Whistle-Blowing Edition (Josh Cohen & Glenn Loury)

[Bloggingheads]

[Noahkgreen]

I am surprised that Cohen and Loury seem to have missed the entire point of Obama's Nobel speech, and all because they get fixated on the word 'evil'.

They argue that Obama's statement that there is evil in world shows that Obama believes the U.S. to be inherently just. Yet this is decidedly not Obama's point! Obama believes that the U.S. must restrain and be judicious in its power because it is capable of such great injustice!

Or, as the relevant quote from the speech goes:

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

I am saddened that Cohen and Loury have completely ignored this point and have instead, decided to be fixated on why the word 'evil' makes them profoundly uncomfortable--instead of engaging with the whole speech.

[popcorn_karate]

good post noah.

during that ridiculous exchange, i started to understand more why some people think "liberal" is a dirty word. It was as if the word "evil" made them completely incapable of rational thought or analysis.

by far the most disappointing conversation i've ever seen between these two.

decent conversation about the health care "reform" at least.

[basman]

To Noahkgreen:

I just finished listening to these guys, both of whom I have a lot of time for, even though I don’t have time these days for much of anything. I then thought I’d glance at a few comments to see what was cooking.

I stopped at the first one—yours.

I stopped because I never took from anything they said (or I just plain missed it) their view that Obama asserted in his Nobel speech the inherent nature of American goodness. Nor did I take from anything they said (or I just plain missed it) a line of reasoning that goes: Obama said there is evil in the world; therefore that shows he believes, to use your posted words, "America is inherently just".

My understanding of what they said is that it is not helpful in analyzing, or explaining, America going to war, or waging it, to speak of needing to defeat evil. That high moral rhetoric distracts us, I heard them to say, from a sober and explicit assessment of the reasons for war. And at West Point, I thought they said, those reasons were woefully lacking.

I think I disagree with Cohen and Loury to this extent: there ought be nothing wrong with calling evil evil. There ought be nothing wrong with calling as evil, for an instance amongst many, fanatical Muslim extremists who, for an instance amongst many, make vulnerable civilians direct and explicit military targets. And there ought be nothing wrong with setting as a foundation for American policy the recognition of evil where it is coincident with the necessary vindication of high American interests.

A problem for Obama in doing so may be the elusive vagaries of the reasons for American war policy in Afghanistan; which is to say, it may be, for Afghanistan, the innate difficulty of cogently answering Cohen’s two good questions: should America engage the battle; and if so, can America win, can it achieve goals justifying the inevitable maiming and loss of life, the destruction, the financial costs and other costs?

So my question is whether Cohen and Loury are making a specific point of the unhelpful invocation of evil by Obama concerning Afghanistan or are they inveighing against the invocation of evil as justification for war as a general proposition? The first branch of that question is, at a minimum, a fair and arguable criticism. The second branch needs pruning and trimming.

I have not revisited Obama's Nobel speech since he made it. But, surely, his main point was not America’s and others’ need to recognize their fallibility. For, in itself, this says hardly anything at all though it sounds portentous: it is but a truism that no one sensible would or could disagree with.

Consider though Obama’s three general Nobel theses. The first is that at times a just war is the only way to a just peace. The second is that in waging such wars restraint is always necessary. And, finally, the third is that a wise foreign policy is comprised by a balanced and flexible pluralism of approaches ranging from quiet diplomacy to sanctions and other varying pressures and ultimately to war itself. In the advancement of these ideas over the course of his speech, the recognition of national fallibility has some good, important and moderating work to do.

Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

[DenvilleSteve]

I have been reading that the benefits of the HCR bill don't take effect until 2014. Is that correct? The taxes to pay for the benefits go into effect immediately? If this is true, then my criticism of the bill is that it is little more than a tax bill. Not that I think that is a bad thing. The extreme deficit spending of Washington is going to cause a financial meltdown if it continues. But if we are going to address the deficit, we should go at it directly, from both the spending and tax side.

[harkin]

Matt Tabbai and Robert Kuttner?

That's as funny as the promo I saw early Sunday morning:

"Coming up on Meet The Press....David Axelrod and Howard Dean debate the health care plan."

