The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Um… What racist comments?

Specifically that because she is a latina woman with certain experiences she would hope she can come to better decisions than a white male. How about Roberts saying

"I would hope that being a white male and having the richness of certain experiences would lead me to bmake better decisions than a latina female>'

He'd have rightfully been thrown out of consideration.

[Scrooge McSam]

Leo, please read the 2 paragraphs immediately preceding and the paragraph following that 1 line plucked out of the middle. Better yet, read the whole speech.

If you want to find something comparable, you can't use Roberts. You'd have to use Alito and his assertion that coming from immigrant ancestors makes him a better jurist. But before calling for his immediate resignation, you'd probably want to consider the context there as well.

[innerSpaceman]

Context is so 20th Century.

[scaeagles]

Fair enough Scrooge.

I have read it, but still tend to think there are some overtones in it that I don't like. I admit that I dislike enough of her rulings (that I've heard about....I'm sure there are others I'd agree with) that it probably taints me.

And politics is certainly an issue that comes into play. I am a political animal and will fully admit that. Howeever, you won't see me call for a filibuster (even it if were sustainable), as I think all nominees deserve an up or down vote. Just as with Bush's nominees.

[JWBear]

There is no root issue with her nomination except looking for buzz words to Obama with. That's why Jeff Sessions goes on TV with his lame John McCain giggle and uses the words "feelings" and "empathy."

Very true. I have no doubt that if it was Obama that had nominated Scalia or Alito, the right would still have tried their hardest to paint them as dangerous liberals.

[scaeagles]

And if Bush had nominated Sotomayor the left would do the same.

I grow tired of the whole only-the-right-plays-politics attitude. I at least acknowledge that both sides do.

[JWBear]

Nothing says pro-life like cold-blooded murder.

[Tom]

To give credit where it's due, I appreciate Sarah Palin's statement on the Tiller murder:

I feel sorrow for the Tiller family. I respect the sanctity of life and the tragedy that took place today in Kansas clearly violates respect for life. This murder also damages the positive message of life, for the unborn, and for those living. Ask yourself, 'What will those who have not yet decided personally where they stand on this issue take away from today's event in Kansas?'

Regardless of my strong objection to Dr. Tiller's abortion practices, violence is never an answer in advancing the pro-life message.

[JWBear]

Good for her.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Wow- a statement from Gov. Palin that I can agree with.

Pres Bush said he didn't think it was appropriate for him to criticize his successor.

Me, agreeing with Republicans? Especially these two???

I think the end of the world is nigh.

[Tref]

To give credit where it's due, I appreciate Sarah Palin's statement on the Tiller murder:

Let's put things in perspective, did you think Palin would come out in support of the murder of doctors? I would be interested in knowing what she said about Tiller before he was killed. Bill O'Reilly named him "Tiller the Killer" and compared him to the Nazis and said, "something must be done!"

Well, something was done. And to-night O'Reilly and Hannity and Palin will all decry the violence they once helped incite.

If Palin should get credit for not celebrating the death of a health clinic worker, then that is no credit at all.

[JWBear]

Her reaction was far better (and saner) that Randall Terry's.

[Tref]

Her reaction was far better (and saner) that Randall Terry's.


Maybe but what office is Randall Terry running for?

[Alex]

According to the first sentence of his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Terry) (at least for now) he is apparently an American douchebag. I don't know if that title is elective, appointed, or merely honorary.

[JWBear]

Hee hee... I wonder how long it will stay there...

[Maylar]

I agree 100%. But these people are attacking her because she is a latina. That, my friend, is racism.

I don't care what color she is, but her stance on gun control is intolerable to me. She is for gun control....

In my mind, I don't get how the left which is angry about the warrentless wiretapping (and rightfully angry about it I might add. Obama is expanding the Bush policies on this issue to. what a load of huey) but then works hard to limit guns when the 2nd amendment is rather clear. It pisses me off both sides seem determined to limit our rights as american's, but they just concentrate on some rights, not others. Then again... I'm a Independent so both the left and the right hate my guts anyway.

[Alex]

I'm long on record as supporting gun control but saying it is best accomplished through the amendment process.

As for Sotomayor, I see nothing to indicate that she'll be a star of the court but nothing to suggest she'll suck. Seems pretty middle of the road in terms of qualifications. I have no real problem with her Latina statement since it is self-obvious even if impolitic when taken out of context.

But we often don't know ahead of time who will be good or bad, or even how they'll end up leaning politically.

[Gemini Cricket]

Cheney's is finally admitting there's no link between 9/11 and Iraq. But now he's blaming it all on Richard Clarke. Uh, isn't that the guy who was repeatedly warning them about an attack?

WTF?

Source (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/01/cheney-blames-clarke/)

[Alex]

Jon Stewart settled that last night. Turns out he was blaming the host of American Bandstand.

[Gemini Cricket]

Jon Stewart settled that last night. Turns out he was blaming the host of American Bandstand.
That's funny. I'm watching that right now on Hulu.
:D

[Moonliner]

Cheney's is finally admitting there's no link between 9/11 and Iraq. But now he's blaming it all on Richard Clarke. Uh, isn't that the guy who was repeatedly warning them about an attack?

WTF?

Source (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/01/cheney-blames-clarke/)

But, Cheney always lies. So if he says there was no link.... But there can't be a link.... but he said..... Arrruuugghhh!!!! *pop*

[Ghoulish Delight]

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png

[Snowflake]

Well, I thought President Obama's speech in Cairo today was amazing. :snap:

[scaeagles]

Some of it was laugh out loud funny.

"America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

Umm....excuse me? Islamic countries are the top human rights violaters in the world. Try taking a Bible into Saudi Arabia or seeing what happens to a woman walking down the street with her head uncovered. Tolerant? I'm sorry. Guess that's not funny. That's disgusting.

As a disclaimer, I was just as disgusted when the Bush administration would kiss up to the Saudis.

I also find it funny that it's OK now for Obama to embrace his Islamic roots...having grown up for a while in primarily Islamic nations and even saying his father was Islamic. Let someone mention that during the campaign and they were immediately excorriated.

[Snowflake]

Well Leo, I appreciate your viewpoint. Maybe I'm just an optimist at heart but I found a good deal of the speech inspiring, not perfect, but still I'm hopeful.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

Of course both sides in the US can take this to heart, as well. When I read the above I thought of Dick Cheney immediately. But that's just me.

[innerSpaceman]

I didn't hear the speech. But i assume he was talking about the principals of Islam, and not the results of governments in Islamic countries ... just as American principals should hardly be judged by the 90% of U.S. government results.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I might have said this before but it bears repeating.

Fvck Sean Hanity (http://digg.com/d1sxxG)

[Snowflake]

I didn't hear the speech. But i assume he was talking about the principals of Islam, and not the results of governments in Islamic countries ... just as American principals should hardly be judged by the 90% of U.S. government results.

iSm, if you are insterested the transcript is here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/). I did not see the speech, only read it. Otherwise, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[Gemini Cricket]

I might have said this before but it bears repeating.

Fvck Sean Hanity (http://digg.com/d1sxxG)
I second that fvck.

What gets me is why people like Hannity are still allowed to keep their jobs and credibility after they say stupid sh!t like this. Where is the outrage? Where is the accountability? Bill Maher said one stupid thing and he was gone. Period. Imus said one stupid thing and he's gone. Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, they all say innane stupid things all the time and their ratings go up and no one at Fox "News" holds them accountable for bad reporting, bad form, nothing.

[Scrooge McSam]

GD,

Hehehehe

LOVE the Craig T. Nelson quote!

[Ghoulish Delight]

I can't say I'm offended by this National Review cover...just utterly baffled as to how someone considered it a good choice.

[Alex]

I don't really have a problem with it, just surprised to discover that when the NRO crowd thinks of the word "wisdom" they apparently think of Buddhists. Shouldn't she be dressed like William Buckley?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Like I said, I don't really find it offensive...but I recognize as something that is easily spun into something offensive. Which I suppose they were probably well aware of.

[Alex]

While I won't say he's great, I've always found Shepard Smith one of the better and more enjoyable to watch anchors at Fox News (we used to watch him at lunch at work when we got tired of Russian Roullette on Game Show Network).

Found this interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxvunbIWNyI&feature=player_embedded

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wow.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Anyone want to lay odds that that email Shepard Smith read came from Glenn Beck (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/glenn-beck-spins-the-holo_b_214118.html)?

[Ghoulish Delight]

More from Shepard Smith (http://www.politicususa.com/en/Holocaust-Museum-FNC).

[wendybeth]

He must be so conflicted, working for a network that fans those particular flames so well.

[SacTown Chronic]

Silly Iranians, everybody knows it takes at least a month to properly rig the results of an election.

[sleepyjeff]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_nkorea;_ylt=AijZs5dEE1SWH9ey7_3JsaIHcggF

[Tref]

I know it is supposed to be mocking Sotomayer, but I quite like it. I would be flattered.

[scaeagles]

To the Republican Gov of SC Mark Sanford:

You are an idiot. Resign.

[Alex]

I don't know yet if he's an idiot. I haven't seen a picture of this Argentinian woman.

I don't think an affair is a reason to resign but if he truly did leave the state without making arrangements for his absence then that seems good enough reason.

Also, "I'm walking the Appalachian trail" is now my code phrase for meeting with girlfriends. Don't tell Lani.

[SacTown Chronic]

So "Walking the Appalachian Trail" means "Getting some anal in Argentina"? Works for me.

[Strangler Lewis]

I liked the refrain in his announcement:

"Don't cry for me, Appalachia."

[Tref]

I don't think an affair is a reason to resign

That's OK, 'cause Mark Sanford does. MS should resign just as he called for President Clinton to do after the Lewinsky affair.

[Ghoulish Delight]

No he "shouldn't". It's just as hypocritical for the people who defended Clinton to now be calling for Sanford's resignation as it is for Sanford to have been calling for Clinton's only to have an affair of his own.

If he decides to resign because of it that's his choice. But I my opinion has not changed since the Lewinski affair, infidelity is not reason enough to demand someone's resignation.

[3894]

So "Walking the Appalachian Trail" means "Getting some anal in Argentina"? Works for me.

His Argentinian stimulus plan.

[Strangler Lewis]

It's not enough reason to demand Sanford's resignation. It is, however, enough reason to indulge in mocking him as being unfit for office by his own terms.

[Alex]

And I suspect that Sanford probably (though I haven't seen the quotes) didn't call for Clinton to resign because he had an affair but rather to resign because he lied under oath about the affair (yes, convenient political cover but a not entirely invalid distinction).

And so, similar to what I said. The affair is not reason for Sanford to resign. How he went about having the affair (simply disappearing for several days) may be.

[scaeagles]

I think Sanford should resign, not simply for the affair, but because of his disappearance.

Likewise, with Clinton, it wasn't simply an issue of as affair.

With politicians and affairs, I think an issue of trust comes into play. If a politician will betray the person and/or people closest to them in such a dramatic way, how can I trust them not to be completely self serving in their handling of their duties in their job?

[Alex]

You can't. But you couldn't before the affair either.

