hate-speak and in a conflicting manner. I bet even Bill O'rielly knows better than to make that mistake.

PS I'm pretty sure Keith Olbermann didn't start the war, so how was my rant misdirected?

bjkeefe
05-24-2008, 08:31 PM
Plug for "Human Smoke":

I promise any BHeads viewer that this book will reveal a lot to you about WWII that you never knew and illuminate what you thought you did know well. It's a paradigm-shifter. Definitely on my top-five list of books all Americans should read.

You may be interested in reading Christopher Hitchens's review (http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2008/05/war-baker-churchill-british) of "Human Smoke."

(Hint: he didn't much like it.)

(h/t: Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/extreme-pacifis.html))

Wonderment
05-24-2008, 09:35 PM
(Hint: he didn't much like it.)

Why am I not surprised?

Wonderment
05-24-2008, 09:52 PM
And thanks for the heads up. I have posted my comment (http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2008/05/war-baker-churchill-british)on the site:

Mr. Hitchens, like other reviewers before him, has failed to understand Baker's book and dismisses it as a pacifist collage. "Human Smoke" is not ideological, and Baker does not endorse any particular positions. There is no reason to read the Gandhi quote as a Baker endorsement of Gandhi's view. Baker simply illustrates how conflict escalates and how opportunities for peace are often squandered. It is an important and enlightening book, and I urge readers to have a look for themselves and not be dissuaded by those reviewers with an axe to grind and an intellectual biography to defend.

bjkeefe
05-24-2008, 10:12 PM
Wonderment:

Good response. I don't want to say much at the moment, since I have not actually read this book (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ajonswift.blogspot.com+%22I+have+no t+actually+read+this+book%22).

I did think you'd be interested in Hitch's review, and I'm glad you found it worth your time (ire?). It's probably safe to say that Hitch is in general more of a hawk then I am, but as you know, I'm not of the impression that WWII could have been avoided.

I do want to read Baker's book, though, and then you and I can debate it.

Wonderment
05-24-2008, 10:53 PM
I do want to read Baker's book, though, and then you and I can debate it.

Great! I'm really looking forward to it.

Wonderment
05-24-2008, 10:58 PM
"I have not actually read this book."

Hilarious! (http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2006/11/jon-swifts-complete-amazon-reviews.html)