Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-31-2008, 02:28 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Mild Provocation Edition

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-31-2008, 02:36 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Mild Provocation Edition

Ah yes, more insight from the author of "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush"!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-01-2008, 11:23 AM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: Mild Provocation Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
Ah yes, more insight from the author of "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush"!
... and he says we won't bomb Iran and we ( if we are honorable ) will defend Taiwan against any Chinese aggression. I feel safer now.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-31-2008, 02:39 PM
mmacklem mmacklem is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 140
Default Re: Mild Provocation Edition

In what alternate universe does David Frum = MILD provocation? If the goal is to increase the provocation factor, then I'm curious to see Ted Stevens on next week, leading up the final week of Jesse Helms.

(Not that I am equating David Frum with either Mr. Stevens or Mr. Helms. Let no one call me hysterical.)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-31-2008, 02:39 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Um, "truth?"

David says "the truth is the best defense." Are all conservatives this lacking in intellectual rigor? A couple of our own favorite conservatives recently treated the national enquirer story as virtually true, too, despite a complete lack of any evidence. Isn't that something? Chomsky made the point long ago that when you are saying stuff people want to believe, no proof is actually required. The only evidence required to "prove" a point is that it satisfy the wishes of the audience.

Note: I am not denying Edwards has a love child. I'm also waiting for someone to provide evidence that he does.

Isn't it interesting that the Nat'l Enquirer went to all that trouble to stake out Edwards in the middle of the night, hanging around the hotel for hours .... in 2008 .... and they didn't have a camera with them? Maybe one of the intellectually rigorous conservatives can explain that one.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-31-2008, 04:16 PM
Thus Spoke Elvis Thus Spoke Elvis is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 329
Default Re: Um, "truth?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
David says "the truth is the best defense." Are all conservatives this lacking in intellectual rigor? A couple of our own favorite conservatives recently treated the national enquirer story as virtually true, too, despite a complete lack of any evidence.
You don't think the circumstantial evidence is really strong? Two Enquirer reporters claim that they themselves saw and questioned Edwards at the hotel (we've already discussed in another thread the difference in terms of potential liability in a libel suit between the paper claiming an "unnamed source" said something happened and claiming that it's own reporters saw something happen). Fox News later interviewed the security guard who escorted Edwards out. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but it seems to me that if John Edwards is seen visiting a hotel at 2:30 a.m. where an alleged mistress is staying under the name of an Edwards associate, and he runs away and hides in a restroom when confronted asked what he's doing there, that's pretty strong evidence that something fishy is going on.

Quote:
Isn't it interesting that the Nat'l Enquirer went to all that trouble to stake out Edwards in the middle of the night, hanging around the hotel for hours .... in 2008 .... and they didn't have a camera with them? Maybe one of the intellectually rigorous conservatives can explain that one.
Kaus reports that the Enquirer says they have photos, but are delaying their release until they milk the story for a couple more issues.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-31-2008, 02:40 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Mild Provocation Edition

It's true, there's been great strides in the homeless issue. But you know what, it's only possible now because if this happened under a Democratic administration, conservatives would be screaming bloody murder about giving drunks free housing. This is like how Nixon gets credit for going to China, when the reason no one else could go is because Nixon was around calling everybody a traitor.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-31-2008, 02:42 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Mild Provocation Edition

Malcolm Gladwell's "Million-Dollar Murray" has the goods:

http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-31-2008, 04:07 PM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: Mild Provocation Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
It's true, there's been great strides in the homeless issue. But you know what, it's only possible now because if this happened under a Democratic administration, conservatives would be screaming bloody murder about giving drunks free housing. This is like how Nixon gets credit for going to China, when the reason no one else could go is because Nixon was around calling everybody a traitor.
I didn't really find the homeless argument to be blood-pressure raising as advertised. David's assertion that this is a right/left dividable question doesn't resonate with me. I think I'm a "liberal," but I could be in error. The left wing that wants to re-engineer society strikes me as marginal and dilettante these days, and I see much more FDR-style "try different solutions till something works" pragmatism. Or at least that's the way the air feels.