Out of curiosity, would you change 401k plans if you learned the fund manager cheated on his wife? Or do you expect that he can separate the spheres?

[scaeagles]

Hmmm... a fair question. I suppose I might. I certainly recognize that we all have our failings, but as with anyone, I prefer to do business with those that I trust.

Yeah, I suppose there is the capability of separating those two spheres, but I would be much more likely to then wonder if I can trust him with my money (in terms of fraud rather than management capability), and those questions of trust could be enough to make me change some things.

[Snowflake]

Sanford should resign for leaving the state in which he was governor without a governor. When nobody obn staff or the Lt. Governor knew where he was or how to reach him. For this he should resign. ymmv

[3894]

Sanford should resign for leaving the state in which he was governor without a governor. When nobody obn staff or the Lt. Governor knew where he was or how to reach him. For this he should resign.

That's certainly dereliction of duty.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wow, Rush Linbaugh is blaming Obama for Sanford's affair. Classic.

[Ghoulish Delight]

So, how many times can one make the same mistake before people have to start thinking it's not an accident?

Just wondering (http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/)

[Tref]

No he "shouldn't". It's just as hypocritical for the people who defended Clinton to now be calling for Sanford's resignation as it is for Sanford to have been calling for Clinton's only to have an affair of his own.

Oh yes, he "should".

Besides, who is calling for anything? If Sanford believes that one should resign for either an illicit affair or lying, and he has certainly done both, then he should act on these beliefs and do the right thing.

[€uroMeinke]

But did he break up with the Argentine? Maybe he can be the first Open Marriage candidate?

[Ghoulish Delight]

But did he break up with the Argentine? Maybe he can be the first Open Marriage candidate?Odds are low. His wife's already kicked him out of the house. Plus, Clinton was clearly the first open marriage candidate, even if they weren't entirely open about their open marriage.

[€uroMeinke]

Odds are low. His wife's already kicked him out of the house. Plus, Clinton was clearly the first open marriage candidate, even if they weren't entirely open about their open marriage.

I think other Presidents beat out Clinton on that - unless we know something about Hillary's lovers

[scaeagles]

Its going to be interesting to see how the situation turns out in Honduras. Both sides are claiming to be in the right, but I think the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html) spells it out very well.

It seems as if the Honduran President was trying to circumvent the constitution, the Supreme Court of Honduras ruled in that way, the President told a military leader not to abide by the ruling of the court, he told the President he had to obey the court, the military guy was fired, and then the military used force to remove the President for violating the Constitution and the orders of the court.

If this is indeed the case, I am concerned that Obama administration is coming to the defense of the ousted President.

[Alex]

If Clinton had been impeached but refused to leave office I'd still have been concerned if the Army came in of its own accord and gave him the boot (or if the military had intervened to put a stop to Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre).

I assume that Honduras has a criminal justice system independent of the military and if so that strikes me as the appropriate forum if indeed the president was engaged in criminal activity.

ETA: And having given my immediate gut reaction to just that WSJ article I'll go try and find out myself what exactly is going on. Then maybe I'll offer an informed opinion too.

[Alex]

Ok, slightly more informed opinion:

Pretty much what I said before. The political institutions of Honduras had ruled his actions illegal. However, there are political and legal solutions to this and the military acting on its own (apparently the claim after a couple days that the military was acting on orders from the supreme court have iffy documentation and the supreme court doesn't have authority to issue such orders anyway) is never a good idea.

As for Obama supporting the wrong guy, you may think that, but he's hardly alone. Not a single single government or international organization has expressed support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_political_crisis#International_react ion) for what the military did in Honduras.

To me the obvious solution is for him to be returned to power and for the national legislature to proceed with impeachment proceedings if those are warranted.

[JWBear]

Military coups never end well.

[Andrew]

And besides, the Honduran president has never produced a birth certificate proving his eligibility to be elected in the first place! I heard he was born in Nicaragua!

[JWBear]

...And, he's Muslim!

[scaeagles]

It was more than political institutions rulings his actions illegal. It was the supreme court. I have incredibly mixed reactions. I am not in support of the Honduran military seizing control, but just what is the appropriate reaction when the President goes against the ruling of the Supreme Court of his country? It would hardly seem as if the justice department would have any recourse (that would be adhered to) if he has already violated those rulings.

Not a good situation either way. And yes, I know that governments all over are condemning it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It was more than political institutions rulings his actions illegal. It was the supreme court. I have incredibly mixed reactions. I am not in support of the Honduran military seizing control, but just what is the appropriate reaction when the President goes against the ruling of the Supreme Court of his country? It would hardly seem as if the justice department would have any recourse (that would be adhered to) if he has already violated those rulings.
What evidence do you have of that? Did they try to arrest him? Did they try to try him for his crimes?

Should the military be sent to remove those in charge of the Connecticut firefighters because they've just been found to be in violation of Constitutional law by the Supreme Court?

[Alex]

The same issue exists in this country.

What would happen if the Supreme Court ruled the actions of a president unconstitutional and yet the president continued doing it anyway?

Nothing, at least by the Supreme Court. In fact we've faced this in the past when the Supreme Court ruled that Andrew Jackson's plans for Indians were unconstitutional and he essentially said "ok, now come and enforce your ruling." The ball, at that point is in Congress's court. They chose to do nothing and we got the Trail of Tears.

Sure, the U.S. Army could have said (were it inclined) "we're going to enforce the Supreme Court's rulings and ship Jackson to Canada" but that would be just as destructive to the national institution as the precipitating malfeasance.

Reading more, I see that the Honduran constitution does not have a handy process for removing a president. That really sucks and it might be the only way to resolve the issue would have been to wait for the term to expire. And complete dissolution of the government might have resulted. But a pre-emptive military action (after all, if they were acting to enforce punishment for criminal activity why did they just send him off to Costa Rica) is a horrible way to go as it completely undermines any idea of political resolution and says that civil government continues to exist only as the military deigns.

And that, not necessarily for any love of the existing president, is why every government that has spoken has spoken against the action.

[Strangler Lewis]

Perhaps a side note, but I assume that if the Chief Justice of the Honduran Supreme Court had been a friend of Hugo Chavez, the WSJ would be calling the president a hero and saying that Bill Pullman should play him in the movie.

[scaeagles]

What evidence do you have of that? Did they try to arrest him? Did they try to try him for his crimes?

Should the military be sent to remove those in charge of the Connecticut firefighters because they've just been found to be in violation of Constitutional law by the Supreme Court?

Evidence of what? I have been speaking in conjecture this whole time, not asserting anything other than the President has indeed not followed the rulings of the supreme court.

I don't suppose the people in Connecticut will go against the ruling of the Supreme Court, so your point is ridiculous at best. I don't think I've even implied anywhere that actions being found to be unconstitutional is worthy of arrest. Not abiding by the ruling of the court, certainly so.

Alex, what you are saying makes complete sense. Like I said, I'm not in support of the military action....I am just wondering how best to deal with this situation when it appears that the President would seem not to care about his actions being ruled to have been in violation of the Constitution.

[Alex]

That's a fair question now that we've moved beyond being concerned that Obama is supporting the existing president (like I've said I have no idea if he does so much as strongly opposes the military ousting him).

And I'm not saying that military intervention should never happen under and circumstance but I do think it is pretty much the last option on the list and even then should be condemned and forced back out of the picture as soon as possible (kind of like I can understand situations in which I sympathize with a parent mudering the killer of their child but that parent still should probably go to jail).

I can't really see the fact that the president was trying to hold a non-binding poll proposition (even if the issue being polled was entirely unconsitutional according to Honduras's somewhat bizaar emphaticism on signle presidential terms) had reached that point. No lives were at risk, the fundamental institutions of state weren't at risk. If he had tried to hold power beyond his elected term (or in defiance of proper early removal from office) then things get more serious.

[Snowflake]

Looks like Al Franken (Me, Al Franken) will finally be sworn in as Senator from Minnesota. The Supreme Court (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090630/US.Minnesota.Senate/) just shot down Norm Coleman. About time this got resolved.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The true absurdity is that when Coleman thought he was going to win, he called on Franken to graciously step aside and not be a sore loser. Seriously.

[Snowflake]

The true absurdity is that when Coleman thought he was going to win, he called on Franken to graciously step aside and not be a sore loser. Seriously.

Of course, I expect Coleman will take this all the way to the Federal SC level.

[Snowflake]

Of course, I expect Coleman will take this all the way to the Federal SC level.

Snowflake = FAIL

Coleman conceded (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090630/US.Minnesota.Senate/), finally.

[innerSpaceman]

Does Franken get an extra half-year on his term?

[SacTown Chronic]

The good governor needs to chuck it all and get down to Argentina to be with his soul mate. Don't try to fall in love with the wife again -- it aint gonna happen. Just go. Walk that Appalachian Trail to his heart's content.

[alphabassettgrrl]

While I might be inclined to forgive an indiscretion, when someone says someone else is his "soul mate" and he's "trying to fall back in love with his wife" -

Don't bother.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Colbert on Franken (http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/07/01/norm-coleman-was-forced-to-cave-to-pressure-from-big-democracy/)

[Prudence]

While I might be inclined to forgive an indiscretion, when someone says someone else is his "soul mate" and he's "trying to fall back in love with his wife" -

Don't bother.

Oh yeah! That's the part where I was thinking that if *I were his wife, I'd be saying, "Don't do me any favors!"

[scaeagles]

I believe that some not so subtle messages have been sent about an upcoming Israeli attack on Iran.

Biden came out this weekend and said that the US cannot dictate to Israel what they do (in direct response to a question about Israel and the Iran nuke program). This might just be Biden being Biden, but combine that with a couple other reports....

The Moussad (sp?) has met with Saudi leaders and have said that the Saudis will do nothing should Israeli F-16s pass through their airspace. Neither the Israelis nor the Saudis have denied those reports.

An Israeli submarine is hanging out in the Persian Gulf.

Could be something is going to happen soon.

[Moonliner]

Potentially interesting Google site for you politico junkies: In Quotes (http://labs.google.com/inquotes/)

From this article (http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/9_google_labs_projects_you_must_try_out) about interesting Google based websites.

[mousepod]

Fox host is apparently a fan of Nazi-like eugenics (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/08/qotd/index.html?source=video&aim=/politics/war_room). Nice.

[Alex]

I can almost kind of see what he was probably trying to say (not that it would have been meaningful) but wow. Not only did he say something else but the individual word choices were awful.

I assume he was trying to question whether the fact that Sweden's population is so genetically homogenous (which generally isn't particularly true or relevant) calls into question how broadly the result would apply.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wow, that's even better than Glenn Beck agreeing that the best thing that could happen for US security is for Bin Laden to launch another successful attack here.

[innerSpaceman]

Though I'm glad to have a president who well commands the English language, I am horrifyingly disappointed in Obama, to a degree beyond what I expected while I voted for him with my nose held.

