PDA

View Full Version : This is a big "f-ing" deal.


Wonderment
04-05-2010, 10:16 PM
Tomorrow the Obama administration's NPR (Nuclear Posture Review) will be released. Nuclear abolition activists have been waiting for this document for eight years, since the Bush administration's version in 2002.

NY Times reports here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?pagewanted=2&hp).

WAPO here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/05/AR2010040504174.html?hpid=topnews)

If you think a nuclear bomb going off might have a significant impact on your life, this is something to pay attention to.

Discuss!

bjkeefe
04-05-2010, 10:25 PM
Tomorrow the Obama administration's NPR (Nuclear Posture Review) will be released. Nuclear abolition activists have been waiting for this document for eight years, since the Bush administration's version in 2002.

NY Times reports here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?pagewanted=2&hp).

Thanks for the reminder. From earlier in the article, I have to say, this hopey-changey stuff sounds like it's working out pretty well for us all:

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons, even in self-defense.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

(That gushing sound you just heard was the simultaneous release of one million wingnut sphincters.)

WAPO here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/05/AR2010040504174.html?hpid=topnews)

If you think a nuclear bomb going off might have a significant impact on your life, this is something to pay attention to.

Discuss!

I'm about out of gas, so I'll have to read these two articles more carefully tomorrow. Thanks again.

P.S. Looking forward to a diavlog on this from Jackie Shire and that guy she used to talk nukes with.

listener
04-05-2010, 10:33 PM
Tomorrow the Obama administration's NPR (Nuclear Posture Review) will be released. Nuclear abolition activists have been waiting for this document for eight years, since the Bush administration's version in 2002.

NY Times reports here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?pagewanted=2&hp).

WAPO here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/05/AR2010040504174.html?hpid=topnews)

If you think a nuclear bomb going off might have a significant impact on your life, this is something to pay attention to.

Discuss!

Why are you wasting our time bringing this up? We have far more important things to worry about -- eliminating restrictions on offshore drilling, the AGW hoax, illegal immigrants, Negroes running around in the White House...

http://aisaacademy.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ostrich-large.jpg

Whatfur
04-06-2010, 08:24 AM
Not really. Pixie dust and Unicorns.

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 09:08 AM
[...] (That gushing sound you just heard was the simultaneous release of one million wingnut sphincters.)

As predicted (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/matt_drudge_celebrates_12th_year_of_living_off_the _monica_scoop/).

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 10:05 AM
(That gushing sound you just heard was the simultaneous release of one million wingnut sphincters.)

As predicted (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/matt_drudge_celebrates_12th_year_of_living_off_the _monica_scoop/).

Should have thought to check Memeorandum. But Thers remembered (http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2010/04/not-in-my-airforce.html), and picked out a few of the dampest examples.

Here is a screen shot (http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/3599/bedwetters.png) of how it now stands (http://www.memeorandum.com/100405/p104#a100405p104):

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/3599/bedwetters.png

And yes, if you're wondering, that "Erick's blog" link points to a post by Important CNN Pundit The GHEMRotRSTF, whose post (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/04/06/obamas-dangerous-game-continues/) is headlined "Obama’s Dangerous Game Continues," begins by linking back to four (4!) of his earlier posts howling about how the Seekrit Muslin-in-Chief is determined to surrender to everyone, goes on to ask, "How many Americans are going to die because of the Obama administration’s incompetent handling of our national security?," continues with "capitulation and waving a white flag for our enemies," "to the left of Jimmy Carter," "It is one thing to have a wimp in office. It is another thing to admit it.," and then turns into a sputterfest of repetition:

This policy is the coming home of the sixties radical left agenda of pacification in the face of our enemies and capitulation of a strong America. Bill Ayers is a happy man today. His man in the White House is doing for him what he never could himself.

How many Americans will get killed because of this administration’s incompetence or intentional capitulation of our national security?

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 10:21 AM
Should have thought to check Memeorandum. But Thers remembered (http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2010/04/not-in-my-airforce.html), and picked out a few of the dampest examples.

[...]

And yes, if you're wondering, that "Erick's blog" link points to a post by Important CNN Pundit The GHEMRotRSTF ...

In the spirit of preparing ourselves for what lies ahead, some more gleanings from that Memeorandum link. To no surprise at all, they're all pretty much howling off the same page:

Dan Riehl (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/04/obamcgovern-send-us-your-tired-your-poor-your-chemical-and-biological-weapons.html):

ObaMcGovern: Send Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Chemical And Biological Weapons

You're freaking kidding me, right? This, while Putin is in Venezuela making nice with Hugo Chavez? This is our response?

Screw Carter, it's George McGovern time, now. We can't get this weakling out of the WH fast enough.

Jammie Wearing Fool (http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/04/wonderful-obama-plans-to-limit-our.html):

Wonderful: Obama Plans to Limit Our National Defense Capability

It really seems as if this regime intends to leave America as weak and defenseless as possible. I've really got to question the motivation here.

The highly appropriately named Scared Monkeys (http://scaredmonkeys.com/2010/04/06/obama-looks-to-limit-united-states-use-of-nuclear-weapons-even-in-self-defense/):

Welcome to Obamanation …

What will Obama create a new incentive program for Nukes as he did with cash for clunkers, because that worked so well. Because US national security is so over-rated. As we all know peace through weakness works wonders. Or is it peace through nuance.

What exactly is President Hussein Obama’s motivation here? How dangerous is this President for America? This President is now bordering, actually he has now gone over the line, on doing things intentionally that would weaken and harm the United States.

Obama now wants to revamp American nuclear strategy to substantially limit the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. Are you serious? So much for National Security and protecting and defending the US Constitution. In the dangerous times we live in, what type of message does it send to the World that the US is weak and looks for appeasement?

And though it borders on nut-picking, there are, believe it or not, still quite a few people who take Pamela Geller (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/04/nobamas-nuclear-posture-poser-review-no-nukes-even-in-if-hit-with-chemicalbio-weapons-gd-help-us.html) seriously, so be advised that they're now thinking this:

NOBAMA'S "NUCLEAR <strike>POSTURE</strike> POSER REVIEW": NO NUKES, EVEN IN SELF DEFENSE OR IF HIT WITH CHEMICAL/BIO WEAPONS ... G-D HELP US

Obama says to our enemies, bring it on, we won't fight ya -- leaving us bare naked vulnerable like a virgin slipped a Rohypnol on her first date with a Chicagoland gangsta.