The mainstream media is an accomplice to the admin and congress' crime of passing the worst bill in our lifetimes.


The only way I would have respected B Obama regarding the Nobel would have been if he had accepted the award on behalf of the US government with emphasis on the armed forces, the greatest engine of freedom and peace of the 20th century.

Instead he just furthered his meme that 'the US is no better than any other country so let me help you loot its unjust riches'.

I have been reading that the benefits of the HCR bill don't take effect until 2014.

There is no way they want the effects of the goverment takeover to be felt until after Obama has been safely re-elected (I think right now a wait to see an orthopedic surgeon in the US is 16 days and in Canada it's 16 weeks). It was also the only way they could make their fake numbers show costs going down, which is absurd.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by harkin

Matt Tabbai and Robert Kuttner?

That's as funny as the promo I saw early Sunday morning:

I think I saw these two on Bill Moyers' show last weekend. Two liberals wringing their hands over the inadequecy of the bill. The difference was one (Tabbai) wanted to kill the bill, while the other wanted it passed so the camel's nose would be in the tent.

What makes me angry about the right is that when they had the power and they could have made an effort to fix the problems, which I see as an unwarranted rise in the cost of health care insurance and people with pre-existing conditions being in the position of not being able to afford insurance, they did nothing. Now they are crying about not being paid attention to.

They're all deeply flawed.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

What makes me angry about the right is that when they had the power and they could have made an effort to fix the problems, which I see as an unwarranted rise in the cost of health care insurance and people with pre-existing conditions being in the position of not being able to afford insurance, they did nothing. Now they are crying about not being paid attention to.

They're all deeply flawed.

And if what I have written is true, the Rebublicans are as much to blame for this bill as the Democrats.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

What makes me angry about the right is that when they had the power and they could have made an effort to fix the problems, which I see as an unwarranted rise in the cost of health care insurance and people with pre-existing conditions being in the position of not being able to afford insurance, they did nothing. Now they are crying about not being paid attention to.

What action would you propose, assuming a perfect world and all?

[BornAgainDemocrat]

"The evil men do lives after them" Shakespeare

How true. Here is a highly schematic flow chart:

1. European anti-Semitism (evil) drives the Jews out of Europe.

2. They land in Middle-East (courtesy of Balfour Declaration) which, from the Arab/Muslim point of view, is a foreign invasion/act of aggression and therefore evil.

3. The Palestinians fight back against Israel, who respond in kind, with no end in sight.

4. The Muslim world as a whole fights back against Israel's allies in the West (9/11) who respond in kind (Afghanistan) with no end in sight.

5. Meanwhile, Europe, having purged itself of evil (Nazism, its "Jewish problem"), looks upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an innocent bystander.

Conclusion: The evil men do lives after them like the furies in a Greek tragedy.

Is there any way out? Maybe not. But I suggest the EU acknowledge Europe's original sin (culpability) and offer to compensate the Palestinian people for the wrongs they have suffered. If generous enough, compensation would address the sense of grievance and humiliation felt throughout the Muslim world.

Little known fact in the West: the principle of compensation is recognized in both Arab culture and Islamic law and civilization. To end a blood feud the guilty party must pay blood money to the innocent victim.

The world ought to build on this principle.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

Little known fact in the West: the principle of compensation is recognized in both Arab culture and Islamic law and civilization. To end a blood feud the guilty party must pay blood money to the innocent victim.

This could be a great solution with the caveat that the amount be specified, that it only need be paid once and that once it's paid the conflict will end.

This seems unlikely. Victims like to hold on to grievances. It's part of the dance.

[BornAgainDemocrat]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

This could be a great solution with the caveat that the amount be specified, that it only need be paid once and that once it's paid the conflict will end.

This seems unlikely. Victims like to hold on to grievances. It's part of the dance.