Beyond all the bungling and broken promises on teh gey issues, there's his multi-hundred billion dollar giveaway to the robber barons of the financial markets which has utterly failed to restart the flow of credit or renegotiate foreclosure loans; the $700 billion poured into the bottomless pit of the 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act' which has as yet failed to put a dent in spiraling unemployment; the cowardly and backfiring drone warfare in AfghaPakistan; retaining the Bush policies towards enemy combatants vis-a-vis military tribunals where torture evidence has not been disqualified and, just recently, affirming that many will remain in custody indefinitely without charge; oh, and now going back on a campaign pledge to end the ban on needle exchange programs ...

We have not removed the ban in our budget proposal because we want to work with Congress and the American public to build support for this change.

That last one's just another in the line of seemingly-DAILY back-slidings and pledge-breakings, and true-color revelations of craven hacksterism.


I don't hate him as much as .... well, nearly every other president I've lived through ... but I'm well on the way. Sickening.

[scaeagles]

I have sworn to vastly limit my criticism of him until July 20 so he has six months in office. It has been exceptionally difficult. My list is rather lengthy, and while that may not be your entire list, I have many more than that off the top of my head.

[Strangler Lewis]

Does your list include bungling and broken promises on gay issues?

[scaeagles]

Broken promises in general, and the list goes far beyond just that.

[Strangler Lewis]

Undoubtedly, but I see I'm going to have to get all Sam Kinison from "Back to School" here: "Say it! Say it! Say 'I'm upset with our president for breaking his promises to the gays! For not fighting against Don't Ask Don't Tell!' Say it!"

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, I can wait 10 more days for the unleashing of scaeagles' Bill of Faults. In fact, it's something to look forward to.

:cheers:

[Alex]

One advantage to being in the loyal opposition. You get to be upset if the promises are kept (because you don't approve of what was promised) and also if they are broken (because obviously the guy's a snake for making promises he doesn't keep).

(Not a partisan statement really, the same was true for Democrats the last eight years.)

[innerSpaceman]

Scaeagles, if your complaints have to do with Obama being the president he advertised himself to be while a candidate, I'm going to be calling those sour grapes.

Just as a method of categorization. Not to claim your complaints are invalid.

[scaeagles]

I would say perhaps a small amount might be that, but certainly not much. And i wouldn't categorize it as sour grapes, just why what he is doing (which he might have campaigned on) isn't what I think is best.

You are making it challenging to remain reserved in my comments prior to the 20th.

[innerSpaceman]

Sorry. Your complaints are your complaints. But why wait 6 months to complain about him being what he claimed to be? You can complain about that from Day 1, it seems to me.


YMMV ... but I've decided to start complaining right now, at 5 months 2 days. Betrayers and turncoats don't deserve 6 months.

[scaeagles]

I have avoided any (much? can't say I haven't at all, but don't recall anything specific) complaining to specifically avoid the sour grapes charges.

I put a self imposed six months on it. Will be over soon enough. Maybe after the next 10 days I won't have anything to complain about. Not likely, but anything is possible, I suppose.

[innerSpaceman]

Something tells me, and I could be wrong, that this is going to be like the Republicans complaining about Clinton --- when Democrats' complaints about him were that he governed just like a Republican ... and left most of us scratching our heads about what Republicans were on about ... except just wanting to complain, or maybe expressing anger that Bill co-opted all their junk.


Essentially my complaints about Obama is that he's governing like a callous, corporate-tool, wealthy-first Republican ... though, like Bill, talks a forked-tongue sweetness of the oppposite to his intentions.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Essentially my complaints about Obama is that he's governing like a callous, corporate-tool, wealthy-first Republican ... Let me just jump in here a second. I haven't read this thread much at all so if others have said the same (or argued against the same) I apologize for any ignorance on my part.


You know, I thought one-issue politics were supposed to have been proven to be counterproductive and poisonous.

Yes, I'm upset about the gay rights stuff. But to say he's governing like a callous corporate tool yadda yadda is just classic Steve hyperbole. He's running around pushing for health care for all. I know we've heard it a million times now and have forgotten how crazy this is, but remember, we're talking about HEALTH CARE FOR ALL IN AMERICA. This is a big deal, on many levels. And this isn't just talk. He is making it happen.

There are other ways I'm less than ecstatic about Obama. There are other ways I'm very proud of what's going on. But throwing out the baby (and his administration is still in the toddler stage) with the bathwater is just overdramatic black-or-white universe stuff, especially as we tread entirely new political paths, or at least, paths we haven't even considered since Nixon was elected.

[innerSpaceman]

I wish I weren't paying as much attention, but Obama's Chief of Staff, Rom Emmanuel, said two days ago that a public option for health care is likely out of the picture now ... and that the White House will likely agree to competition among insurance companies with a public option to kick in ONLY if it's "deemed" the insurance companies aren't competing honestly enough ... barely hidden code word for NEVER.

The public option which Barack has been on and on about was ALREADY the compromise from single-payer health care, which roughly 80% of Americans want. That was ruled off the table from the get-go. So now the insurance companies are getting their way, it looks like, in eliminating the public option which they claim will put them out of business. Pfft, my hyperbole skills have nothing on the insurance industry.


Something like $700 billion was given away to wall street investment banks with no strings attached. Obama haranged Congress to pass the bill without even reading it, telling them failure to do so would lead to, and I quote, "economic catastrophe." Seems my hyperbole skills have nothing on Obama either. Result of this boondoggle? Credit markets have not loosened up - banks merely pocketed the money, or used to pursue acquisitions in other parts of the world. Oh, and barely 3% of loans approaching foreclosure have been renegotiated to keep people in their houses.


How are these not the acts and telegraphed intentions of a corporate-tool, weatlhy-first president?


What about his backsliding on the Guantanemo prisoners? There are conflicting statement this week from the Justice Dept and the top military brass on whether evidence obtained through torture will be admitted. Why is there no clarity on NO IT WON'T. And, most disgusting of all, the administration now says many of the "enemy combatants" will simply be held forever without charge.


Bush Much? What the Fvck, OBAMA????


Where's my one-issue politics? I haven't even mentioned the plethora of gay betrayals.

[JWBear]

I too am getting very, very disapointed in Obama.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Have to say, it's a convincing post, :iSm:.

[JWBear]

American experiences French medical system when he has to seek emergency treatment in Paris.

Link (http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/my-whopping-32-emergency-room-visit-in.html)

[Morrigoon]

American experiences French medical system when he has to seek emergency treatment in Paris.

Link (http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/my-whopping-32-emergency-room-visit-in.html)

Compelling. And one of the better accounts of care in another country I've heard (specifics, rather than generalities, will do a lot better job of currying my favor)

I don't even want to think of the medical bills my dad's going to have after his recent hospital stay. At least he's got medicare and supplemental insurance. If the same thing had happened to me, I'd pretty much have to declare bankruptcy. No other way around it. (And that's not fair to the doctors, who deserve to be paid for their work)

[alphabassettgrrl]

I don't even want to think of the medical bills my dad's going to have after his recent hospital stay. At least he's got medicare and supplemental insurance. If the same thing had happened to me, I'd pretty much have to declare bankruptcy.

That is one of the big things that's wrong with the current system. I'm in the same boat.

[innerSpaceman]

Ok, six months are up. Calling scaeagles, calling Mr. scaeagles!!

[scaeagles]

Indeed they are up. I've been out of town the last few days, but will most certainly be posting something soon.

[Scrooge McSam]

Out of town, eh?

Nice trip?

[wendybeth]

Out of town, eh?

Nice trip?

I'll bet ours was funner.:D


(Hi, Sam!)

[Scrooge McSam]

No doubt... just wondering if our travels were in the same... um... vicinity.

(Hey Wendy and Bobbi and Tori and Nick)

[scaeagles]

Mine sucked. Was supposd to still be gone but due to the expenses I listed in the vent thread we had to cut our out of town jaunt to 3 days 2 nights. We were in San Diego. We were supposed to be gone 6 nights. Sigh.

Good life lesson for the kids, though. Gotta pay for the have to before the want to.

[SacTown Chronic]

Airing of grievances! Airing of grievances!

[Gemini Cricket]

One of my big projects today is sorting through thousands of pages of Paliamentary Debates for a certain South Pacific country. The country is basically a theocracy. Reading the debates is terrifying. These government leaders are trying to adjust laws so that they coincide with what the bible says literally. Terrifying... imho.

[Ghoulish Delight]

One of my big projects today is sorting through thousands of pages of Paliamentary Debates for a certain South Pacific country. The country is basically a theocracy. Reading the debates is terrifying. These government leaders are trying to adjust laws so that they coincide with what the bible says literally. Terrifying... imho.You've got it wrong. While it is in the South, Texas's shores are on the Gulf of Mexico which is connected to the Atlantic, not the Pacific.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Not 20 minutes after I posted that "joke" I was forwarded this story:

http://www.ufwaction.org/campaign/tx709


The TX State Board of Education has hired 6 "experts" to determine what will be in the books their schools use. Some of these "experts" are arguing that the state’s social studies and history textbooks are giving "too much attention" to some of the most prominent civil rights leaders in US History, amely Cesar Chavez and Thurgood Marshall.

...

The same "expert" wants to eliminate Thurgood Marshall, a prominent Civil Rights leader who argued the landmark case that resulted in school desegregation and was the first African-American U.S. Supreme Court justice. He wrote that the late justice is "not a strong enough example" of an important historical figure to be presented to Texas students.


David Barton, the one quoted above, is a noted Christian Right author who has specifically attacked the separation of church and state.

So yeah, let us know what Texas' future looks like, Brad.

[Strangler Lewis]

Well, it did take a white man to get Marshall on the Supreme Court. It's not like he got there on his own power.

[innerSpaceman]

That's freaky, G.D.

What stocks should I buy?

[Ghoulish Delight]

That's freaky, G.D.

What stocks should I buy?Has God gone public yet?

[Ghoulish Delight]

So I've watched Hillary Clinton's "outburst" in Africa. I can't really see what the big fuss is about.

[innerSpaceman]

Meanwhile, still waiting for scaeagles' advertised "outburst" about Obama. :rolleyes:

[scaeagles]

I KNOW! I apologize. I haven't invested the time.

[innerSpaceman]

oh, pshaw. My Bush list was on the tip of my fingers at all times ...





... and always growing much faster than the fingernails on those fingers. :p

[scaeagles]

I'm not an angry old curmedgeon like you, though.

[innerSpaceman]

yeah .... just old.

[JWBear]

Saw this on FB... :snap: :snap: :snap:

"This morning I woke to my alarm clock, powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the local water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to an FCC-regulated channel to see what the National Weather Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather will be, using satellites designed, built, and launched into orbit by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast, which has been inspected for safety by the US Department of Agriculture and took my medicine, which has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

"At the appropriate time, as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I got into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-certified and -approved automobile, and set out to work on the roads designed and built by the local, state, and national Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase fuel at a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, at a pump certified by the local Bureau of Weights and Measures to have dispensed what it says it did, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door, I drop my mail in the outbox for the US Postal Service, which can deliver a note anywhere in the country in less than a week, and drop my kids off at the local public school.

"After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of state and local building codes and a fire marshal's inspection, and which has
not been vandalized or plundered of its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log onto the Internet, which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and carp on freerepublic.com about how 'socialism' is bad because the government can't do anything right."