An emotional left/right axis--the one David is refering to from the 80s--exists on the level of "these bums should get a job" vs. "they are victims of circumstance." But building halfway houses to deal with the mental health problems of the homeless doesn't really fall on the "right" side of that axis. Any solution other than praising social darwinism strikes me as good.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-31-2008, 06:20 PM
DoctorMoney DoctorMoney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 305
Default Re: Mild Provocation Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by osmium View Post
I didn't really find the homeless argument to be blood-pressure raising as advertised. David's assertion that this is a right/left dividable question doesn't resonate with me. I think I'm a "liberal," but I could be in error. The left wing that wants to re-engineer society strikes me as marginal and dilettante these days, and I see much more FDR-style "try different solutions till something works" pragmatism. Or at least that's the way the air feels.

An emotional left/right axis--the one David is refering to from the 80s--exists on the level of "these bums should get a job" vs. "they are victims of circumstance." But building halfway houses to deal with the mental health problems of the homeless doesn't really fall on the "right" side of that axis. Any solution other than praising social darwinism strikes me as good.
I agree, the left right divide has never been much more than one side that wants to make it more of a priority and one side that wants to make it less.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-31-2008, 03:25 PM
Joel_Cairo Joel_Cairo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cambridge MA
Posts: 198
Default Re: Mild Provocation Edition

I personally think I'd take issue with here. The section of the clergy that was anti-Mossadegh was not the proto-Khomeini wing, but rather the resolutely apolitical traditional ulema, analagous to modern-day Sistani types.
__________________
Full Disclosure: I work for BhTV.

Last edited by Joel_Cairo; 10-13-2008 at 04:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-31-2008, 03:53 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Frum Justifies Big Government

The next time a Republican (or Libertarian) makes the government-is-the-problem argument, play them this:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/132...7&out=00:05:54

I thought I was listening to Glenn Loury or Joshua Cohen for a minute.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-31-2008, 06:33 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Frum Justifies Big Government

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
The next time a Republican (or Libertarian) makes the government-is-the-problem argument, play them this:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/132...7&out=00:05:54

I thought I was listening to Glenn Loury or Joshua Cohen for a minute.
Yup. And you could also play them the section and show them the link to the purported improvement of the homeless situation. If true, it's thanks to the federal government taking over from a lot of local organizations.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-01-2008, 02:35 AM
qwerty qwerty is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 15
Default Re: Frum Justifies Big Government

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
The next time a Republican (or Libertarian) makes the government-is-the-problem argument...
What you seem to misunderstand is that Frum is a BIG government conservative, a neocon. Of course he is going to try to justify (certain) federal government interventions. Unwittingly though, he makes the argument against government intervention. It is often very expensive with mixed results even when the parties involved are acting in good faith. I am not against government intervention in principle, I just wish people had a broader recognition of this point.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-01-2008, 02:44 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Frum Justifies Big Government

Quote:
Originally Posted by qwerty View Post
What you seem to misunderstand is that Frum is a BIG government conservative ...
Or not.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-01-2008, 03:18 AM
qwerty qwerty is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 15
Default Re: Frum Justifies Big Government

Yeah, just like Obama supports public financing of campaigns.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-01-2008, 03:52 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Frum Justifies Big Government

Quote:
Originally Posted by qwerty View Post
Yeah, just like Obama supports public financing of campaigns.
Indeed:

Quote:
One thing that is clear is that Obama’s vast base of small donors – 1.7 million was the last public count — carries big clout. To date, Obama has reported raising $338 million for his campaign from individuals and 94% of his donations have come in amounts of $200 or less.
Unlike McCain, who was for it before he was against it, or against it before he was for it, or maybe something else altogether.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-01-2008, 04:34 AM
qwerty qwerty is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 15
Default Re: Frum Justifies Big Government

Indeed.

Addendum:

Interestingly, reading through the linked study, I was surprised to find even stronger evidence that what we have observed from Obama is not as remarkable as some in the media would have us believe.

Quote:
The percentage of contributions from donors who gave $200 or less steadily increased through the summer of 2004, peaking in May for President Bush (when 65 percent of his contributions came from those who gave $200 or less) and June for John Kerry (47 percent).