Obama is removing nuclear defense at a time when Iran's devout mullahcracy is building their nuclear arsenal with the global objective of a universal caliphate.

He is leaving America flailing in the hostile wind. Was there ever a more frightful time in American history? Seriously? -- Yes, there were very dangerous periods (Civil War, WW1, WW2), but always the steward of this great nation was a great American, a patriot, a freedom lover, an American. This low life despises this country and the whole idea of the first moral nation in human history.

His cover in this subversive new suicide pact is "making the world a nuclear free zone." Who does this asshat think he's kidding? What despot will ever be disarmed of their power? What evil dictator has ever surrendered that which made him strong? This punk is going to destroy us.

The hustler in the White House is setting us up. This isn't a new strategy, this is surrender. And the New York Times lap dog reporting is pure Walter Duranty.

[Added] And always check Don Surber (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/11878), who for reasons passing understanding is paid by a major newspaper to write what he does. Here, he features a picture of Obama bowing to the Japanese emperor and his wife (remember that fauxtrage fest from a few months ago?), and then headlines, "Surrenderer-in-chief." It gets stupider from there, and though the lede does not involve Bill Ayers, it does involve Jeremiah Wright.

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 10:56 AM
In the spirit of preparing ourselves for what lies ahead, some more gleanings from that Memeorandum link. To no surprise at all, they're all pretty much howling off the same page: [...]

However, there are some voices of sanity. B'head Spencer Ackerman, for example, has a couple (http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2010/04/06/it-sure-was-a-great-idea-to-stay-out-drinking-the-night-before-the-nuclear-posture-review-was-released/) of posts (http://washingtonindependent.com/81448/when-not-to-use-nuclear-weapons) up that bear a read.

I especially liked this bit from the first:

Besides, if you read my Friday piece previewing the Nuclear Posture Review (http://washingtonindependent.com/81306/administration-to-signal-shift-away-from-a-nuclear-future), you know all the important provisions. Even the explicit abandonment of a nuclear reprisal for a non-nuclear attack that’s getting all the attention this morning (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?partner=rss&emc=rss) flows effortlessly from a central shift in strategy I reported Friday (http://washingtonindependent.com/81448/when-not-to-use-nuclear-weapons?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter): recognizing that the nuclear threat against the U.S. is from proliferation, not merely a nuclear-armed enemy. And once you accept that the danger comes from nuclear weapons themselves, as Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association told me, “That would implicitly eliminate from the roles and missions [any] potential use of nuclear weapons to fight a conflict that begins as conventional or to counter chemical or biological forces.”

Now, you might say to yourself: That’s cutting edge thinking for, I guess, 1993. And you’d be right! But this is nuclear-weapons policy. It’s a frigate shipwrecked on a barrier reef made of oil, tar, superglue and sugarless gum from the sidewalk. You have to wage rhetorical battle for years to move it a centimeter. Cable pundits and opposition leaders freak out about anything nuclear, as if recognizing that we’re not ever going to use these weapons unless we’re hit with them first actually erodes our deterrent. I submit the more important deterrent aspect of what the NPR will say comes from its embrace of bolstering conventional forces — what Adm. Mullen has taken to calling “conventional global-strike capability.” That stuff? Oh, we’ll use that.

You can call it apologetics on my part, but when you’re faced with a juvenile debate, sometimes the bolder policy statements reflect where the outer poles of the debate were a decade ago. Reading that back, I’m struck with the cynicism of that statement, so maybe I need to get out of Washington for a bit. But I regretfully think it’s true, and go forth to find a Discman.

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 11:48 AM
However, there are some voices of sanity. B'head Spencer Ackerman, for example, has a couple (http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2010/04/06/it-sure-was-a-great-idea-to-stay-out-drinking-the-night-before-the-nuclear-posture-review-was-released/) of posts (http://washingtonindependent.com/81448/when-not-to-use-nuclear-weapons) up that bear a read.

I especially liked this bit from the first: [...]

B'head Conn Carroll, writing on the Heritage Foundation's official blog, in the category "Protect America," stands in stark opposition to Spencer's calm; e.g.,

Unfortunately for Americans, President Obama’s new strategy will have the exact opposite result of its intended effect. Instead of incentivizing countries to give up nuclear ambitions, it creates new incentives for them to maintain or develop their own nuclear programs. First look at the Russians, ...

... and ...

A country like Iran is equally unimpressed with President Obama’s unilateral disarmament strategy. Tehran wants to be the pre-eminent power in the Middle East, and as a nuclear state it can more credibly make that claim. But more importantly, nuclear weapons would also boost the current regime’s domestic survival. Nuclear powers do not mess in the internal affairs of other nuclear powers. Witness Tiananmen Square. The ayatollahs believe that, when they have the bomb, they can crush the freedom-loving opposition with total impunity. They are counting the days.

... and ...

Rather than serve as an example for other nation’s to follow, President Obama’s nuclear weakness will only give America’s enemies every incentive to advance their own programs. The President’s arms control “road” is more likely to lead to a new arms race, rather than to “zero.”

So ...

To provide some stark reality to the Obama administration’s dreams of a nuke-free world, The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute’s Center for Defense Studies are hosting a Conservative Counter Summit to Question the Obama Nuclear Agenda.

If you want links to that, visit Conn's post (http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/06/morning-bell-the-road-to-a-new-nuclear-arms-race/). Me, I'll be on the phone with my broker, directing him to buy more Depends stock.

uncle ebeneezer
04-06-2010, 12:47 PM
I would check these posts out but I can't reach my mouse while I'm hiding under my bed.

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 01:09 PM
And yes, if you're wondering, that "Erick's blog" link points to a post by Important CNN Pundit The GHEMRotRSTF, whose post (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/04/06/obamas-dangerous-game-continues/) is headlined "Obama’s Dangerous Game Continues," begins by linking back to four (4!) of his earlier posts howling about how the Seekrit Muslin-in-Chief is determined to surrender to everyone, goes on to ask, "How many Americans are going to die because of the Obama administration’s incompetent handling of our national security?," continues with "capitulation and waving a white flag for our enemies," "to the left of Jimmy Carter," "It is one thing to have a wimp in office. It is another thing to admit it.," and then turns into a sputterfest of repetition:

More GHEMRotRSTF (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/04/06/one-more-thought-about-obamas-new-nuclear-policy/)! (And more repetition!)