[scaeagles]

yeah .... just old.

Can't argue with that.

[wendybeth]

VJWM.:snap::cheers::snap:

[BDBopper]

Anyone want a good laugh today? Try this parody article in Uncyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Mike_Huckabee) It is one of the funniest things i have read in a long time. Kind of ironic isn't it? Well I do have a great sense of humor, sometimes even a twisted one.

You want more? Try this one (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ron_Paul) which claims Ron Raul is the 9th emperor of the United States.

[JWBear]

You go, Barney!!! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/19/barney-frank-confronts-wo_n_262682.html) :snap: :snap: :snap:

[scaeagles]

Barney Frank is a moron. Not necessarily for this, but he's a complete idiot.

[SacTown Chronic]

Well if scaeagles says so, it must be true.

[innerSpaceman]

I don't think this was the type of tact I suppose a public official should employ in such situations, but I've been dying to see one such official lay it out quite as plainly for one such retarded neanderthal constituent.

[JWBear]

Barney Frank is a moron. Not necessarily for this, but he's a complete idiot.

Why, because he disagrees with you?

[JWBear]

This article is spot on, imo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-republican-party-is-t_b_262594.html)

[scaeagles]

Um, no. Mostly because he engineered the whole Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae lending to unqualified borrowers, pushing legislation to force other banks to lend to less than qualified borrowers, playing a HUGE part in the current economic situation, and recently has asked again for the Freddy and Fannie to be able to relax their lending standards.

There are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO many more reasons, but that's the primary one.

[SacTown Chronic]

I don't know about that cult business, JWBear, but the willingness of the Republican party's Unsilent Minority to knowingly disseminate incorrect information in order to keep the grass-roots minions scared and angry is disturbing. The right-wing media machine is the greatest threat to our collective intelligence since MTV.

[JWBear]

Agreed.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Congress Deadlocked Over How To Not Provide Health Care (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/congress_deadlocked_over_how_to)

[Alex]

I don't think this was the type of tact I suppose a public official should employ in such situations, but I've been dying to see one such official lay it out quite as plainly for one such retarded neanderthal constituent.

As they say, a political gaffe is accidentally telling the truth.

[Tom]

I know we all were secretly hoping it would happen...

the Whigs (http://www.modernwhig.org/) are back.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Intriguing indeed.




On the healthcare front, Robert Reich is batsh*t crazy.

Robert Reich calls for 'march on Washington' in support of public option (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26224.html)

Here's the part that is astounding to me:

“Very few things happen in Washington that are in the public's interest when corporations have huge financial stakes in the game, as they obviously do with health care — unless the public is actively involved, engaged and organized,” Reich wrote. “We won't get a public option, or anything close to it, unless people who feel strongly about it make a racket.”

So let me get this straight - To protect the "public's interest" against the corporations' competing desire to protect their "huge financial stakes in the game", you, Mr. Right, propose that the public stand up and make a racket to protect the corporations' huge financial stakes in the game? Did I follow that correctly????

[Alex]

I'm not sure I'm understanding you (or at least your recap of what Reich said).

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm not sure I'm understanding you (or at least your recap of what Reich said).
Yeah, my bad. I, in fact, did not follow that correctly.

I was thinking of it as, "Public Option" vs. "Completely socialized option' (e.g. single payer), rather than "Public Option" vs. "Don't do sh*t". I retract.

[Alex]

Just one correction, "completely socialized" is not "single payer." Completely socialized is single payer/single provider.

(I only care to correct since so many people are pretending that what is being proposed is the latter when nobody in any position to possibly accomplish anything in America is actually advocating for it.)

[scaeagles]

I still think Reich is crazy for the most part, but not for that statement. :)

[innerSpaceman]

I think scaeagles is batsh!t crazy for that statement.




(but only because I'm impatiently awaiting his Obama rant.)




(And, no, impatient was not an ObamaCare pun.)

[scaeagles]

I know. I know. I know. Too much to rant about! :)

And I'd like to think of it as more of a intelligent discourse into the error of Obama's ways.

[innerSpaceman]

I can hardly wait. Because if you leave any out, I've got plenty of my own.


(I like some of what he's doing, but - as with all presidents - I've got problems with much of it. Still, he's a good public speaker, and we haven't had that for a while. Not as good a bamboozler as Clinton was, but who could match up to that. Obama's quite the bamboozler, though.)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Just one correction, "completely socialized" is not "single payer." Completely socialized is single payer/single provider.

(I only care to correct since so many people are pretending that what is being proposed is the latter when nobody in any position to possibly accomplish anything in America is actually advocating for it.)Yeah yeah, I know, that was a rushed retraction else I would have been more precise. I should have said "public option" vs "no more private health insurance".

[scaeagles]

Still, he's a good public speaker, and we haven't had that for a while.

He can read a teleprompter in a convincing fashion. Get him off the teleprompter and he does not do well.

[BarTopDancer]

Some Parents Oppose Obama Speech to Students (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/us/04school.html)

Some parents said they were concerned because the speech had not been screened for political content. Nor, they said, had it been reviewed by the State Board of Education and local school boards, which, under state law, must approve the curriculum.

“The thing that concerned me most about it was it seemed like a direct channel from the president of the United States into the classroom, to my child,” said Brett Curtiss, an engineer from Pearland, Tex., who said he would keep his three children home. “I don’t want our schools turned over to some socialist movement.”

Paranoid much?

I'm sure there were/would be parents who were/would be if Bush had spoken to students. I know he read them stories but I don't recall if he ever did this.

We are a divided country and this type of behavior is not helping. Same with the 2012 stickers (though I'm sure if a Republican is elected for 2012 the 2016 stickers will appear).

[Morrigoon]

Heaven forbid our children get brainwashed into believing in the value of a good education. They might start *gasp!* "learning" things, and talking about evolution and sh!t. No, you're right, they should be kept home, safe from such atrocities as being directly addressed by the top elected official in our nation.

[scaeagles]

Have you seen the literature from the department of Ed that goes along with his speech?

I would not object to my kids seeing it. I would want to be there, though, to see what he is saying and be able to help my kids with anything I objected to. My kids go to a private school and it has already been announced the elementary school will not be viewing it.

[Betty]

Funny. I posted this in the WTF news. ;)

[BarTopDancer]

Have you seen the literature from the department of Ed that goes along with his speech?

Nope, do you want to share it with us?

I would not object to my kids seeing it. I would want to be there, though, to see what he is saying and be able to help my kids with anything I objected to. My kids go to a private school and it has already been announced the elementary school will not be viewing it.

What would you object to? Going to school to get a good education?
Would you explain to them why you object or just tell them that Obama is evil and damaging our country beyond repair and they should think that way too.

I remember my dad clearly explaining to me why he felt the way he did about political issues. If he disagreed with something he'd explain what the the issue was, what the current path that he object to was and why he objected to it. It clearly helped me form some critical thinking skills and trying to understand the other side even if I didn't agree with it.

[scaeagles]

I don't trust Obama in the least. I can't tell you in advance what I would object to because I haven't heard it. It depends on what he says. My younger childern wouldn't necessarily get certain nuances that could certainly exist in what he says.

What I object to specifically about what the department of ed sent out is the proposal that students write essays about how they can help Obama. That's creepy. Like I said, I don't object to it if my younger children listen to it, but I want to be there so I can discuss with them any problems that I have with it. Something tells me if after the Iraq invasion Bush addressed school children and about whatever and the department of ed sent this out the left would be absolutely howling. And rightfully so.

[BarTopDancer]

I don't trust Obama in the least. I can't tell you in advance what I would object to because I haven't heard it. It depends on what he says. My younger childern wouldn't necessarily get certain nuances that could certainly exist in what he says.

What I object to specifically about what the department of ed sent out is the proposal that students write essays about how they can help Obama. That's creepy. Like I said, I don't object to it if my younger children listen to it, but I want to be there so I can discuss with them any problems that I have with it. Something tells me if after the Iraq invasion Bush addressed school children and about whatever and the department of ed sent this out the left would be absolutely howling. And rightfully so.

Oh. I thought you were actually going to share the literature (or a link to the literature) from the Department of Ed instead of rambling on. But the outrage then lack of proof is par for the course. I believe someone (GD? JW?) is waiting for a breakdown about issues you had with someone. Can't remember who or what now but I've seen them ask for it and you state you're too busy to provide it.

You also didn't answer my question about how you are going to discuss it with them. To make it easy for you:

Would you explain to them why you object or just tell them that Obama is evil and damaging our country beyond repair and they should think that way too.

I'm sure that people would object to Bush speaking and my reaction would be the same as it is now.

Whatever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country".

[scaeagles]

How will I discuss it with them? Again, it depends on what he's saying, so I can't tell you. Should he come right out and say "Tell your parents you want the government to ensure your health for your entire life" might meet with a severe and profanity laced outburst, while "Stay in school" would be something to the effect of "yeah, pretty obvious, and I've told you every day of your life when you procrastinate on your homework how important school is - in fact, we pay extra for it because we think it's so important".

At the top of this (http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml) page are links to pdfs of the department of education suggested activities pre, during, and post speech. It's just creepy. Anything from describing this as an historic event (a President telling kids to stay in school is historic?) and wanting comparisons to other historic Presidential moments to essays about how they can help Obama to asking how the President will inspire them today. Creepy.

[BarTopDancer]

I just looked over both sets of literature (Prek-6 here (http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf) and 7-12 here (http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf)). It looks like a normal Social Studies or Government lesson to me.

Who is the President. Why is he speaking to us. How can we make our country a better place.

Replace Obama with Regan and I suspect you'd be singing praises about how wonderful it is that he's speaking to students and that they are running these lesson plans. Right? Right.

[Prudence]

Oh yes. It is clear that the President is trying to indoctrinate innocent school children into believing that education is good for them. It's probably going to be some communist crap about encouraging them to better themselves. If I had kids, I'd want them to get messages about education from the real role models out there. Especially black kids. They don't need to waste their time with some black President. There are plenty of rich sports heroes and entertainers to teach kids about the really important things in life: booze, babes, and bling. I think it's appalling that a politician would abuse his position to brainwash the nation's children into thinking of ways to improve their country and themselves.

[BarTopDancer]

Oh yes. It is clear that the President is trying to indoctrinate innocent school children into believing that education is good for them. It's probably going to be some communist crap about encouraging them to better themselves. If I had kids, I'd want them to get messages about education from the real role models out there. Especially black kids. They don't need to waste their time with some black President. There are plenty of rich sports heroes and entertainers to teach kids about the really important things in life: booze, babes, and bling. I think it's appalling that a politician would abuse his position to brainwash the nation's children into thinking of ways to improve their country and themselves.

Don't forget about all those "family values" "protect traditional marriage" "won't someone think of the children" toting politicians who have been caught having affairs, some with men.. and some with minors!

[scaeagles]

I already said that if Obama wants to tell school children to stay in school, great. I just don't trust him. And I know that vast majority here wouldn't trust Bush doing it.

I wouldn't be excited for Reagan to address school children, but it goes beyond that. Would any leftists here want an assignment for elementary children to be "How will Bush inspire you today?". I doubt it. And I'm fine with that.