Last edited by qwerty; 08-01-2008 at 04:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-01-2008, 05:43 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Frum Justifies Big Government

qwerty:

Our story so far:

You: Frum is a big government conservative.
Me: No, he's not. Here's proof.
You: But Obama doesn't believe in public financing of elections.
Me: Yeah, he does. Here's proof.
You: There's nothing special about Obama's fundraising style. Hah! I win again!
Me: (For reasons passing understanding, will attempt one more serious response.)

There is a clear difference in small donor contributions: Obama: 45%, Kerry: 37%, Bush: 31%. If you were trying to make a point where you wanted your guy's numbers to be in the lead, you'd be jumping up and down right now. I suspect you'd have dropped the middle number and been crowing, "45-31! 45-31! Landslide!" And it's not just the percentages -- Obama is raising a lot more more in absolute terms, too, and doing it a way that's a lot less reliant on big money donors and the DNC.

Just because some TNR bonehead is surprised that it's not "the order of magnitude I'd assumed" means what? Nothing. Apart from proving once again that TNR hires boneheads who make boneheaded assumptions instead of, you know, looking things up before blabbing about them. That is, if we can even believe that this isn't some straw man Zengerle made up after the fact to try to boost his lame-assumption point.

You know what else means nothing? A report that says a quantity "steadily increased through the summer of 2004, peaking in May." Did they use a different calendar back then or something? Didn't May come before summer?

You know what else means nothing? Nixon-style weasel phrases like your "as some in the media would have us believe." More straw man nonsense. Stop trying to pretend that every time you come across something indicating that Obama isn't a being from a different universe, it merits keeling over in amazement.

I can't even believe I wasted the time to type this out, since I'm sure your next response is going to be just as much of a non sequitur as the rest. Go ahead. Tell me next why Obama isn't going to win because he's not fat enough, or as you'll probably put it, "weighs less than some would have us believe."

I will not, however, bother to respond.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 08-01-2008 at 05:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-01-2008, 01:37 PM
qwerty qwerty is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 15
Default Re: Frum Justifies Big Government

Wow, I think I struck a nerve. The benign bjkeefe shows his true colors. First of all I don't claim to have any guys. Second, by "some in the media" I was specifically referring to the quote that you provided.

I only brought up Obama to point out that people claim to hold certain positions even when there other actions would say otherwise. I could have used several examples from John McCain, but given the audience, I figured this would be more fun. By the way, if you are going to tell me that these small donors really justify unprecedented action shouldn't it be the case that we are looking at a novel situation? The only real change here is that Obama has a lot more money than candidates in the past.

But let's return to the point at hand. When Frum writes "limited government" he is using an Orwellian trick. For evidence you could look at this interview, in defending prescription drug benefits he says:

Quote:
I think that is a really important consideration, so if you believe in the principle of limited government, but the idea that we're always going to approach limited government in exactly the same way that we did in 1977 is to have fossilized thinking.
In other places he seems to advocate the republican party moving away from limited government as a principle, though never directly. Therefore I call him a BIG Government conservative a la George W. Bush.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-01-2008, 02:10 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Frum Justifies Big Government

Quote:
Originally Posted by qwerty View Post
But let's return to the point at hand.
(*faints*)

Quote:
When Frum writes "limited government" he is using an Orwellian trick. [...]
Good points.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-31-2008, 03:56 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Mild Provocation Edition

David Frum discusses his colleagues at the National Review:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/132...3&out=00:03:26
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-31-2008, 05:11 PM
allbetsareoff allbetsareoff is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32
Default Re: Wilder effect

The Wilder effect was a result about 8 points below immediate pre-election poll numbers. On the other hand, Doug Wilder was elected governor of Virginia in 1989. It would be nice to think racial attitudes have advanced in 20 years.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-31-2008, 05:31 PM
John M John M is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Arizona and Washington, DC
Posts: 104
Default From the Straight Talk Express

Dear My Friends,

Here's some straight talk:

David Frum is a great Canuck-American who recognized early-on the grave threat of Islamofascism to America and our allies (Aussies, Brits, maybe Poland).

The poetry of an "Axis of Evil," which we owe to Mr. Frum, has proven of sufficient horsepower to last 100 years in evil Iraq alone. Once we ba-ba-bam Iran we can turn that into a millenium, easy.