One more thought about Obama’s new nuclear policy

Doesn’t this new nuke policy, which puts Obama even to the left of Carter, just mean every regime out there is going to be rushing out to weaponize small pox?

After all, if they can take out a million of us with a bug or chemical instead of investing all the time, talent, and treasure into a nuclear weapons infrastructure *AND* they won’t in turn get nuked if they just use small pox, why the hell not?

This is truly a debt relief program for third world rogue nations.

Wonderment
04-06-2010, 05:06 PM
Now, you might say to yourself: That’s cutting edge thinking for, I guess, 1993. And you’d be right! But this is nuclear-weapons policy. It’s a frigate shipwrecked on a barrier reef made of oil, tar, superglue and sugarless gum from the sidewalk. You have to wage rhetorical battle for years to move it a centimeter.

That's a good point. In general, I think it's really important to filter out the right wing noise on this one and take the NPR as a sign of glacial centrist progress. I really doubt that Obama's political enemies will get much traction here, since it's an issue no one pays attention to anyway, and he has the support of the smart Pentagon players.

The real opportunity to hurt Obama on international affairs will be on Afghanistan. But we already knew that quagmire would be his eventual undoing.

On the glass half full end of the NPR, this is a vast improvement over Bush-Cheney. On the glass half empty end, it's a clear sign that Obama was not really serious about abolishing nukes. Just lofty rhetoric. Perhaps the kind of thing he'll work on when he's no longer president (and it's too late).
The serious guys are -- I shudder to admit this -- hawks like Kissinger, Perry, Nunn and Shultz. I hope they hold a press conference to critique the NPR. It will be interesting to see to what extent they support and praise it.

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 05:33 PM
More GHEMRotRSTF (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/04/06/one-more-thought-about-obamas-new-nuclear-policy/)! (And more repetition!)

The red-faced at RedState are still (http://www.redstate.com/haystack/2010/04/06/peddling-pacifism-in-a-violent-world-obama-takes-the-ultimate-bow/) furiously posting Obama bowing pictures!

But how long will it be until they hear about Republican Senator Tom Coburn (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/04/republican-senator-explains-why-parting.html) and declare him the next target of Operation Leper (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/11/surge-purge.html)?

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 05:35 PM
On the glass half full end of the NPR, this is a vast improvement over Bush-Cheney. On the glass half empty end, it's a clear sign that Obama was not really serious about abolishing nukes.

Ah, crap. Thinking Obama could abolish nukes is itself not serious. This is definitely a time for thinking glass half full. And I'd say it's appreciably more than half full, especially when compared to what's come before it over the past, oh, quarter-century. This is reality, as Spackerman pointed out. This is what's doable, right now, and it should be viewed as another good step.

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 05:43 PM
The red-faced at RedState are still (http://www.redstate.com/haystack/2010/04/06/peddling-pacifism-in-a-violent-world-obama-takes-the-ultimate-bow/) furiously posting Obama bowing pictures!

But how long will it be until they hear about Republican Senator Tom Coburn (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/04/republican-senator-explains-why-parting.html) and declare him the next target of Operation Leper (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/11/surge-purge.html)?

Oh, wait. Spoke too soon. RedStater retiretherinos says (http://www.redstate.com/retiretherinos/2010/04/06/tom-coburn-jumps-the-shark/):

Tom Coburn Jumps the Shark!

Tom Coburn once my second favorite senator, behind Jim Demint has jumped the shark. [...] Shame on Coburn. Coburn has joined the go along and get along Republicans that are unwilling to fight as hard as the Real Conservatives to save the country. It is Republicans like Coburn and Graham that put up tepid opposition to the Marxists in Washington.

Tom Coburn is a useful idiot for the rats at Politico and the rest of the media. If Coburn wants to be Obama and Pelosi’s buddy, he can do it as a former senator. I am tired of wimpy Republicans like Coburn and Bob Inglis trying to liked in Washington by taking shots at Fox News. I hope Coburn realizes how stupid he sounds. I hope Tom Coburn is voted out in favor of a Real Conservative. I no longer trust Tom Coburn as a Conservative and I believe he is just another Corrupt Loser Republican that has to go in 2010. Coburn is a fake. He has Jumped the Shark and will never be considered a good conservative in my book again. I hope the C Street and Ensign investigations ends Coburn’s career. Retire Coburn!

listener
04-06-2010, 05:59 PM
Oh, wait. Spoke too soon. RedStater retiretherinos says (http://www.redstate.com/retiretherinos/2010/04/06/tom-coburn-jumps-the-shark/):

Well I have to agree with retiretherinos on one point:

I hope the C Street and Ensign investigations ends Coburn’s career.

:D

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 06:07 PM
Well I have to agree with retiretherinos on one point:

:D

Oh, sure. Coburn's been near the top of my list for people I'd most like to see retire since before he took office. But for the RedStaters to turn on him this quick ... I mean, the guy scores (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=22085&type=category&category=17) in the high 90s according to just about every conservative group out there.

listener
04-06-2010, 06:10 PM
Oh, sure. Coburn's been near the top of my list for people I'd most like to see retire since before he took office. But for the RedStaters to turn on him this quick ... I mean, the guy scores (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=22085&type=category&category=17) in the high 90s according to just about every conservative group out there.

Yes, and I understand that was your point in quoting mr. r. therinos in the first place. Perhaps someone should start a new thread, "Republicans devour their young."

TwinSwords
04-06-2010, 06:28 PM
Here's a visual representation of just how extreme Coburn is:

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8370/ideologicaldistribution.png

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 06:35 PM
Yes, and I understand that was your point in quoting mr. r. therinos in the first place.

In case it's not clear, I believe that handle is supposed to be read as "retire the RINO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RINO)s."

Perhaps someone should start a new thread, "Republicans devour their young."

Feel free, of course, although we kinda already have one (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3773) on that theme.

listener
04-06-2010, 06:37 PM
Here's a visual representation of just how extreme Coburn is:


Interesting chart. I couldn't see from it what exactly was being measured and by what criteria, though. Can you explain?

uncle ebeneezer
04-06-2010, 06:40 PM
the go along and get along Republicans

Now THAT is priceless!! I didn't realize there was enough LSD on the planet to create such an "altered" perspective...unbelievable.

listener
04-06-2010, 06:41 PM
In case it's not clear, I believe that handle is supposed to be read as "retire the RINO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RINO)s."