How about he release a transcript of his speech this weekend so parents can read it? Would that be objectionable?

[wendybeth]

Gee, I wonder where George was, when the planes hit the Towers.......Oh, yeah! He was reading to a class of students. The horror! As I recall, it was fairly well publicized, even before the deer in the headlights moment. Wtf is wrong with the Right- are you REALLY that frikkin paranoid? LIke it or not, he is the President, and he's trying to reach out to young Americans. What's so insidious about that? He's not the first, and he surely won't be the last. You have a Black, Liberal President- get over it.

[Alex]

I wouldn't be excited for Reagan to address school children, but it goes beyond that. Would any leftists here want an assignment for elementary children to be "How will Bush inspire you today?". I doubt it. And I'm fine with that.

I really don't see the problem with that. Is the idea of the president of the United State inspiring children somehow bad, regardless of the party of the president? Whether that be in general (George HW Bush addressed schools and encouraged us to engage in charitable service; what an asshole) or, as appears to be the case from the materials you linked to he is simply trying to inspire them to value education and strive to succeed (god knows he's a horrible example of how educational excellence can help propel you beyond mundane beginnings).

But I'm sure that every fourth frame of the video will flash "Kill Your Parents If They're Republicans."

[BarTopDancer]

I already said that if Obama wants to tell school children to stay in school, great. I just don't trust him. And I know that vast majority here wouldn't trust Bush doing it.

I wouldn't be excited for Reagan to address school children, but it goes beyond that. Would any leftists here want an assignment for elementary children to be "How will Bush inspire you today?". I doubt it. And I'm fine with that.

Sure. He can inspire people to follow his lead or do the opposite. I wonder how many 18 - 22 year old first time voters he inspired to vote for Obama. They were 10 - 12 years old the first time he was elected.

How about he release a transcript of his speech this weekend so parents can read it? Would that be objectionable?

Done (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ib8qja0qqnnbZFsHF7kP6GV9XVfQD9AG43GO0)

The White House plans to release the speech online Monday so parents can read it.

[wendybeth]

How will I discuss it with them? Again, it depends on what he's saying, so I can't tell you. Should he come right out and say "Tell your parents you want the government to ensure your health for your entire life" might meet with a severe and profanity laced outburst, while "Stay in school" would be something to the effect of "yeah, pretty obvious, and I've told you every day of your life when you procrastinate on your homework how important school is - in fact, we pay extra for it because we think it's so important".

At the top of this (http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml) page are links to pdfs of the department of education suggested activities pre, during, and post speech. It's just creepy. Anything from describing this as an historic event (a President telling kids to stay in school is historic?) and wanting comparisons to other historic Presidential moments to essays about how they can help Obama to asking how the President will inspire them today. Creepy.

If you had ever been in the teaching game, then you would know that this is standard practice for any major, or even minor, occasion. Prior to Challenger blasting into oblivion, millions of schoolchildren were involved in the process by using before, during, and after the event suggestions to maximize the educational aspect of the experience. Of course, 'after' in the case of Challenger probably involved counseling, but I digress. Any unique opportunity in the classroom (be it public, private, or homeschool) is approached in the manner suggested the Dept. of Education, etc. Nearly every lesson plan I use at home contains many of these same suggestions as applied to the topic at hand.

[JWBear]

I agree with BTD, Leo. There is nothing in either of those plans that any reasonable person would describe as "creepy". In fact, most of it sounds like it will bore the kids (if not the teachers) to tears.

What is it about Obama that terrifies Republicans so much? They didn't have this kind of terror of Bill Clinton (just abject loathing). So what is it?


(ETA: When I posted this I didn't realize there was another whole page of posts!)

[BarTopDancer]

And now this thread isn't safe for anyone but Kevy... and maybe CM.

[JWBear]

I already said that if Obama wants to tell school children to stay in school, great. I just don't trust him. And I know that vast majority here wouldn't trust Bush doing it.

It wouldn't have bothered me one bit. But then, I don't have an unreasonable fear of him. I just think he was terribly misguided, corrupt, and incompetent.

I wouldn't be excited for Reagan to address school children, but it goes beyond that. Would any leftists here want an assignment for elementary children to be "How will Bush inspire you today?". I doubt it. And I'm fine with that.

You are reading way too much into this, Leo. As WB said, it's paranoia.

[JWBear]

And now this thread isn't safe for anyone but Kevy... and maybe CM.

???

[Alex]

If you'd like to contact the actual teachers who are the current Teaching Ambassador Fellows who produced these creepy documents, you can find them here (http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherfellowship/awards.html). This guy (http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherfellowship/2009fellows/canter.html), in particular, I suspect of promoting a subliminal Zionist agenda through teaching aide materials. She's (http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherfellowship/2009fellows/ulmer.html) an obvious member of the East Coast Elite trying to indoctrinate our nation's children - she used cognizant in a sentenc.e

[BarTopDancer]

And now this thread isn't safe for anyone but Kevy... and maybe CM.

???

Ya, I have no idea what happened. I swore i posted this in the Wal-Mart thread.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

My kids go to a private school and it has already been announced the elementary school will not be viewing it.

Considering the speech is going to be made available to parents and educators prior to being aired, I find it completely inappropriate and irresponsible for a school, private or otherwise, to decide beforehand that they aren't going to let students view it, without so much as reading it first and seeing if anything objectionable is even contained within.

That's far more creepy to me than anything you have pointed out, far more creepy. I would have no choice but to remove my child from such an institution immediately, regardless of their merits.

[wendybeth]

MBC, my kid's homeschool group is full of this sort of 'thinking'. The parents run around all freaked out about the latest attack on their child's innocence, rarely bothering to ever check it out for themselves. (Harry Potter is a good example). The viciousness of their attacks on Obama is astounding- yet few can actually point to anything he's actually done and cite that as the reason for their alarm. When confronted with facts, it's usually a vague sort of "Well, there's just something about him I don't like/trust." We all know what that something is- it's the skincolor their God gave him. I wonder why they don't ever consider that perhaps their God planned for him to be President? Why not- everything else in their lives is ordained by God- yet they are so reluctant to accept their elected leader. Forget about acceptance; just laying off on the assasination 'jokes' would be a nice change.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

To be fair, while I'm certain that a significant portion of distrust stems from racism, I don't think that's the only reason. Nor do I suspect that is where Scaeagles mistrust stems from.

Still, this unjustified paranoia is growing at an alarming rate, fueled by endless emails and television punditry. And perhaps my biggest fear is that one of the moonbat extremists of the party, or a group of them, are going to be riled up by this misinformation to the point that they take matters into their own hands. I sincerely fear that the time is coming where there is going to be blood on the hands of everyone propagating these rumors and misinformation, and yet, they will refuse to consider that they played any role or hold any responsibility for what took place.

The abortion doctor being shot, the Holocaust Museum shooting - just the tip of the iceberg. Threats against the President of the United States have increased 400% since Obama took office. I'm pretty firmly convinced that the next act of terrorism that this country sees will be domestic and from someone who self-affiliates with the Republican party. I hope I'm wrong.

[Strangler Lewis]

The elementary school indoctrination experience.

"How was school today?"
"Good."
"Anything interesting happen?"
"Zachary's mom brought cupcakes. Emily fell at recess."
"Wasn't today President Obama's speech?"
"Yeah."
"Did your class watch it?"
"Yeah."
"How was it?"
"Good."
"What did he talk about?"
"Stuff."
"Like?"

Crickets.

"Were you listening?"
"Yeah." Pause. "I guess he talked about x."
"What do you think about that?"
"I don't know. Good, I guess."

And now . . . the great teachable moment.

"You know, the president, the governor, all these politicians, the priest/rabbi: they're just people. We hope they mean well, but they can be wrong. So you always have to think about what they say."
"Okay."

[scaeagles]

I'm glad it's available. I was not aware of that.

Moonbats taking things into their own hands....like the guy in Colorado who vandalized a democrat party office to try to make it look like Republicans did it? Or the other guy who bit off the pinky of an Obamacare protester? Would you say that the US Army soldier who took a grenade into the barracks a few years ago and blew up a bunch of people was inspired by those on the left protesting the war? Perhaps John Kerry who was saying we were terrorizing women and children in the dark of night and killing innocent civilians? Does he get the blame?

I come from the old fashioned school where the individual is responsible for their own actions.

All that being said, I need to read what he's planning on saying in his speech. I do not find my distrust of him unreasonable, and MBC, I appreciate that you know it does not stem from racism.

[Mousey Girl]

I don't trust Obama in the least. I can't tell you in advance what I would object to because I haven't heard it. It depends on what he says. My younger childern wouldn't necessarily get certain nuances that could certainly exist in what he says.

What I object to specifically about what the department of ed sent out is the proposal that students write essays about how they can help Obama. That's creepy. Like I said, I don't object to it if my younger children listen to it, but I want to be there so I can discuss with them any problems that I have with it. Something tells me if after the Iraq invasion Bush addressed school children and about whatever and the department of ed sent this out the left would be absolutely howling. And rightfully so.

I totally agree with you. Last night, during The Boy's BTS night, I made sure that his school would NOT be showing this speech. If his school had decided to show it, he would not be going to school on Tuesday.

If it was just the speech, I would still object, but he would go to school. When I read about the stuff that is being sent out with the speech, I got upset.

I don't get into the political side of things very often. I do NOT think Obama is a good president. I did not vote for him. He is over stepping his power every chance he gets.

The crap he has pulled with his "Stimulus" package, and how it is affecting my parents and other retirerees is horrid.

I am ready for him to go now.

[Alex]

Talk about overstepping his power, when I was in high school how is it that JFK had been dead for 25 years and was still somehow making me do shuttle runs twice a year?

[DreadPirateRoberts]

VAM

[Strangler Lewis]

I suppose I would prefer to see any essay topics phrased as "How I Can Help My Country/State/City" than how I can help any particular office holder. I think, however, that the only way that opposition to this event can be principled rather than paranoid is if you think that no president has any business addressing school children about anything. This means no "How can I help President Bush/America win the war on terror," no "How can I help President Roosevelt/America win World War II" Etc. It probably also means no civics or, rather, no teaching of civic responsibility, since people clearly differ on how much we should be allowed to depend on/intrude on one another.

When I was in Fourth Grade, my teacher's adult son was shot and nearly killed in a mugging in New York City. The substitute, or maybe the principal, made us all write letters to Mayor Lindsay, Governor Rockefeller and, I believe, the New York City Chief of Police asking them to make the streets safer. My mother still has Mayor Lindsay's response framed, and I thought it was pretty cool at the time.

On the other hand, perhaps the whole project was inappropriate. There was probably an implicit racist cast to the whole undertaking since New York city crime was inevitably about the blacks and the Puerto Ricans. There were probably sophisticated union issues involved that fourth graders had no business weighing in on, and Lindsay had enough problems with the unions.

[Mousey Girl]

The way the (Bakersfield) local schoo odistricts are phrasing it is that they don't show the students anything that has not been reviewed. This is a standard policy, across the board, no matter who is wanting to address the students.