Good point, badhat. If I were a Palestinian I would not settle for less than a Western standard of living for my children and grandchildren (including guaranteed civil liberties and democratic rights). And if I were an Israeli I would insist upon an ongoing program of aid and investment whose continuance would be contingent upon a future Palestinian state honoring the terms of any final settlement. I would guess the price to be around a trillion dollars spread over a generation.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

Is there any way out? Maybe not. But I suggest the EU acknowledge Europe's original sin (culpability) and offer to compensate the Palestinian people for the wrongs they have suffered. If generous enough, compensation would address the sense of grievance and humiliation felt throughout the Muslim world.

You might as well run it all the way back to the Romans, Babylonians, and Egyptians while you're at it.

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

Little known fact in the West: the principle of compensation is recognized in both Arab culture and Islamic law and civilization. To end a blood feud the guilty party must pay blood money to the innocent victim.

The world ought to build on this principle.

You mean like in this Star Trek episode?

9/11 wasn't about Israel, but you're right about Europe recognizing their sins though. It'd be cool if Germany gave all the Jews of the world some lebensraum inside Germany. They could even build a new Temple on the old Nazi field in Nürnberg.

... and the EU and the U.S. already provide compensation to the Palestinians. How do you think Yasser Arafat became so rich?

[opposable_crumbs]

You support reparations for slavery too?

[BornAgainDemocrat]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

You support reparations for slavery too?

No. But you have got to start somewhere. This would be a good place because the whole world has an interest in the outcome.

Of course not.

[T.G.G.P]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

"The evil men do lives after them" Shakespeare

How true. Here is a highly schematic flow chart:

1. European anti-Semitism (evil) drives the Jews out of Europe.

2. They land in Middle-East (courtesy of Balfour Declaration) which, from the Arab/Muslim point of view, is a foreign invasion/act of aggression and therefore evil.

3. The Palestinians fight back against Israel, who respond in kind, with no end in sight.

4. The Muslim world as a whole fights back against Israel's allies in the West (9/11) who respond in kind (Afghanistan) with no end in sight.

5. Meanwhile, Europe, having purged itself of evil (Nazism, its "Jewish problem"), looks upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an innocent bystander.

Conclusion: The evil men do lives after them like the furies in a Greek tragedy.

Is there any way out? Maybe not. But I suggest the EU acknowledge Europe's original sin (culpability) and offer to compensate the Palestinian people for the wrongs they have suffered. If generous enough, compensation would address the sense of grievance and humiliation felt throughout the Muslim world.

Little known fact in the West: the principle of compensation is recognized in both Arab culture and Islamic law and civilization. To end a blood feud the guilty party must pay blood money to the innocent victim.

The world ought to build on this principle.

The "Muslim world as a whole" did nothing of the sort. A specific group, al Qaeda, attacked the U.S. Personally, I don't believe the Israel-Palestine issue is that important to al Qaeda's leaders. al Qaeda has done pretty much nothing against Israel. In contrast, they have carried out a number of attacks against the "moderate Muslim/Arab regimes". The real goal of al Qaeda is to overthrow those regimes, and their problem with the U.S is that we are the main supporters of those regimes. al Qaeda references Israel-Palestine rhetorically because it is popular to do so among their target audience. But just as Israel's neighbors have continued to deem the Palestinians in their territory "refugees" who are not to be permanently settled (compare the "Volkdeutsch" of eastern Europe who were forcibly removed after WW2, or the Greeks & Turks forcibly removed when Cyprus was divided, none of whom are "refugees" stuck in camps), al Qaeda only has crocodile tears. The UN also bears blame for the refugee situation. If anything, the annexation of territory in the Six Day War improved the material conditions of "refugees".

I also think the formation of Israel is more complicated than you lay out. European anti-semitism was certainly a factor, but I would also highlight the much greater appeal of nationalism in the past. Many ethnicities were struggling to obtain a nation of their own, the Jews were unique only in that they were not already concentrated in the territory they wished to establish their nation. The migration occurring after WW2 was over I would characterize more as immigrating TO a place of nationalist hope rather than AWAY from threats. If anything, the Middle East might have been the more hostile place at that time! They had also been arriving in "Eretz Israel" before the Balfour declaration, though perhaps that raised hopes for the establishment of a nation and accelerated migration. The local Arabs did begin fighting Jewish immigrants (and sometimes the British authorities who had replaced the Ottomans as rulers), but this happened even before the nation of "Israel" was established. When Israel was declared a number of different nations declared war and Israel's success resulted in considerable expansion and expulsion of many Arabs. This success was partially because the Jordanian forces were not actually interested in crushing Israel so much as grabbing parts of the old mandate Palestine for themselves.