Yes, I just liked the way "therinos" looked -- you know, pointing to some possible Greek heritage there...



Feel free, of course, although we kinda already have one (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3773) on that theme.

Yes, I can see how my proposed topic could be included within the scope of that thread. But you know, there haven't been enough people creating new threads in this section, especially lately.

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 06:48 PM
Yes, I can see how my proposed topic could be included within the scope of that thread. But you know, there haven't been enough people creating new threads in this section, especially lately.

By all means, go right ahead. Although as far as "Republicans eating their young" goes, that larder's already been picked pretty clean (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/11/map-of-day.html), I'd say.

;)

listener
04-06-2010, 06:54 PM
By all means, go right ahead. Although as far as "Republicans eating their young" goes, that larder's already been picked pretty clean (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/11/map-of-day.html), I'd say.

;)

Pretty dramatic little map you got there, fella. It will be interesting to see how it looks in 2 years.

But you know, there haven't been enough people creating new threads in this section, especially lately.

In case it's not clear, that was supposed to be a joke. ;)

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 10:12 PM
Pretty dramatic little map you got there, fella. It will be interesting to see how it looks in 2 years.

Place yer bets. Mine: the only thing the Dems have to worry about with the youngs is getting them to turn out.

In case it's not clear, that was supposed to be a joke. ;)

Okay. I thought it was a legitimate point in a serious vein, though.

listener
04-06-2010, 10:33 PM
Place yer bets. Mine: the only thing the Dems have to worry about with the youngs is getting them to turn out.

Yer probably right, but gettin' them young'uns to turn out may be no small thing to worry about (oy, these kids today!).

listener
04-06-2010, 11:10 PM
Oh, wait. Spoke too soon. RedStater retiretherinos says (http://www.redstate.com/retiretherinos/2010/04/06/tom-coburn-jumps-the-shark/):

Tom Coburn once my second favorite senator, behind Jim Demint has jumped the shark. [...] Shame on Coburn. Coburn has joined the go along and get along Republicans that are unwilling to fight as hard as the Real Conservatives to save the country. It is Republicans like Coburn and Graham that put up tepid opposition to the Marxists in Washington.

Tom Coburn is a useful idiot for the rats at Politico and the rest of the media. If Coburn wants to be Obama and Pelosi’s buddy, he can do it as a former senator. I am tired of wimpy Republicans like Coburn and Bob Inglis trying to liked in Washington by taking shots at Fox News. I hope Coburn realizes how stupid he sounds. I hope Tom Coburn is voted out in favor of a Real Conservative. I no longer trust Tom Coburn as a Conservative and I believe he is just another Corrupt Loser Republican that has to go in 2010. Coburn is a fake. He has Jumped the Shark and will never be considered a good conservative in my book again. I hope the C Street and Ensign investigations ends Coburn’s career. Retire Coburn!

Just got this (http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/3281-gop-senator-defends-pelosi-calls-fox-news-biased) via Chris Matthew's show.

Turns out that Coburn IS a wimpy Republican who takes shots at Fox News, after all (and shamefully is manful enough to defend a nice lady's honor)!

(Or did you already link to this story and I missed it?)

TwinSwords
04-06-2010, 11:17 PM
Interesting chart. I couldn't see from it what exactly was being measured and by what criteria, though. Can you explain?
I downloaded this chart several months ago, but if I recall correctly, it shows the ideological distribution (liberal to conservative) of United States Senators serving in the 111th Congress, based on all non-unanimous votes cast until the point the chart was made -- 373 votes, per the chart's heading.

Specter is highlighted (and listed twice) because the chart was published with an article showing how Arlen Specter had moved to the left after switching to the Democratic Party.

bjkeefe
04-06-2010, 11:18 PM
[...] (Or did you already link to this story and I missed it?)

I linked to a different one which said much the same thing, but not to worry.

Meanwhile, Jim Newell's coverage (http://wonkette.com/414689/tom-coburn-tells-town-hall-that-nancy-pelosi-is-nice-lady-and-to-ignore-fox-news-wingnuts-furious) of this earth-shattering event is now available. It is worth it for the last line alone (but don't only read that, or it won't be nearly as funny).

listener
04-06-2010, 11:19 PM
I downloaded this chart several months ago, but if I recall correctly, so I don't remember the details of the methodology, but basically it shows the ideological distribution (liberal to conservative) of United States Senators serving in the 111th Congress, based on all non-unanimous votes cast until the point the chart was made -- 373 votes, per the chart's heading.

Specter is highlighted (and listed twice) because the chart was published with an article showing how Arlen Specter had moved to the left after switching to the Democratic Party.

And if my memory serves, the horizontal line through each Senator's dot indicates the range of their votes, from most liberal to most conservative. You'll note that the Democrats tend to have wider bands, while Republican votes are condensed into a much tighter range.

Thanks for the clarification.

TwinSwords
04-06-2010, 11:33 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

Sure.

BTW: I have removed the last paragraph of my previous post (the one about the horizontal line intersecting each dot), because (based on some quick googling) I now realize that the line actually represents the 95% credible interval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_interval).

I also fixed the previous post's horribly mangled syntax. :-\

And, if you are interested, here (http://jackman.stanford.edu/ideal/s111/x1.pdf) is the latest version of the chart, with data included for the first months of 2010. (The previous chart showed all votes from 2009.)

Wonderment
04-07-2010, 02:02 AM
This is what's doable, right now, and it should be viewed as another good step.

I think doable right now might include renouncing first strike. Hair-trigger alert is another very troubling issue, as are nuke warheads remaining in Europe.

Still, there is progress.

Politically, the disturbing part is that the door is left open to nuking Iran (or NK). By not de-legitimizing first strike we also leave the door open for Israel to preemptively nuke Iran.

The political issues, however, may be better dealt with during the Nonproliferation Treaty talks at the UN. That's where rogue nuclear states like Iran, Israel and North Korea will be conspicuous. Then, there's non-NPT signatories India and Pakistan to worry about.

bjkeefe
04-07-2010, 09:39 AM
I think doable right now might include renouncing first strike. Hair-trigger alert is another very troubling issue, as are nuke warheads remaining in Europe.

Still, there is progress.

Politically, the disturbing part is that the door is left open to nuking Iran (or NK). By not de-legitimizing first strike we also leave the door open for Israel to preemptively nuke Iran.