Now, if Nickolas was in high school, and this was shown in a government class, and was open for discussion I would not have an issue. I do have an issue with him in 7th grade, no real discussion allowed. We discuss politics in my house, we review both sides of an issue. When he makes a black or white statement, we discuss that there are shades of gray that also need to be seen.

My parents are ultra conservative. Bakersfield is mostly conservative. I do my best to show him that is more than one way to look at things. I can't count the times he and I have debated about what he heard over at my parents. For an example, he knows that The Old People oppose gay marrage. He knows that I support gay marrage. We talked about it at great length.

Every one is entitled to their own opinion. I may not agree with that opinion, but it doesn't make it any less valid than mine.

[BarTopDancer]

I'm glad it's available. I was not aware of that.


Of course you weren't. To be aware of that, so you could educate yourself would go against the "Well I just don't trust him and I don't want my kids to see it...because if they do I might have to hold an intelligent discussion with them about why I feel the way I feel and answer questions and.... *gasp* find out they might feel differently then me". And as a toaster-touting paranoid Republican that just can't happen.

Does that about sum it up?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Settle.

[scaeagles]

I believe I said I would be willing to watch it with them for the purposes of discussion with them. You think I avoid discussing things with my kids because they might think differently than me?

[Strangler Lewis]

This all calls to mind a high school assembly from the late '70s that I actually did not attend for some reason. I believe Euro did, however.

As it was described to me, the speaker entered the gym to address the assembled students. He then proceeded to run down America and tout the virtues of the Soviet Union. I don't recall hearing if this provoked a response or not. At some point, however, the speaker revealed that it was an all just an act and that he was simply dramatizing the ideological assaults that the students would be confronting in the real world.

Great work if you can get it. I don't recall if parental consent was solicited for this show.

[scaeagles]

High school - great. I think for kids that are at the level of being able to think critically about such things it is a wonderful exercise. Elementary school - I don't think the reasoning capacity exists to make value judgements on such things.

[BarTopDancer]

Settle.

Simmadownnow :D

[Strangler Lewis]

I certainly think it's reasonable for schools to say to high school kids, "You should be able to figure out what you believe, articulate why you believe it and see the strengths and weaknesses in contrary positions." However, I very much doubt that this was the purpose of the exercise in 1970s Orange County. It was us=good, them=bad, and seductive dangers lurk around every corner.

I also doubt that the school intended the students to take critical opinions on the event itself, i.e., that it was ridiculous.

[Betty]

I wouldn't be excited for Reagan to address school children,

Are you sure about that? I mean - he's dead and all. It would be like Zombie Reagan or something and that wouldn't excite you in the least? :p ;) :D

[Alex]

Yes, because it is important that both the pro and con side be thoroughly presented on the hotly contested issue of valuing education, taking responsibility for your own education, and contributing to an environment where education is respected.

I think Newt Gingrich pretty much nailed it when he said ""Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?"

Though, of course, that was in 1991 when George Bush was doing the same thing (with almost exactly the same talking points as Obama has announced). I don't know if there was an uproar in 1986 when Reagan did a student Q&A broadcast nationally to schools in which he not only talked about the importance of education but also discussed actual politically controversial issues such as nuclear disarmament and taxation.

But in the stupid kabuki of national politics, when Bush did it in 1991 there were some Democrats who decried it as a political event. In the interest of fairness, let me say now that they too were being douchebags (though the Bush event was in the midst of the just ramping up 1992 presidential campaign, but regardless I think it is good).

And our national political leaders interact without pre-filtering with our students all the freaking time. Both of our senators addressed assemblies while I was in high school (the Flinstones-naming-inspired pair that was Brock Adams and Slade Gorton). Are we all aware that Michelle Obama has regularly been visiting our nation's elementary schools since January, indoctrinating children wherever she goes?

But then I honestly don't get this idea that our elementary schools are supposed to be designed to protect our children from teh complex thoughts of the real world. I am amused, however, that among certain circles our current president is apparently just as reprehensible and damaging to young minds as evolution.

[Betty]

The way the (Bakersfield) local schoo odistricts are phrasing it is that they don't show the students anything that has not been reviewed. This is a standard policy, across the board, no matter who is wanting to address the students.

Now, if Nickolas was in high school, and this was shown in a government class, and was open for discussion I would not have an issue. I do have an issue with him in 7th grade, no real discussion allowed. We discuss politics in my house, we review both sides of an issue. When he makes a black or white statement, we discuss that there are shades of gray that also need to be seen.

My parents are ultra conservative. Bakersfield is mostly conservative. I do my best to show him that is more than one way to look at things. I can't count the times he and I have debated about what he heard over at my parents. For an example, he knows that The Old People oppose gay marrage. He knows that I support gay marrage. We talked about it at great length.

Every one is entitled to their own opinion. I may not agree with that opinion, but it doesn't make it any less valid than mine.

So why not let him watch it and then discuss it with him?

[scaeagles]

I was in HS in 1986, but do not recall seeing the Reagan thing, but it shouldn't have happened, particularly since it included those issues.

But like I stated, it isn't the fact that Obama is addressing the kids that I think is problematic. It's primarily the department of ed suggested discussion points that go along with it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The way the (Bakersfield) local schoo odistricts are phrasing it is that they don't show the students anything that has not been reviewed. This is a standard policy, across the board, no matter who is wanting to address the students.Except that, as has been mentioned several times already, the material is available for review. They, for their own political reasons, have CHOSEN not to review it apparently.


Every one is entitled to their own opinion. I may not agree with that opinion, but it doesn't make it any less valid than mine.But you'll shield your child from hearing an elected official speak? On an entirely non-controversial subject matter no less?

Yes, because it is important that both the pro and con side be thoroughly presented on the hotly contested issue of valuing education, taking responsibility for your own education, and contributing to an environment where education is respected.Education is the enemy of the modern conservative movement.

[Alex]

Can you point out in the current version of them (the Department of Education materials) specific quoted language you find problematic? Because I read them and don't see in them what you're saying is there.

Obviously that is because we're viewing the world very differently (I think it is wonderful for kids to be exposed to this stuff; you obviously don't).

So I'd be curious to see a mini-Rosetta stone where you say "this exact language means X."

This is not to say that I am all that impressed by the materials. They're full of the bull**** inanities that I hated about them when I was in school. But I don't find them bothersome beyond that.


As a completely side question. If elementary school minds are not yet ready to be exposed to political debate, how is it that they are capable of handling religious indoctrination. I'm assuming you didn't take the position that the nature of god was too complex for your 8-year-old so you were going to filter out any exposure to religious ideas until she was old enough to be properly skeptical?

[wendybeth]

Suggested discussion points, projects, etc are all geared as an aid to (tired and overworked) teachers, most who welcome guidance in lesson planning for subjects outside their regular curriculum. You should know that pretty much ALL curriculum, public and private, comes with the same type of advice. This is not some new Commy addition to our educational process- like I said before, it's standard. I'll send you a zillion examples from the curriculum sites I use for Tori's school stuff. Ask any teacher- they are not required to follow these suggestions. (Unless specifically directed by the leadership of their school or district, which is rare).

[Ghoulish Delight]

As a completely side question. If elementary school minds are not yet ready to be exposed to political debate,...
In elementary school I took part in a program called something like "Kids Vote". It was during the '88 election campaign (4th grade for me). We discussed the process of primaries and elections, we talked about the candidates, we either debated or read debate material on a few issues, and it all culminated with a huge "caucus" at Universal Studios (when they had the An American Tail play area thing) where we heard speeches and voted. It was awesome.

[Mousey Girl]

So why not let him watch it and then discuss it with him?

That would be fine, but not in a school setting. If he wants to see it he can watch it here, with me, and together we can talk about it.

[JWBear]

The abortion doctor being shot, the Holocaust Museum shooting - just the tip of the iceberg. Threats against the President of the United States have increased 400% since Obama took office. I'm pretty firmly convinced that the next act of terrorism that this country sees will be domestic and from someone who self-affiliates with the Republican party. I hope I'm wrong.

Carefull MbC… Awhile back, I was eviscerated on this board for suggesting that violent right-wing extremism is on the rise.

Moonbats taking things into their own hands....like the guy in Colorado who vandalized a democrat party office to try to make it look like Republicans did it? Or the other guy who bit off the pinky of an Obamacare protester? Would you say that the US Army soldier who took a grenade into the barracks a few years ago and blew up a bunch of people was inspired by those on the left protesting the war?

So? Do these things excuse the actions of those on the right? I, and many others, decried these events. When was the last time you spoke out against right-wing domestic terrorism?

Why is "But, you're side did it too!" so commonly a fall-back excuse by the right? I never hear Democrats saying that.

Perhaps John Kerry who was saying we were terrorizing women and children in the dark of night and killing innocent civilians? Does he get the blame?

Um… because we were?

Of course you weren't. To be aware of that, so you could educate yourself would go against the "Well I just don't trust him and I don't want my kids to see it...because if they do I might have to hold an intelligent discussion with them about why I feel the way I feel and answer questions and.... *gasp* find out they might feel differently then me". And as a toaster-touting paranoid Republican that just can't happen.

Does that about sum it up?

:snap: :snap: :snap:

Education is the enemy of the modern conservative movement.

Too true.

[Mousey Girl]

Except that, as has been mentioned several times already, the material is available for review. They, for their own political reasons, have CHOSEN not to review it apparently.

But you'll shield your child from hearing an elected official speak? On an entirely non-controversial subject matter no less?

Education is the enemy of the modern conservative movement.

Like I have said, he can see it, but I would prefer to watch it with him, at home.

I would also not want him to watch it over at my parent's house, where he would be subjected to my father ranting, raving and cussing every time the president opened his mouth.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Like I have said, he can see it, but I would prefer to watch it with him, at home.


Why? You don't even know what the speech contains yet, nor are you apparently willing to wait and read it before making that determination. And even worse, the school system that your child attends is apparently unwilling to do this either. That suggests to me that your minds have all been made up on the matter, without having one shred of evidence that there is anything remotely controversial in the President's remarks.

[Morrigoon]

One wonders why we bother with education at all, since it seems the schools are not allowed to teach things like science and politics. Next thing you know, someone will object to them learning arithmetic.

Oh hell, we should just call it what it is: Daycare for older children.

[JWBear]

"We don't need no ed-you-cay-shun!
We don't need no thought control!"

[mousepod]

I find the story of the pro-healthcare jerk biting off the finger of the anti-healthcare protester to be horrible.

But I admit that I did smile when I learned that the protester had his finger reattached, and that it was covered by Medicare.

[Alex]

Arithmetic does reject god's omnipotence so it is pernicious as taught in our schools and should be avoided if possible.

2+2 always equals 4 should more properly be taught as "Some say that 2+2 always equals 4 but it is an equally valid view -- and, frankly, the right one -- that 2+2 only appears to always equal 4 but that is because you do not take into account the almighty awe-inspiring power of our lord creator to have 2+2 equal 5 when it suits his purposes in answering our prayers or smiting Jews and pagans. So, when doing your homework this evening it may be that at that moment in time 2+2 will equal 5. Unfortunately, when you turn it in tomorrow and I grade it, we may be back to 2+2 equalling 4. So I am going to have to assume than any non-4 answers were not actually erroneously but simply evidence of God's active role in our daily lives. Perfect scores for everybody."