[claymisher]

It must be inspiring to a racist like TGGP to see an intelligent black man like Loury.

Originally Posted by claymisher

It must be inspiring to a racist like TGGP to see an intelligent black man like Loury.

claymasher,

Maybe I have missed something from the past (although knowing your past has me doubtful), but please point out what you found to be racist in TGGP's post...because unless setting history straight is racist...you are (once again) all wet.

[T.G.G.P]

Originally Posted by claymisher

It must be inspiring to a racist like TGGP to see an intelligent black man like Loury.

I've been a fan of Loury's for a while.

[basman]

Originally Posted by T.G.G.P

I've been a fan of Loury's for a while.

I saw nothing racist in what you said.

Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

[T.G.G.P]

Originally Posted by basman

Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

I can see how the two could be easily confused.

[Markos]

I agree with Glenn that Obama's rhetorical modulations have been what he (Obama) believes are the wisest choices in terms of accomplishing his goals in the current political environment.
Personally, I'm not convinced that Obama could have done better on government option in the health care bill if he'd pushed harder for it, twisted arms, made LBJ-style threats, etc., as some critics have said. I mean, the opposition from the right-wingers and the center-right, etc. was awfully stubborn. My jury is still out on Obama's effectiveness, but, so far, I think he might be doing as well as can be hoped for in our insanely polarized political reality.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by Markos

I agree with Glenn that Obama's rhetorical modulations have been what he (Obama) believes are the wisest choices in terms of accomplishing his goals in the current political environment.
Personally, I'm not convinced that Obama could have done better on government option in the health care bill if he'd pushed harder for it, twisted arms, made LBJ-style threats, etc., as some critics have said. I mean, the opposition from the right-wingers and the center-right, etc. was awfully stubborn. My jury is still out on Obama's effectiveness, but, so far, I think he might be doing as well as can be hoped for in our insanely polarized political reality.

I've had it with most of the liberal carping about Obama. Do people really want him to go and punch Joe Lieberman in the nuts? How is that going to get Lieberman's vote? Is that really what LBJ did? Did LBJ punch people in the nuts? Or did he use mind-control? What?

Arg. Anyway, what John Sides said.

I think Obama's played a bad hand as well as anyone could have. The reason he's getting exactly 60 votes in the Senate is because he worked for the most liberal bill he could get (well, that and Republican intransigence). If people are unhappy with health care reform they need to stop whining about Obama and get working to net two more progressive Senators in 2010.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by claymisher

I've had it with most of the liberal carping about Obama. Do people really want him to go and punch Joe Lieberman in the nuts? How is that going to get Lieberman's vote? Is that really what LBJ did? Did LBJ punch people in the nuts? Or did he use mind-control? What?

Arg. Anyway, what John Sides said.

I think Obama's played a bad hand as well as anyone could have. The reason he's getting exactly 60 votes in the Senate is because he worked for the most liberal bill he could get (well, that and Republican intransigence). If people are unhappy with health care reform they need to stop whining about Obama and get working to net two more progressive Senators in 2010.

This is exactly what I believe. (But, I'll admit, suckering Lieberman isn't a completely charmless thought.)

Originally Posted by AemJeff

This is exactly what I believe. (But, I'll admit, suckering Lieberman isn't a completely charmless thought.)

The best he could do? GMAFB. He danced in this spring/summer, threw the ball to the Democrats in Congress...told them to keep the ball away as best they could (NC 4-corner) from Republicans (and the American people) and now... here we are in December with them making weekend, middle of the night bills without a single Republican in their corner forcing a vote on Christmas eve. Obama has done nothing but clap from the sidelines like an ugly cheerleader. Oh and need I mention what the poll numbers on the bill look like

How about leadership? How about instead of ramming a partisan piece of bullshit through, a leader and his bipartisan congress brainstorming on what works and what doesn't while making both sides feel a part of it while at the same time taking the best healthcare system in the world and making it better. How about that?