The political issues, however, may be better dealt with during the Nonproliferation Treaty talks at the UN. That's where rogue nuclear states like Iran, Israel and North Korea will be conspicuous. Then, there's non-NPT signatories India and Pakistan to worry about.

With the disclaimer that I haven't yet informed myself well enough on the details (e.g., I think the hair-trigger part is not quite right, but I'm not sure), I think I agree with your overall tone here.

FWIW, it appears that the NYT's editorial board does, too -- they give Obama a qualified approval, think (wish) he should have gone farther, acknowledge the domestic political hurdles. A pretty good read (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/opinion/07wed1.html).

bjkeefe
04-07-2010, 09:42 AM
Yer probably right, but gettin' them young'uns to turn out may be no small thing to worry about (oy, these kids today!).

There's no may about it. This is an is. Sadly, we have spent at least since the Nixon years hammering our young people with the view that the notion of public service is a crock, that the political process is irretrievably corrupt, etc. Hard to blame them for being cynical or apathetic.

kezboard
04-07-2010, 09:42 AM
leaving us bare naked vulnerable like a virgin slipped a Rohypnol on her first date with a Chicagoland gangsta.

Chicagoland?
Is Pam Geller hedging because she knows that no gangsta actually from Chicago would do such a thing, but if he were from Naperville, say, or Itasca...?

bjkeefe
04-07-2010, 09:44 AM
Chicagoland?
Is Pam Geller hedging because she knows that no gangsta actually from Chicago would do such a thing, but if he were from Naperville, say, or Itasca...?

LOL! I read right over "Chicagoland." In fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard that word before.

I wish I knew enough about those two towns you listed to be sure I got the joke, but I have a sense you zinged her pretty good, nonetheless.

kezboard
04-07-2010, 10:05 AM
Interesting that West Virginia came out red. I was under the impression that WV is usually in play during presidential elections, and all the other states on the map are ones that totally aren't. I wonder why that is.

bjkeefe
04-07-2010, 10:33 AM
Interesting that West Virginia came out red. I was under the impression that WV is usually in play during presidential elections, and all the other states on the map are ones that totally aren't. I wonder why that is.

Good question.

To hazard a guess, maybe WV has an unusually large outflux among its 18-29 year-old population? It does appear (e.g. (http://www.prb.org/Articles/2003/WhichUSStatesAretheOldest.aspx), e.g. (http://www.crmw.org/newsletter/newsarticles/archived/StatesWithTheOldestPopulationsApril06.htm)) that WV is one of the "oldest" states.

kezboard
04-07-2010, 11:02 AM
To be fair, the map doesn't give any indication of how close it was either in WV or any of the other states, and the fact that the southern states that are red are Georgia and Louisiana is a bit surprising to me too (Arkansas not so much), but whatever -- I don't know much about Southern demographics and am a member of the "whistling past Dixie" school of thought on Democratic strategy in any case.

bjkeefe
04-07-2010, 11:26 AM
To be fair, the map doesn't give any indication of how close it was either in WV or any of the other states, ...

Yeah. I was thinking before that for all we know, a lot of those states broke 51-49 or something. I think the overall map says something, but I agree that we can't say from it much about individual states.

... and the fact that the southern states that are red are Georgia and Louisiana is a bit surprising to me too (Arkansas not so much), but whatever -- I don't know much about Southern demographics ...

Nor do I.

... and am a member of the "whistling past Dixie" school of thought on Democratic strategy in any case.

Not me. I'm a big fan of Dean's "50-state" strategy. I have long felt this was the correct approach for several reasons: (a) We have to learn from the right that patience and long-term building pays off, (b) I doubt that the "solid South" is really as solid as all that, especially if you can make it clear to the voters on how many issues, the Dems' platform is better for them, and (c) if nothing else, in the short term, contesting states that would seem to be a lock for the Republicans forces them to spend resources where they might have thought it unnecessary. Why give your opponent a gimme?

listener
04-07-2010, 11:29 AM
LOL! I read right over "Chicagoland." In fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard that word before.

I wish I knew enough about those two towns you listed to be sure I got the joke, but I have a sense you zinged her pretty good, nonetheless.

"Chicagoland"... you know, it's one of those Disney theme park attractions, like Tomorrowland or Discoveryland.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/HKDL_Tomorrowland_Logo.jpg

kezboard
04-07-2010, 11:36 AM
"Chicagoland" just means "the Chicago metropolitan area" and is used mostly in advertisements on television to say stuff like "Auto Zone...now with three new Chicagoland locations!"

bjkeefe
04-07-2010, 12:47 PM
"Chicagoland" just means "the Chicago metropolitan area" and is used mostly in advertisements on television to say stuff like "Auto Zone...now with three new Chicagoland locations!"

Ugh. I remember living in Los Angeles and hating when those same sorts of people said "the Southland."

bjkeefe
04-07-2010, 04:29 PM
(That gushing sound you just heard was the simultaneous release of one million wingnut sphincters.)

Fortunately, we have Fox News (http://wonkette.com/414703/obama-nuclear-decision-was-clearly-just-to-watch-conservatives-lose-it) to calm them down.

listener
04-07-2010, 04:41 PM
Fortunately, we have Fox News (http://wonkette.com/414703/obama-nuclear-decision-was-clearly-just-to-watch-conservatives-lose-it) to calm them down.

Thank God.

But really, between this and SkepticDoc's post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=158069&postcount=1) in the Palin thread, I'm preparing for imminent Armageddon. Any minute now, if not sooner.

TwinSwords
04-08-2010, 01:02 AM
Interesting that West Virginia came out red. I was under the impression that WV is usually in play during presidential elections, and all the other states on the map are ones that totally aren't. I wonder why that is.
It's racism.

West Virginia is the heart of the Appalachian belt that runs diagonally from southern New York state, through PA, WV, KY ... well, here's a map of the Appalachian region:

http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/899/250px_Appalachian_region_of_United_States.gif

The Appalachian region is one of the (if not the) most racist in the nation. Which is why it can elect a good old southern white boy, Clinton, but would not vote for Obama.

There were some stunning maps illustrating the racial correlation to voting in the Appalachian belt during the 2008 campaign, which I don't have time to dig up now, but this map shows that Hillary's best performance in the primaries was in the Appalachian region.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/2552781113_c360457f54.jpg

Hillary = Red ; Obama = Blue

claymisher
04-08-2010, 01:31 AM
Was this the one you were thinking of?