Obviously, a proper education will require much longer lectures, but much easier tests.

[Alex]

I find the story of the pro-healthcare jerk biting off the finger of the anti-healthcare protester to be horrible.

But I admit that I did smile when I learned that the protester had his finger reattached, and that it was covered by Medicare.

I don't think they were able to reattach it. But I did like that he is opposed to Medicare and this was the first time he'd used it because he had no other options. Apparently just letting his finger stump get gangrenous, as he apparently expects others to, or finding a neighbor willing to front him the money, was not an option.

He also admits he threw the first punch after being called an idiot and feeling his personal space was being invaded. I certainly don't condone fighting or biting off fingers, but **** happens in street fights.

[BarTopDancer]

We used to be a nuclear powerhouse, one of the most powerful countries in the world.

The political division we are seeing (from both sides) is going to leave us ripe for an invasion in a few decades.

[scaeagles]

JW -

As far as right-wing domestic terrorism, I think the last specific instance was the killing of an abortion doctor? I do know I condemned that and have condemned abortion clinic bombings. What specific right wong terrorism would you like me to condemn? I condemn all bombings, shootings, whatever, that are done for political motives.

I was not attempting to justify in the least anything said or done by the right wing by pointing out examples of similar things said or done by the left wing. My point was simply that those on the left wing that say and do similar things are never accused of inciting violence. Should an abortion clinic be bombed, there is typically an attempt to link that to those who speak out against abortion. Should a soldier blow up a grenade in the barracks, I am not aware of the attempt to link it to those on the left wing saying the Iraq was is illegal.

All such acts of violence are wrong and should be condemned. Anyone who decides that they can or should take matters into their own hands in such a matter is wrong and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Quite frankly, I'm rather disgusted with your implication that I find any act of terrorism acceptable, but hopefully this will clear it up.

[Betty]

That would be fine, but not in a school setting. If he wants to see it he can watch it here, with me, and together we can talk about it.

Just curious - Why isn't it okay to have it discussed multiple times with different people? both in school and at home?

Are you afraid your child may come home with a viewpoint you don't agree with and you won't be able to "talk them out of it"?

[JWBear]

Leo,

The difference is that right-wing pundant are and do incite violence. Beck, Limbaugh, Bachman, etc, ect, etc... They do it all day long; day after day. Name one left-wing pundant - who has the reach, audience, and corporate support of their right-wing counterparts - who espouses violence.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Seriously, scaeagles and Mousey Girl.

Even if you dislike Obama, do you really think that he is going to push his agenda in a broadcast to schools? Even without reading the transcript, I can tell you that ANY sitting president would not have the balls to do that. I daresay that even Dubya, even at the height of his evil, would not have tried it. I would not have a problem letting my child see ANY sitting president speak specifically to children.

Telling your child that he should not watch something the president has to say tells them two things:

1. When we don't agree with someone, we don't listen to them.

2. I don't trust you to listen to them and then talk to me afterwards if you have questions.

Your kids may not even realize that you can READ THE TRANSCRIPT AHEAD OF TIME and discuss it with them fully after they see it, but I do, and I'm rather let down that those of you who are suspicious of Obama wouldn't use this as an ultimate teachable moment. That is, if you find anything up for debate in his transcript, which again, is beyond thinkable.

How does a child learn to listen to opposing viewpoints, parse out information vs. spin, and make up their own mind? Is it a part of the brain that doesn't function until they cross the threshold of a high school campus? Are they not listening when you have an opinion on something and they are 10 or even 5 years old?

Again - I'm really, really disappointed in you, and I'm really sad for all the kids of America that have parents clapping hands over their ears for no good reason at all.

[JWBear]

Listen to opposing viewpoints, CP!?!? That's un-American! You must be one of those unpatriotic commie liberals!


<Tongue firmly in cheek>

[scaeagles]

CP,

I have REPEATEDLY stated that I would be happy to watch the speech with my kids. I think I indirectly stated that I wouldn't have a problem with my 15 year old seeing it without me because she has critical thinking skills and can apply them. I do not think my almost 8 year old does. My 10 year old might be getting close, but knowing him, I doubt it.

So no, I haven't said in the least we shouldn't listen to people we don't agree with. Why the hell would I be on the LoT if I thought that, when I am constantly bombarded with things I don't agree with? However, I have changed my mind on some things through discussions on this board.

[Alex]

Should a soldier blow up a grenade in the barracks, I am not aware of the attempt to link it to those on the left wing saying the Iraq was is illegal.

On that one I think everybody was distracted by trying to tie it to the fact that the soldier is a Muslim and therefore must have been in the pocket of Al Qaeda or, as this NRO article suggests Saudi Wahhabists (http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray040303.asp).

But here's (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1123126.ece) an article tying his action to his anti-war views and involvement. Here's another linking his actions to slogans from the anti-war movement (http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=17377) (and a perfectly awful slogan it is). Here is an article (http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-some-dared-call-it-treason/) connecting the dots between the anti-war movement and Asan Akbar.

So rather than saying it didn't happen, maybe you just didn't notice it so much when you were likely more in agreement with the connections being made.

[innerSpaceman]

Really, you guys have really picked a wrong thing to pick on. I'm not saying you are nutjobs, but sky-fall shouting on this particular Obamamoment really makes you look like reactionary nutjobs. Do yourselves a favor and wait another 10 minutes for one of Obama's genuine failings. They are many and often enough if you desire to be critical of the president on a weekly basis.

Oh, also ... here's a clue. And I'm not saying you are, but when you go out on the panic limb about this sort of harmless fluffery, you ARE going to seem racist to the casual observer who can see no reasonable basis for your disdain.


So, Leo, what about the pertinent point that the rightwing has the de facto monopoly on (in)famous and wide-reaching inciters of violence? Does that not figure into it at all? Even if any perpetrators are individually responsible for their actions, are the public inciters righteous and good men?

[scaeagles]

Interesting reading Alex. I fully admit I hadn't heard anything about those articles, and don't know how widely they were publicized.

Does anyone here believe that the antiwar movement was to blame for that? I think HE was to blame for that. Just as I think we are all responsible for our own actions.

[JWBear]

Just read this on Huffington post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/03/obama-schoolchildren-spee_n_276544.html):

Oh, and there are also examples of fringey types equating the outreach effort to the Civilian National Security Force and "Hitler youth brigades" and admonishing, "Leave our kids alone!" It's like the right wing blogosphere went home, dosed themselves with mescaline and sat around watching History Channel reruns on mute while Pink Floyd's The Wall played in the background.

:snap: :snap: :snap:

[scaeagles]

So, Leo, what about the pertinent point that the rightwing has the de facto monopoly on (in)famous and wide-reaching inciters of violence? Does that not figure into it at all? Even if any perpetrators are individually responsible for their actions, are the public inciters righteous and good men?

I would not say all are righteous and good, no. There is a recent story of a pastor at a Baptist church in the Phoenix area who has been preaching sermons on why he hopes Obama dies. I do not think he is a good man.

I forget who it was, but some journalist, shortly after Clarence Thomas was confirmed, said the only hope was that he eat large amounts of fatty food and dies of heart disease at a young age. Is that different? I think it's stupid, but I'm not going to blame that journalist if someone goes and kills Clarence Thomas.

I think the problem isnt the speech, but the people who decide what they've heard is reason to be violent. I'm pretty right wing, but I'm not going to be going to kill anyone.

Perhaps I am ignorant on the subject, and I might be, but what domestic violence from the right has there been lately? I don't recall any abortion bombings or assassinations recently.

[JWBear]

I think the problem isnt the speech, but the people who decide what they've heard is reason to be violent.

So if someone shouts "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, they are blameless for the result? If someone goes out and incites a riot, then they are not criminaly liable; but everyone else should get arrested?

[scaeagles]

So if someone shouts "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, they are blameless for the result? If someone goes out and incites a riot, then they are not criminaly liable; but everyone else should get arrested?

This discussion hasn't been about incitement of riots. Through all the Health Care town halls, I am only aware of one turning violent, and that was a protester getting beat up by some union members.

I thought this part of the discussion was about when someone says something and others have time to actually think about what was said and then turn violent on their own at a later time, is the person who uttered the words they dwelt upon to blame.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I thought this part of the discussion was about when someone says something and others have time to actually think about what was said and then turn violent on their own at a later time, is the person who uttered the words they dwelt upon to blame.
I'll go let Charles Manson know he should be expecting a pardon.

[scaeagles]

Hey JW - just read this (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AGKD0O0&show_article=1)off of a link (for full disclosure) off of the Drudge Report.

Briefly, the Earth Liberation Front destroyed some property.

Should Obama be liable for the damages because of his stance on global warming?

Of course not. They very suggestion is ridiculous.

Various eco-terrorist actions are large and while I could not venture to guess what percentage of violence this might take on in the realm of demostic terrorism, I would suspect it is sizable. I do not for one moment blame anyone except those who did it.

[katiesue]

I guess I was the only parent who got the email from the school about the Obama speech and thought - wow that's pretty cool. The President is going to address students about the importance of education. Pretty cool that with technology they can all view it at the same time.

[JWBear]

Leo,

Obama never suggested that these radio towers should be destroyed.

Bill O'Reilly went on the air nearly every single day and suggested that it would be a nifty thing if someone killed Dr Tiller.

Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

[scaeagles]

But doesn't the urgency of his and others in their environmentalism inspire others into these violent actions? I've been doing a little reserach and there is a lot more ecoterrorism than I was aware of.

(please be aware this is completely rhetorical and I do not believe that anyone is responsible for ecoterrorism other than the perpetrators themselves, and perhaps anyone who might have facilitated and/or ordered it be done - put that in there because of GD's excellent point on Manson)

[Ghoulish Delight]

What JW said. I'm interested if you can cite mainstream liberal figures who have advocated violence and vilified people of the opposing viewpoint the way the right wing pundits have.

It's a HUGE difference between, "This is a very very important issue and it's frustrating that there are people preventing it from being solved" vs. "These people are doing evil things and I'm going to use words like 'Naziism' 'evil' and 'vigilante'."

ETA: Or Glen Becks favorite rhetorical game, "I'm not saying X, but I think X." Like, "I'm not saying Obama's health proposals are going to lead to Eugenics in America, but Obama's health proposals are Eugenics in America."

[scaeagles]

How about politicians, then? Reid has referred to health care protesters as evil. Pelosi said they were carrying nazi symbolism (as far as I know one guy was with a red line crossing out the swastika). Should they then be blamed for the union people who beat up Kenneth Gladney at a town hall meeting in St. Louis (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/10/have_you_heard_ken_gladneys_story_97836.html)?

Edited to add - the above link clearly has a political spin. However, the man Kenneth Gladney and what happened to him and who beat him up is very, very real.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Talk to me when Pelosi starts joking about poisoning people she disagrees with.