Secondly, John Edwards is a beloved Senatorial colleague and not a philandering Asshole. If and when men dilly-dally in the Senate it should remain private, between them and their mistresses (or bitches, as my young voters say).

When I dilly-dallied on my first wife and dumped her because she was getting fat and had been in a bad car wreak, people were discreet. It was a different time. Better.

Nowadays, a man knocks up a journalist or cuddles with a lobbyist ("I DID not have sex with that woman, Vicki Iseman), and everyone wants to cut his balls off.

Cindy, by the way, gives me permission to cuddle with my friends, my friends.

What she doesn't go for is oral sex. Which is fine by me. Back in the day, when I was at Annapolis, real men didn't do cunnilinguis. Just sissies, and maybe Jews. Now anything goes. Eat this, eat that.

What happened to our moral values, my friends? We need more David Frums and fewer David Sodoms (does that rhyme?) God bless America, my friends.

John MCCAIN
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-31-2008, 05:46 PM
Thus Spoke Elvis Thus Spoke Elvis is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 329
Default Re: From the Straight Talk Express

I'm enjoying John M.'s posts, but I have a feeling this will get tiresome really quick if he's not careful (but what do I know? Allah in the House was gold for almost a year before burning out).

Pace yourself, my friend, we've still got the conventions, the debates, and the election.

Last edited by Thus Spoke Elvis; 07-31-2008 at 05:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-31-2008, 06:45 PM
John M John M is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Arizona and Washington, DC
Posts: 104
Default Re: From the Straight Talk Express

Quote:
Pace yourself, my friend, we've still got the conventions, the debates, and the election.
Dear My Friend Elvis,

I don't have a temper, but Blankety-blank-Goddamitmutherfu***er93487@#&&%#^%$!!!!!!! I don't need your advice on my demographics. We are leading comfortably in the Bloggheads polls since I joined the Gang of 12.

Tennessee is a cakewalk anyway, even if you have the coloreds from Memphis. I do NOT need your endorsement.

And by the way, aren't you dead? Even if you aren't dead, you're a year older than I am, so pipe down with the insinuations about "pacing myself." If you paced yourself with the booze and dope, you'd be alive today.

Rock on and God bless America,
John MCCAIN
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-31-2008, 09:34 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: From the Straight Talk Express

Senator:

I commend you on your ability to suppress any mention of "trollop" or That Other Word while you were demonstrating how you don't lose your temper.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-31-2008, 06:29 PM
p.e. p.e. is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 9
Default Re: Mild Provocation Edition

Bob & David argue over whether tax cuts at the top can cause people to lose their mortgage. Deficits can drive up interest rates, and if you have an adjustable rate mortgage, that translates to higher payments, conceivably beyond your ability to pay.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-31-2008, 06:51 PM
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee Abu Noor Al-Irlandee is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 392
Default Israeli-Palestinian Discussion

I don't really want to get deep into this discussion right now, having several times previously forsworn internet discussion of this particular conflict and having never really seen much benefit from the discussion that has occurred in comments sections regarding it but I feel compelled to say this:

I don't get Mr. Frum's contention that the Palestinians do not "lose" anything when they choose to go to war and "lose". First, I of course disagree completely with the notion that a state of occupation is not a state of war. There was no peace before the 2nd intifada.

Putting that completely to the side however, and without even arguing about whether Palestinians have the moral or legal right to resist or whether violent resistance is the best strategic or moral option, etc. etc. but just engaging with Mr. Frum's claim that the Palestinians are incentivized to fight because "if they win they win and if they lose they stay at the same place" how can he ignore the following:

(1) the Status Quo is a state of constant suffering for almost all Palestinians. Prolonging the status quo or even making conditions much harsher (which is what happens when the Palestinians actively resist) only brings more suffering. Again, regardless of whether one thinks what any or all Palestinians do is correct or even if one thinks some or all Palestinians "deserve" what they have to go through one cannot deny that the Palestinian refusal to completely surrender to the Israelis and the prolonging of the conflict results in suffering on both sides, but the suffering falls much more disproportionately on the Palestinian side. They are willing to undergo that for a combination of two reasons, first, they don't see any acceptable alternative being offered by the Israelis and second, they believe that by resisting they are defending an important principle which is more important than their own pragmatic interests.