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/330-from-pickin-cotton-to-pickin-presidents/

TwinSwords
04-08-2010, 01:40 AM
Was this the one you were thinking of?

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/330-from-pickin-cotton-to-pickin-presidents/

No, however I've seen that map, too, (and others like it that correlate regions that had high slave populations to high levels of Republican voting; the correlation is uncanny).

The maps I was referring to (published during the Democratic primaries of 2008) showed an extremely distinct belt running straight through Appalachia, with West Virginia right at its heart, correlating votes against Obama with the boundaries of the Appalachian region. Again, the correlation was quite striking.

Here's one map (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/the_mccain_belt.php) that helps illustrate the point: regions of the country where Republicans performed better in 2008 than they did in 2004.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/mccain.jpg

TwinSwords
04-08-2010, 01:45 AM
Here's a post on the subject (http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-and-appalachia-its-gone-but-it.html), with more maps.

Wonderment
04-08-2010, 03:23 AM
Prompt Global Strike (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040704920.html?hpid=topnews) -- the new deterrent:

The administration has asked Congress for $240 million for next year's Prompt Global Strike development programs, a 45 percent increase from the current budget. The military forecasts a total of $2 billion in development costs through 2015 -- a relative bargain by Pentagon standards.

Florian
04-08-2010, 03:38 AM
Prompt Global Strike (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040704920.html?hpid=topnews) -- the new deterrent:


Hmmm... this is beginning to look like what the French call "la politique de gribouille"

Gribouille is a character of folklore, a rash idiot who rushes into one mess to escape another.

bjkeefe
04-08-2010, 10:56 AM
Hmmm... this is beginning to look like what the French call "la politique de gribouille"

Gribouille is a character of folklore, a rash idiot who rushes into one mess to escape another.

I don't think that's at all fair. The first thing to say is that this is an unmitigated good: it's another step in the move away from nuclear weapons, and we should be happy about that, as we should this morning's news about Obama and Russian President Medvedev signing another nuclear arms pact (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/world/europe/09prexy.html?pagewanted=all).

The second thing is to recall Spencer Ackerman's wise words (quoted at greater length elsewhere (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=157844#post157844) in this thread) ...

But this is nuclear-weapons policy. It’s a frigate shipwrecked on a barrier reef made of oil, tar, superglue and sugarless gum from the sidewalk. You have to wage rhetorical battle for years to move it a centimeter.

... and to acknowledge US domestic political realities. The Republicans have used "DEMOCRATS SOFT ON NATIONAL SECURITY!!!1!" as a club for decades now, and Obama's efforts are going to be painted, every step of the way, as "further proof" of this. See here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=157841#post157841) for examples, and see the article linked to above for more.

Yes, of course, we three, and many others, would prefer that we not spend yet more billions on weapons. But politics, especially in a democracy, is always the art of the possible. The worst you can legitimately say about Obama in this realm, I think, is that he is not moving as fast as we might like. But it is flat-out wrong to call him "rash," or "an idiot," or to say that he is "rushing into [another] mess."

Ultimately, if we spend $2 billion on non-nuclear weapons, and in return, get some Republican support for ratifying treaties with Russia, I'd call it a cost of doing business, and well worth the price.

Florian
04-08-2010, 01:22 PM
Yes, of course, we three, and many others, would prefer that we not spend yet more billions on weapons. But politics, especially in a democracy, is always the art of the possible. The worst you can legitimately say about Obama in this realm, I think, is that he is not moving as fast as we might like. But it is flat-out wrong to call him "rash," or "an idiot," or to say that he is "rushing into [another] mess."

Ultimately, if we spend $2 billion on non-nuclear weapons, and in return, get some Republican support for ratifying treaties with Russia, I'd call it a cost of doing business, and well worth the price.

Sorry, my explanation was unclear. A "politique de gribouille" refers more to the policy than to the person. It doesn't mean that the politician is a rash idiot, only that the policy is rash and foolish.

From the article Wonderment cited, I would say that the policy may have unfortunate, unintended consequences---which is what "politique de gribouille" usually means.

bjkeefe
04-08-2010, 01:35 PM
Sorry, my explanation was unclear. A "politique de gribouille" refers more to the policy than to the person.

Okay.

It doesn't mean that the politician is a rash idiot, only that the policy is rash and foolish.

I might go along with the latter, but I still disagree with the former.

From the article Wonderment cited, I would say that the policy may have unfortunate, unintended consequences---which is what "politique de gribouille" usually means.

And I'll still stick with my view that, like it or not, this is part of what's required to make progress on reducing nuclear weapons.

Wonderment
04-08-2010, 02:27 PM
One of the problems as I see it is that Obama is doing battle with the Pentagon's most entrenched hawks.

But all the entrenched hawks who no longer have political axes to grind are now anti-nuke supporters. Who could be more hawkish than Nunn, Kissinger, Perry and Baker? Those four believe a world with nukes in it is intolerably dangerous and that we must move faster to abolish them.

I see the dilemma for Obama. BUt if he's really serious about abolishing nukes he will get more done in his tenure. The problem with the NPR is that it cements our policy for 8 - 10 years, making further progress all the more difficult.

bjkeefe
04-08-2010, 02:42 PM
One of the problems as I see it is that Obama is doing battle with the Pentagon's most entrenched hawks.

But all the entrenched hawks who no longer have political axes to grind are now anti-nuke supporters. Who could be more hawkish than Nunn, Kissinger, Perry and Baker? Those four believe a world with nukes in it is intolerably dangerous and that we must move faster to abolish them.

I see the dilemma for Obama. BUt if he's really serious about abolishing nukes he will get more done in his tenure. The problem with the NPR is that it cements our policy for 8 - 10 years, making further progress all the more difficult.

This is a different argument than the one we've been having in this sub-thread -- whether non-nuclear missiles that can strike quickly at any spot on the globe are a bad thing.

That said, I agree with you about Nunn, etc. Just got my DVD (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/01/yeah-so-here-is-some-dfh-talking-about.html) in the mail, as a matter of fact. But another way of saying "no longer have political axes to grind" is "no longer have as much political clout." We have to deal with the hawks, plus the money interests, that currently hold power.