[BarTopDancer]

How about politicians, then? Reid has referred to health care protesters as evil. Pelosi said they were carrying nazi symbolism (as far as I know one guy was with a red line crossing out the swastika). Should they then be blamed for the union people who beat up Kenneth Gladney at a town hall meeting in St. Louis (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/10/have_you_heard_ken_gladneys_story_97836.html)?

Did they tell/suggest to the union people (or anyone) that they should beat up people who disagree with them?

The difference between that and the murder of Dr. Tiller is this:

Bill O'Reilly went on the air nearly every single day and suggested that it would be a nifty thing if someone killed Dr Tiller.

Pelosi and the politicians didn't say or suggest people should harm those who disagree with them.

How do you not see the difference between a direct suggestion to cause harm and someone calling protesters evil.

[Alex]

Does anyone here believe that the antiwar movement was to blame for that? I think HE was to blame for that. Just as I think we are all responsible for our own actions.

Of course we're all responsible for our own actions. And of course there are generally way too many inputs into a specific persons behaviors for it to be said conclusively that any one input absolutely let to an output.

But to say that a general climate of ideas and rhetoric might increase incidences of specific behavior can be true without saying the individuals who do them are less responsible.

I have no idea why the Asan Akbar did what he did, I haven't paid enough attention (and I am not quick to say that any particular nutjob in the last 6 month was taking marching orders from Beck or O'Reilly). Plus, when spectacular news events of antisocial behavior happen we're all very fond of connecting dots with almost no information and in ways that just happen to support our already existing views of the world (as an example, even though the motiviations of the two kids at Columbine are pretty well known now, the popular thought on it is still seriously erroneous).

I have no problem at all with the idea that within elements of the anti-war movement the general tone of discourse led some people to greater levels of personal or property violence than they would have ever done left to their own devices. And just a few years ago this wasn't such a far-fetched idea among those on the right. See, for example, the release in 2006 of a fake documentary Death of a President that presented in graphic detail the assassination of George Bush. To hear Bush's supporters at the time any attempt then made should result in the execution of the filmmakers while many of those on the right said it was just talk. Now we switch sides and everybody gets to call the other side hypocrites while presenting their own poop smells of daisies.

That said, for the most part I think the fringe-advocates of the anti-war movement were never really placed front and center in the overall national discourse. They certainly weren't hosting their own national TV and radio shows watched by millions of people.

And when Obama is being presented as someone actively seeking to euthanize the elderly, turn our country into a Islamic caliphate, told that he actively hates white people, that if his agenda is allowed to succeed it will mean not only the moral decay of our country but quite possibly the end of our nation, and when the echo chamber of these thoughts is large and pervasive within certain communities, I will not be surprised if one of them is inspired to commit atrocities with the expectation that at least their own little sub-community will embrace them for it as a hero.

Will that reduce ther personal responsibility of the person who does it? Not at all. Does that absolve the people who contributed to the echo chamber, especially if they were doing it cravenly and cynically in pursuit of ratings as an "entertainer"? Again, not at all (nor does that mean their responsibility is criminal).

[scaeagles]

You're changing your baseline. Previously you said that using the words evil and nazi could inspire the violence. I point out where there elected Dem party leaders are doing just that and you say "well, they didn't do this".

[scaeagles]

How do you not see the difference between a direct suggestion to cause harm and someone calling protesters evil.

I was quoting GD in his suggestion that using such words incites violence. Of course there is a difference and I do not condone O'Reilly, just like I wrote earlier that I think the Baptist pastor in Phoenix is an idiot.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I was quoting GD in his suggestion that using such words incites violence.
Pelosi didn't call them Nazis, she said they carried Nazi symbols to a meeting, which they did, and I believe her point was that it is ludicrous for these people to be leveling charges of naziism during a discussion of national health care. Do you seriously think she didn't understand that the people with Nazi symbols were not themselves Nazis? She's not dumb, she didn't say "they're nazis".

So no, I do not consider what she said even in the same ballpark as O'Reilly calling a man "Dr. Death" and advocating vigilantism against him.

[Morrigoon]

Just playing devil's advocate here, because I actually agree (that carrying Nazi symbols to a debate on nat'l health care is stupid), but it's worth pointing out that the Nazis were ostensibly socialist. I can see how they'd make the connection, even though I think it's ludicrous.

[JWBear]

Just playing devil's advocate here, because I actually agree (that carrying Nazi symbols to a debate on nat'l health care is stupid), but it's worth pointing out that the Nazis were ostensibly socialist. I can see how they'd make the connection, even though I think it's ludicrous.

They may have used the word "Socialism" (Well... "sozialismus" really) in their name, but it was - if you excuse the pun - in name only. They were a right-wing, pro capitalisim party.

[Betty]

I guess I was the only parent who got the email from the school about the Obama speech and thought - wow that's pretty cool. The President is going to address students about the importance of education. Pretty cool that with technology they can all view it at the same time.

I think it's pretty cool myself. I'm don't agree with the President about everything but I really don't see the harm in this.

As a side note, I hated Bush. I wouldn't have kept my kids out of class if he would have done the same thing. What would he have said about education? yay team! It's important. Be sure to pay attention. You'll go far with one. Be a Republican or you'll be a bad person and may die early? ;)

Seriously, what is it that you think he might say that's so bad?

[Betty]

And when Obama is being presented as someone actively seeking to euthanize the elderly, turn our country into a Islamic caliphate, told that he actively hates white people, that if his agenda is allowed to succeed it will mean not only the moral decay of our country but quite possibly the end of our nation.


Wow. Do they really say all that? Wow.

[JWBear]

Wow. Do they really say all that? Wow.

Yes, and more.

[Alex]

I won't say that many people hold all of the ideas, or that they even form the mainstream of Republican/conservative thinking. But within a segment they are all arguments swirling around. But to be somewhat fair, when Bush was president you could find all kinds of crap about how Bush was actively working to dismantle our country (I could find plenty of examples laying out exactly who he'd go about canceling the 2008 presidential election so that he could remain in power forever). Generally I resist the notion that Bush and his administration was acting out of overt malignant desires (even if they had malignant results).

Glenn Beck, however, has skirted or crossed the line on these and many worse. And I will admit that I tend to assume that anybody who says they listen to him with anything less than smirking disdain may have been lobotomized in the past. But that is rude of me to make such judgments without checking for scars.

[SacTown Chronic]

I think this country needs its diaper changed.



As a side note, I hated Bush. I wouldn't have kept my kids out of class if he would have done the same thing. What would he have said about education?"Is you children learning?"

[Morrigoon]

They may have used the word "Socialism" (Well... "sozialismus" really) in their name, but it was - if you excuse the pun - in name only. They were a right-wing, pro capitalisim party.

Hence my use of the word "ostensibly"

[scaeagles]

I have never listened to Beck, for the record, and I haven't watched O'reilly in many, many years.

I interpretted Pelosi's "nazi" usage much, much differently. I saw it as her trying to link the protesters to skin heads.

I accept that you do not equate them, and niether do I. The reason I brought it up was your specific statement of

It's a HUGE difference between, "This is a very very important issue and it's frustrating that there are people preventing it from being solved" vs. "These people are doing evil things and I'm going to use words like 'Naziism' 'evil' and 'vigilante'."

Granted, vigilante didn't come into play in Pelosi and Reid, but they were using evil and nazi.

[scaeagles]

They may have used the word "Socialism" (Well... "sozialismus" really) in their name, but it was - if you excuse the pun - in name only. They were a right-wing, pro capitalisim party.

I have to strongly object to that. They were about a state controlled economy. From MSN encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761560927_3/National_Socialism.html)-

Concretely, the “new order” involved abolishing trade unions and cooperatives, confiscating their financial and other assets, eliminating collective bargaining between workers and their employers, prohibiting strikes and lockouts, and requiring membership by law of all German workers in the state-controlled Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Labor Front), or DAF. Wages were determined by the ministry of national economy. Government officials, called trustees of labor and appointed by the minister of national economy, handled all questions relating to wages and hours and conditions of work.

The trade associations of business owners and industrialists of the Weimar Republic were transformed into organs of state control. Membership by employers was compulsory. Supervision of these associations was vested in the ministry of national economy, which had the power to recognize trade organizations as the sole representatives of their respective branches of industry, organize new associations, dissolve or merge existing ones, and appoint and recall the leaders of all the associations. Through the exercise of these powers and also as specifically empowered by law, the ministry of economy greatly expanded existing cartels and cartelized entire industries. The banks were similarly “coordinated.” Private property rights were preserved, and previously nationalized enterprises were “reprivatized”—that is, returned to private ownership but all owners were subject to rigid state controls. By all of these and related means the Hitler regime eliminated competition.

[Alex]

Hence my use of the word "ostensibly"

Yes, but not even ostensibly in the way we're using the word today. On the classic political spectrum, National Socialism was always always came from a right-side tradition similar to fascism (and though in many ways communism and fascism look similar in practice they come from very different ideological places) and pretty much opposite from socialism/communism as practiced in Europe at the time.

It wasn't so much socialism in the sense of abolishing property rights and the equality of all but more in the sense of abolishing private property and nationalizing anything that impeded German nationalism (more "only racially German people have property rights" than "property rights are inimical to common man").

[Strangler Lewis]

Before he was sent off to the Pacific in WWII, my father found himself guarding German POWs. When they found out that he spoke German, they would try to converse with him about how they only wanted to save the world from communism.

[JWBear]

I have to strongly object to that. They were about a state controlled economy. From MSN encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761560927_3/National_Socialism.html)-

That still isn't socialism. The state did not own the companies, just regulated them.

The majority of the piece you quoted had to do with eliminating unions; a capitalist's wet dream.

[scaeagles]

I didn't say it was socialism. I said it wasn't pro-capitalism. You claimed it was pro-capitalism. You are wrong. The Nazi government controlled industry and eliminated competition.

That's your idea of "regulation"? Yikes.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I have never listened to Beck, for the record, and I haven't watched O'reilly in many, many years.

I interpretted Pelosi's "nazi" usage much, much differently. I saw it as her trying to link the protesters to skin heads.

I accept that you do not equate them, and niether do I. The reason I brought it up was your specific statement of

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: "I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. "They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."




She didn't say they were Nazis. She said, correctly, that they were carrying the symbols. These people have been calling the healthcare proposal a Nazi proposal for months. They have been on the news carrying sings that talk about it being a Nazi program, carrying red line crossing out the swastika signs. She, and everyone else listening and watching, are fully aware that these people are coming to townhall meetings with these symbols with the intention of saying, "What the Dems are proposing is Naziism." There is no way I can possibly believe that she thought that those people are Nazi sympathizers. It's so completely in the domain of obvious that there was no need for her to elaborate and say, "There are people who are carrying "signs with swastikas crossed out" and other anti-nazi signs." Her meaning is clearly, "No, I do not consider them legitimate. I consider no one who is engaging in the hyperbole of bringing swastika to townhall meetings as a shorthand for leveling accusations of Naziism against the healthcare efforts to be legitimage."

[scaeagles]

You know what....I can accept that. I take it back.

I disagree that they are astroturf, but I do believe you are correct in your interpretation.