Again, regardless of whether all of one's sympathies are with the Israelis or not, I find the attitude expressed by Mr. Frum that somehow there are no costs to the Palestinians of active resistance, despite the thousands of deaths, the almost universal economic misery, the daily humiliations, the thousands rotting away in prisons, the torture that so many have undergone at the hands of the Israelis to be utterly bizarre.

It is also, as Mr. Wright pointed out, ridiculous that Israel, a nuclear power with by far the most powerful military in the region, backed unconditionally by the world's lone so-called superpower is considered by itself or by someone like Mr. Frum to be some kind of underdog.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-31-2008, 07:19 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Israeli-Palestinian Discussion

Quote:
Again, regardless of whether all of one's sympathies are with the Israelis or not, I find the attitude expressed by Mr. Frum that somehow there are no costs to the Palestinians of active resistance, despite the thousands of deaths, the almost universal economic misery, the daily humiliations, the thousands rotting away in prisons, the torture that so many have undergone at the hands of the Israelis to be utterly bizarre.
Yes, the sentiment is truly revolting. Thank you for the reality check. There is a segment of the American right for whom Arab suffering is always irrelevant or non-existent.

Quote:
It is also, as Mr. Wright pointed out, ridiculous that Israel, a nuclear power with by far the most powerful military in the region, backed unconditionally by the world's lone so-called superpower is considered by itself or by someone like Mr. Frum to be some kind of underdog.
The myth of Israel as a tiny nation struggling to survive is a hard one to debunk. It's been a cornerstone of Israeli propaganda for decades, while Israel -- a rogue nuclear state that spends billions of US taxpayer dollars on defense annually -- has played a major role in the international arms trade and in shaping global diplomacy.

More worrisome than the usual Frum anti-Arab/Muslim xenophobia, however, are two emerging factors: 1) Gazastan as a separate entity from the richer, more moderate and more secular West Bank and 2) the God-help-us-all likelihood of the election of Netanyahu as Israeli PM.

On a separate note, have you seen the wonderful Israeli movie "The Band's Visit"? It's a moving and humorous story about Jews and Arabs interacting in the Israeli heartland.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-31-2008, 08:35 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Israeli-Palestinian Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
More worrisome than the usual Frum anti-Arab/Muslim xenophobia, however, are two emerging factors: 1) Gazastan as a separate entity from the richer, more moderate and more secular West Bank and 2) the God-help-us-all likelihood of the election of Netanyahu as Israeli PM.
Even more worrisome.

I didn't even get the slightest hint of humor here. He's serious.

How is Frum's God is on our side, but we're still the underdogs attitude any different from the one held by those he so eagerly seeks to destroy?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-31-2008, 08:45 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Israeli-Palestinian Discussion

Quote:
I didn't even get the slightest hint of humor here. He's serious.
Naw. Much as I deplore Frum, that was just a bit of bad-taste humor. People who really believe that (like Bush) won't say it in public unless they are professiona suicide-cult nuclear holocaust-mongers:

__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-31-2008, 08:56 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Israeli-Palestinian Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Naw. Much as I deplore Frum, that was just a bit of bad-taste humor.
I dunno. Keep watching past the end of my original dingalink, and tell me where you see some indication of this.

I call on David Frum to renounce and reject God.

Okay, maybe that's asking a little too much.

Still think he's serious about this, though.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-31-2008, 10:12 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Israeli-Palestinian Discussion

Quote:
Still think he's serious about this, though.
Well, he's certainly serious about demonizing Palestinians and clinging to a point of view consistent with the militantly right-wing minority of the Israeli Jewish population.

So small wonder that the moronic Bush --influenced by the likes of Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Frum, Podhoretz (pčre et fils), Bolton, Cheney and Rumsfeld --- would end up being so thoroughly despised by the rest of the world that does not belong to the Likud Party.

For permanently alienating the entire Arab/Muslim world how could you possibly beat 1) adopting the Likud position on Israel-Palestine, 2) invading and occupying Afghanistan, 3) invading and occupying Iraq, 4) Guantánamo, 5) Abu Ghreib.