The best he could do. God, I hope not.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

The best he could do? GMAFB. He danced in this spring/summer, threw the ball to the Democrats in Congress...told them to keep the ball away as best they could (NC 4-corner) from Republicans (and the American people) and now... here we are in December with them making weekend, middle of the night bills without a single Republican in their corner forcing a vote on Christmas eve. Obama has done nothing but clap from the sidelines like an ugly cheerleader. Oh and need I mention what the poll numbers on the bill look like

How about leadership? How about instead of ramming a partisan piece of bullshit through, a leader and his bipartisan congress brainstorming on what works and what doesn't while making both sides feel a part of it while at the same time taking the best healthcare system in the world and making it better. How about that?

The best he could do. God, I hope not.

How about what? We get it, you don't approve of any Democratic version of health care reform. Let's see the Republicans try. They had majorities from '94 to '06 - and all they managed was to do was create a doughnut hole. Now they want to pretend they have any moral authority at all on this issue? Bipartisanship would have required Republican contributions. It's hard to participate when you're sitting on your hands - a perfectly apt description of the that entire party's stance during this process, which nevertheless profoundly underplays the actual degree of cynicism manifest in their inaction.

I don't get the feeling from your words that you understand the nature of the Administration's efforts here; or even grasp the role of the Executive in the crafting of legislation, as opposed to that of the legislators.

I'd think I'd recommend reading polls a little more carefully; and, in particular - pay attention to the only really important polls- the next several elections.

Originally Posted by AemJeff

How about what? We get it, you don't approve of any Democratic version of health care reform. Let's see the Republicans try. They had majorities from '94 to '06 - and all they managed was to do was create a doughnut hole. Now they want to pretend they have any moral authority at all on this issue? Bipartisanship would have required Republican contributions. It's hard to participate when you're sitting on your hands - a perfectly apt description of the that entire party's stance during this process, which nevertheless profoundly underplays the actual degree of cynicism manifest in their inaction.

I don't get the feeling from your words that you understand the nature of the Administration's efforts here; or even grasp the role of the Executive in the crafting of legislation, as opposed to that of the legislators.

I'd think I'd recommend reading polls a little more carefully; and, in particular - pay attention to the only really important polls- the next several elections.

So you are happy with the way this is being put together then? I think you are embarrassed by the truth of my statement.

I see you cannot rebutt anything I actually said so you invent a straw man from history. So explain to me the Administrations effort's here or maybe you would like to demonstrate how Republicans were pulled into the healthcare discussions. Talk about lacking a grasp on facts.

But yeah, the next several elections will be interesting.

[Added] Your nonsense got the best of me so I did not bother rebutting your crap sandwich either. So for fear of being anything like you.... The Republicans did not take over healthcare because then and now they felt it is best handled by the private sector and Hilarycare was a joke. I guess you also are going to have to explain your "moral authority" comment. And yes I have said a dozen times there are reforms I would love to see addressed...this bill doesnt do it. 25 million will still be uninsured. Craft that.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Markos

I agree with Glenn that Obama's rhetorical modulations have been what he (Obama) believes are the wisest choices in terms of accomplishing his goals in the current political environment.
Personally, I'm not convinced that Obama could have done better on government option in the health care bill if he'd pushed harder for it, twisted arms, made LBJ-style threats, etc., as some critics have said. I mean, the opposition from the right-wingers and the center-right, etc. was awfully stubborn. My jury is still out on Obama's effectiveness, but, so far, I think he might be doing as well as can be hoped for in our insanely polarized political reality.

I don't know. During the campaign I thought that Hillary and her camp were underestimating the American people and now I kind of think Obama is.