I don't know enough about the NPR to say whether I agree that it cements our policy for as long as you say it does, but even if I accept it, I don't think it means the end of work that could continue to be done on nuclear weapons problems. For example, while we might have a policy that we don't much care for about when we'll use these weapons in some remote contingency, we might well keep moving forward on what seem like more immediate problems; e.g., securing existing weapons, reducing the risk of accidental launch, and cutting down the number of weapons in existence.

Wonderment
04-08-2010, 03:02 PM
This is a different argument than the one we've been having in this sub-thread -- whether non-nuclear missiles that can strike quickly at any spot on the globe are a bad thing.

The program shows you a couple of things:

1) The greed and adaptability of the military-industrial-congressional complex is infinite. If we can't do nukes, no problem: we'll figure out how to spend gazillions on more "palatable" WMDs. As long as we keep squandering resources on weapons systems (large and small arms that end up in the hands of murderers everywhere), we're cool.

2) US military hegemonists will never go away. We need a pardigm shift away from militarism in order to make the world safe from wars waged by the US and its allies. That's a job for educators -- just as racism, homophobia, environmentalism and world poverty are.

3) Political questions remain paramount. As Russia continues to decline in power, the "enemy" focus has shifted to new conflicts. We're all in danger of a world war -- in which nuclear temptations may be irresistible no matter what the current rules are (short of abolition) -- until we resolve these conflicts justly. While the Obama administration greatly improves US diplomacy, especially when compared to its criminally insane predecessor, the model of the US leading the world based on its military power is a deeply flawed one. We need reduced US influences and, in general, better models of conflict resolution.

bjkeefe
04-08-2010, 03:11 PM
[...]

Can't argue with any of that, though I will say once again that correct and admirable as the goals that you state are, attention still must be paid to how we pursue them, and what the realities of the short-term calculations are.

bjkeefe
04-08-2010, 03:49 PM
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (http://twitter.com/PressSec/status/11825980420) (via (http://wonkette.com/414725/will-republicans-try-to-block-nuke-treaty-if-they-love-america-yes)):

DC's next test - last 3 Senate votes on arms reduction treaties: INF 93-5 ('88), START I 93-6 ('92), & SORT 95-0 ('03) = bipartisan test

If you're interested, PDFs of the text of the treaty (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf) and the protocol (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140047.pdf) are available. (via (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/04/unclear-as-of-now-if-senate-will-have-votes-to-ratify-new-disarmament-treaty.html))

Earlier reporting from the NYT here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/world/europe/09prexy.html).

bjkeefe
04-08-2010, 05:48 PM
... and what the realities of the short-term calculations are.

And speaking of realities, here's a particularly ugly one: "Independent" "Democrat" Holy Joe Lieberman (http://wonkette.com/414728/joe-lieberman-shut-up-jesus-christ).

Why isn't he campaigning for his bff, the EX-Maverick, in Arizona?

Wonderment
04-08-2010, 06:44 PM
Can't argue with any of that, though I will say once again that correct and admirable as the goals that you state are, attention still must be paid to how we pursue them, and what the realities of the short-term calculations are.

Fair enough. Almost.

I think that in order to really move toward disarmament and an end to militarism we have to acknowledge some difficult truths. Getting over ourselves as the champions of truth, justice and democracy (by the sword) is high on the list. Obama probably gets this. Given his bio he couldn't really possibly believe in American Exceptionalism, could he?. But I think other post-Vietnam presidents (Clinton and Carter) also got it. When they put on the mantle of Commander-in-Chief, however, they enter the "matrix" and become characters in the ongoing loony movie.

The Iraq War was a criminally insane adventure concocted by sadists, sociopaths and zealots -- a crusade. The nation-building project in Afghanistan is almost as crazy. (Does anyone on Earth really believe it's about allowing Afghan girls to go to school or defeating Al Qaeda?)

So what I'm saying is that short-term progress in arms control has to be seen within the context of a larger pathology. It's like HIV before we discovered effective medications against the virus. You'd treat Kaposi's sarcoma here, pneumonia there; and then something else would pop up, leading to eventual death.

bjkeefe
04-08-2010, 06:53 PM
[...]

Sorry. Don't much buy any of that.

bjkeefe
04-08-2010, 08:16 PM
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (http://twitter.com/PressSec/status/11825980420) (via (http://wonkette.com/414725/will-republicans-try-to-block-nuke-treaty-if-they-love-america-yes)):

DC's next test - last 3 Senate votes on arms reduction treaties: INF 93-5 ('88), START I 93-6 ('92), & SORT 95-0 ('03) = bipartisan test

If you're interested, PDFs of the text of the treaty (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf) and the protocol (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140047.pdf) are available. (via (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/04/unclear-as-of-now-if-senate-will-have-votes-to-ratify-new-disarmament-treaty.html))

Earlier reporting from the NYT here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/world/europe/09prexy.html).

How does George W. Bush feel about all this? Mxrk might have the answer. (http://mxrk.net/redphone/2010/4/8/62-strange-love.html)

bjkeefe
04-08-2010, 08:36 PM
And speaking of realities, here's a particularly ugly one: "Independent" "Democrat" Holy Joe Lieberman (http://wonkette.com/414728/joe-lieberman-shut-up-jesus-christ).

Why isn't he campaigning for his bff, the EX-Maverick, in Arizona?

Also on the what we're up against front: Dave Weigel (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/liz_cheney_obama_should_stop_d.html) got a copy of the speech Liz Cheney is planning to deliver tonight, at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. Worth a look, in the know thine enemy spirit.

Also, he just tweeted (http://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/11851054179):

Liz Cheney says Netanyahu won't attend Obama nuclear summit: Huge applause. #srlc

bjkeefe
04-08-2010, 09:29 PM
[...]

Also, he just tweeted (http://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/11851054179):

Liz Cheney says Netanyahu won't attend Obama nuclear summit: Huge applause. #srlc

More on Bibi's decision here (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-uk-nuclear-summit-israel.html).

bjkeefe
04-09-2010, 10:17 AM
Peter Feaver, who was was on the NSC staff under Clinton Bush, says it's not a big effing deal:

A calm reading of the document shows that the changes in terms of doctrine aren’t nearly as epochal as the White House would have us believe or its critics would have us fear.