Oh, I know. Threatening to start a war with Iran.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-31-2008, 10:23 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Israeli-Palestinian Discussion

You know how Frum would respond to that fine post?

"I've been saying for years we won't attack Iran. Uh, uh, umm, let's segue into our next topic."
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-31-2008, 11:48 PM
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee Abu Noor Al-Irlandee is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 392
Default Re: Israeli-Palestinian Discussion

Brendan and Wonderment,

That moment of course drew my rapt attention upon viewing the diavlog as well and I spent some time thinking about it. I think you're both right. I think Mr. Frum knew what he was saying was something that basically is said with a wink and a smile among people who are generally secular or among those, who even if religious would find the connotations of such a remark offputting.

Still, I think it's something that he is probably also willing to defend in an argument (I mean this is the axis of evil guy) and which he knows a lot of people on his side actually believe sincerely and I don't think he wants to make fun of their belief in such a thing even if he probably doesn't think about it exactly that way. (He's a utilitarian)

Wonderment, I haven't seen that film... I will try to check it out.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-01-2008, 01:28 AM
johnmarzan johnmarzan is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Quiapo
Posts: 358
Default Re: Israeli-Palestinian Discussion

for those who need their mickey kaus fix, he did an interview with pajamasmedia re the edwards lovechild scandal

http://gg2000.cachefly.net/pjm/audio...JM-SG-lofi.mp3
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-01-2008, 01:57 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Israeli-Palestinian Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmarzan View Post
for those who need their mickey kaus fix, he did an interview with pajamasmedia re the edwards lovechild scandal

http://gg2000.cachefly.net/pjm/audio...JM-SG-lofi.mp3
The 80-second intro is not to be missed.

If you like pathetic self-promotion, I mean. Rather? Still? Seriously? Why not just say "We at PJM haven't done squat in four years, so let's just start the show."?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-01-2008, 04:29 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Israeli-Palestinian Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmarzan View Post
for those who need their mickey kaus fix, he did an interview with pajamasmedia re the edwards lovechild scandal

http://gg2000.cachefly.net/pjm/audio...JM-SG-lofi.mp3
I wish to align myself with all those who miss Mickey. In keeping with his determined zeal to promulgate rumor as scandal, I offer the following (highlighted portion) as proof of his creepiness. I don't have the reportorial assets to plant myself on the Venice boardwalk to "snap" the damning peektures, but am hopeful that the MSM will run with it soon enough:

I agree with "right." Slate suffers from a severe case of Kinsleyism: smart-ass, too-clever, debate-team contrarianism. They can feel at times "center-right" since they feel their audience is "center-left"; therefore, according to the dictates of Kinsleyism, "center-right" they must be.

It also shows how far the center has moved to the right, especially among "people in the business." Thirty years ago it would be considered a liberal Republican.

Lithwick, their Supreme Court reporter, is firmly center-left, the rest of the women writers are more or less center-left, except for that red-headed "advice" chick from DC, who comes across as a hipster Junior League member. Shafer is usually center-left, Dickinson is a DLC-style Democrat (would be a Rockefeller Republican if they existed anymore). Saleton and Weisberg are practicing Kinsleyists. Mickey Kaus is a creepy douchebag who hits an any Venice Beach female with two legs (not sure if he's still passing out his "mix tapes", but man, eh sure did creep pout some women).

Posted by Shine | August 1, 2008 12:42 PM
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c...omment-2530627
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-01-2008, 06:16 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Israeli-Palestinian Discussion

graz:

Funny find. Thanks for sharing.

BTW, I recommend reading MY's post itself, as well as his other one that he links to from it. I generally agree with his view of Slate.

Coincidentally, or perhaps not, the fact that Slate is owned by the WaPo adds weight to MY's view. I think it's a convenient attack point for those on the far right to point to both of these as part of the so-called "liberal media," but the truth is, the WaPo has long since given up that ghost, and Slate seems to me moving rightward in its wake.

I've stopped visiting Slate as much as I used to, because their drift towards MSM-style center-rightness is just not as interesting as their old POV used to be. I still listen to their Gabfest podcast, but even that's getting a little tiresome.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.