[Markos]

I do think, though, that Joshua is making a point worth considering about when Obama employs rhetorical "poetry" and when he doesn't.
I do always keep in mind that the most present father figure in Obama's youth was his maternal grandfather, a white WWII veteran from Kansas - ( if I have my facts right).
I think the reason used the term "evil" when he got the Nobel Prize was that he was addressing a group that promotes the morality of peace. I think it was necessary for him to justify his actions against al Qaeda when he was getting that prize. And it was necessary to say that some wars to defend against external threats are not immoral. I think it's fair for him to define the people who knocked down the World Trade Center and now seek nuclear weapons in Pakistan (next door to Afghanistan) as "evil."

[Markos]

I think Obama did look carefully at all sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan-alQaeda-Taliban-Karzai situation, listening to everyone in the room, applied his intelligence and came up with the best choice he could.
Is Obama weak? Can he be rolled? So far, I'm not convinced by his critics. Not so far anyhow.

[moosecat]

i stopped listening after claims that Hayek would have loved the Health Insurance Mandate bill.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by moosecat

i stopped listening after claims that Hayek would have loved the Health Insurance Mandate bill.

Nobody loves this bill. It's a compromise. As for Hayek, here's what he said:

Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong ...

Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.

[Tara Davis]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Nobody loves this bill. It's a compromise.

Somebody on the Reason "Hit and Run" forum said it far better than anybody I've seen:

Free market > good government system > what we have > bad government system > what we're getting > Civil War medical kit.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Tara Davis

Somebody on the Reason "Hit and Run" forum said it far better than anybody I've seen:Free market > good government system > what we have > bad government system > what we're getting > Civil War medical kit.

It would have been nice if somewhere between what we have and bad government system, the Republicans had acted wisely to fix the problems.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Mark Schmitt, shedding a little light of reality on the matter

The bill is flawed, but only by comparison to some hypothetical piece of legislation that could never have passed. The same could be said of any successful legislation, from the first progressive income tax to Social Security and Medicare to the Clean Air Act. And conservatives would say the same about their own legislative achievements. This is How A Bill Becomes A Law. And while some of the compromises that helped the legislation dodge the vicious attacks that killed the Clinton plan in 1994 were cooked up by the White House, other were baked into the consensus even before Obama took office. That insurance companies would benefit from an expansion of the base of the insured is built in to any approach other than single-payer, and the price of requiring insurers to cover anyone always had to be that we require everyone, in turn, to be covered.

[Unit]

So Josh wants health-care to be a right and then complains on how hard it is to keep costs down.

But it's actually not that difficult of a question. The way to drive prices down is to have people pay out-of-pocket for their health-care. There's no reason why cancer medicine has to be so expensive. It is right now, because providers can get away with it. There's a huge pot of public money out there and health-care providers take too much out of it in a classic tragedy of the commons scenario.

Competition does wonders for costs: look at how sophisticated cars have gotten, and cars are made of actual stuff. Medicines on the other hand cost almost nothing (marginally). It's all in the investment up-front: research etc...
There's no reason why providers can't compete, cutting costs, finding innovations and driving prices down.

What's really scary about the current reform is all the innovations that we won't get because the fat cats will be happy to get fatter with no extra effort (by law).

About the "Hayek point" that Josh makes, I don't know where to begin. Let me just say that "experimentation" is great when it's millions of individuals who are doing it, lead by the price system. But when legislators pretend that they like to experiment what we get is "regime uncertainty": a situation where investors freeze and can't plan for the future.

[kezboard]

This diavlog was not very illuminating, and it frustrated me so much that I don't have a lot to say about it besides that. Except for one thing that jumped out at me, predictably so, I guess: Obama's decision on missile defense was not an instance of Obama being rolled, and there's no reason to cite it as one unless you're drinking the wingnut koolaid. And why would you be drinking the wingnut foreign policy koolaid if you just went on for ten minutes about how his Nobel speech had too much American triumphalism? Stop it.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by kezboard

This diavlog was not very illuminating, and it frustrated me so much that I don't have a lot to say about it besides that. Except for one thing that jumped out at me, predictably so, I guess: Obama's decision on missile defense was not an instance of Obama being rolled, and there's no reason to cite it as one unless you're drinking the wingnut koolaid. And why would you be drinking the wingnut foreign policy koolaid if you just went on for ten minutes about how his Nobel speech had too much American triumphalism? Stop it.

Good call.