A pretty good neutral analysis (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/opinion/09feaver.html?pagewanted=all).

popcorn_karate
04-09-2010, 01:48 PM
Sorry. Don't much buy any of that.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty


modern repukes make Reagan look so sane and reasonable

Wonderment
04-09-2010, 02:31 PM
modern repukes make Reagan look so sane and reasonable

Reagan was passionate about the abolition of nukes -- perhaps more so than Obama. The hawks and paranoics in his administration (notably Richard Perle who would later flourish as an Iraq War criminal mastermind) talked him down.

New nuclear hawks are having a similar influence on Obama -- urging caution, slo mo.

Obama also has the disadvantage of being perceived as a liberal "sissy socialist." If he had Reagan's warlord right-wing war lord credibility, he could probably go farther.

bjkeefe
04-09-2010, 09:52 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty


modern repukes make Reagan look so sane and reasonable

Thanks for that link. Once again, Jon Stewart helps keep me sane in the face of Fox's utter lies.

I wonder if we will ever agree that we have to figure out a policy for an organization broadcasting shit that is so willfully dishonest under the label "news." I hate to encroach upon free speech, so I have no idea what we should do (apart from continued attempts at social shaming) but there is something just so fundamentally harmful and wrong about selling that swill to the mouthbreathers.

bjkeefe
04-09-2010, 10:54 PM
Thanks for that link. Once again, Jon Stewart helps keep me sane in the face of Fox's utter lies.

I wonder if we will ever agree that we have to figure out a policy for an organization broadcasting shit that is so willfully dishonest under the label "news." I hate to encroach upon free speech, so I have no idea what we should do (apart from continued attempts at social shaming) but there is something just so fundamentally harmful and wrong about selling that swill to the mouthbreathers.

Ask and ye shall receive, maybe. A good first step (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/04/09/all-the-news-that-is-fit-to-fact-check/), anyway. <-- (Jay Rosen fans, take note.)

listener
04-10-2010, 05:27 AM
Ask and ye shall receive, maybe. A good first step (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/04/09/all-the-news-that-is-fit-to-fact-check/), anyway. <-- (Jay Rosen fans, take note.)

Very cool! Looking forward to seeing how that works out.

popcorn_karate
04-10-2010, 07:40 PM
Thanks for that link. Once again, Jon Stewart helps keep me sane in the face of Fox's utter lies.

I wonder if we will ever agree that we have to figure out a policy for an organization broadcasting shit that is so willfully dishonest under the label "news." I hate to encroach upon free speech, so I have no idea what we should do (apart from continued attempts at social shaming) but there is something just so fundamentally harmful and wrong about selling that swill to the mouthbreathers.

i know, i'm torn in the same way - but of course I always land on the "no censorship" answer as the correct one.

i was thinking of the way facts and points of view are manipulated by the media and how it used to be pretty difficult to make a really clear case - it took something as was well done as "Manufacturing Consent" to make a lot of things explicit to me.

And now we have progressed to the way fox news does it - where it only takes a few short video clips to point out what is going on in a far more damning way than Chomsky achieved. Perhaps that is a good thing - the manipulation is so explicit and so easily exposed that it can only influence those that self-select for the manipulation. its pretty much impossible to believe that B.S. unless you choose to turn off your brain - in which case "facts" and "news" were never going to get in the way of your opinions anyway.

bjkeefe
04-10-2010, 09:50 PM
i know, i'm torn in the same way - but of course I always land on the "no censorship" answer as the correct one.

Yes, I think that has to be the fundamental guiding principle. Any prescription otherwise would inevitably be worse than the problem.

i was thinking of the way facts and points of view are manipulated by the media and how it used to be pretty difficult to make a really clear case - it took something as was well done as "Manufacturing Consent" to make a lot of things explicit to me.

And now we have progressed to the way fox news does it - where it only takes a few short video clips to point out what is going on in a far more damning way than Chomsky achieved. Perhaps that is a good thing - the manipulation is so explicit and so easily exposed that it can only influence those that self-select for the manipulation. its pretty much impossible to believe that B.S. unless you choose to turn off your brain - in which case "facts" and "news" were never going to get in the way of your opinions anyway.

The only problem I have is that the debunking is almost never seen by those who would benefit from it the most. But I suppose you're right -- people who watch Fox "because it's the only place I can get the truth without the liberal media filter" or whatever are beyond hope.

Maybe we could start an organization that would agitate to get all those public places that have Fox News on in, say, waiting rooms to show The Daily Show for a few minutes every hour.

Or even push the military to stop broadcasting Rush, Beck, etc., on Armed Forces Radio while simultaneously banning NPR.

TwinSwords
04-11-2010, 11:35 AM
Here's the map I was looking for the other day.

The purple counties are those that Hillary Clinton won with more than 65% of the vote (in the 2008 Democratic primaries):

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/images/appalachia2.jpg

The map was made before the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries, but Hillary went on to fill in most of West Virginia with purple: she won the state with 67% of the vote (to Obama's 25%). She also filled in most of the Appalachian counties in Eastern Kentucky with purple, having won many of them with overwhelming majorites: as high as 90%, in some cases, with Obama claiming 10% or less.

You can see detailed county-level voting results on the New York Times interactive map:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/

Josh Marshall has an interesting post that puts these results in historical perspective (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/194870.php).

bjkeefe
04-11-2010, 03:37 PM
[...]

And speaking of maps; these shown in the post "Welfare States (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/04/11/welfare-states/)" speak volumes, don't they?

[Added] More here (http://www.thefourthbranch.com/2010/04/government-spending/), at the source of the above, including a very interesting chart of contributions to the national debt.

listener
04-11-2010, 03:48 PM
And speaking of maps; these shown in the post "More here (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/04/11/welfare-statesWelfare States[/URL]" speak volumes, don't they?

[Added] [URL="http://www.thefourthbranch.com/2010/04/government-spending/), at the source of the above, including a very interesting chart of contributions to the national debt.

I've heard about the statistics indicated by those maps, but the maps make it very, well, graphic. Quite remarkable.

Ocean
04-15-2010, 10:41 PM
A moment of humor (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-14-2010/a-farewell-to-arms) about nuclear talks, Fox News and other stuff.

It is really funny.

:)

listener
04-15-2010, 10:52 PM
A moment of humor (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-14-2010/a-farewell-to-arms) about nuclear talks, Fox News and other stuff.

It is really funny.

:)

"Here it is, folks, your Moment of Humor..."

Actually, I was just watching it... and OMG, it was PDF (pretty darn funny -- well, pretty darn brilliant actually)! The whole show was another winner from JS & Co.