SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Mccain: "i Don't Know" If Obama's A Socialist

JULY 18, 2008

Mccain: "i Don't Know" If Obama's A Socialist

BY MICHAEL CROWLEY

It seems to me that when John McCain says "I don't know" in response to a question about whether Barack Obama is a "socialist," he is not quite living up to the admirable standards of political discourse he professes to champion.

--Michael Crowley

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 120 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

120 comments

Moreover, why are people asking if he's a socialist?  Is there some plague of socialism running throughout our country?  Is there some plague of socialists in this country?  Why is this an issue?

- Crock1701

July 18, 2008 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Remember how Hillary "didn't know" if Obama was a Muslim?  

- dylanposer

July 18, 2008 at 4:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does this surprise anyone?  That McBush would actually be "civil" and only talk about the "issues" in the campaign?  The man is a repug, meaning a liar and cheat.  What else is new?

- tnmats

July 18, 2008 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know if McCain is a senile old bat; nor do I know if he should be put in the mentally challenged ward of an old person's home; and of course I don't know if he is a Manchurian candidate, let go by the Vietnamese to destroy the Unites States forty years later; I don't know, furthermore, if he shares his wife's addiction to prescription drugs.

- icarusr

July 18, 2008 at 4:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Crock, no one asked if he thought Obama was a Socialist except in response to another McCain lie "All I said was his voting record, and that is more to the left than the announced Socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont."

This was a really stupid thing for McCain and will score him points with no one but Obama haters. Imagine how he would rage with indignity if someone asked Obama if Obama thought McCain was a fascist and he said "I don't know."

Does McCain even know what Socialism means? I know he said he knows nothing about the economy but he is really getting ridiculous.

- blackton

July 18, 2008 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

After reading what the Arizona Senator said, I don't know if Obama is a socialist, but I'm certain that John McCain is an asshole.

- Barnacle

July 18, 2008 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr,

It's possible, of course, that McCain is also addicted, but more likely he was simply getting the scrips in his own name, then handing them over to her. Such "diversion" is a common practice, especially among couples who care greatly for each other and hate to see one or the other partner (or both) suffering the wrenching physical and psychological travails of the seriously strung out.

This is true whether the person in question is a simple street junkie or a long-time torture victim who finds himself a few seconds away from ordering a full-scale nuclear strike on enemies real or imagined.

Remember, icarusr, we live in an enlightened society where we are beyond casting aspersions on every poor soul twisted by untold physical and mental demons that at any moment could plunge the planet into a global firestorm, eradicating most life as we know it.

- williamyard

July 18, 2008 at 5:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am shocked that McCain's campaign, run by proteges of Karl Rove and Jesse Helms, has failed to match the respectful ideals that existed only in the minds of the Washington press corps.

- FWright

July 18, 2008 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bill

You're right and I am appropriately contrite.  I will never again cast aspersions on the sanity or the mental suitability of a Presidential candidate who sings "bomb bomb bomb" and who jokes about killing 70 million people by the slow torture of lung cancer and emphysima. (I am glad that he, at least acknowledges that cigarettes kill.) I don't know, of course, if he has any demons, or is possessed by succubi and incubi; nor, having never actually spent time in his cell with him, do I know if he was tortured, physically or mentally - though, if he were unhinged, one might well conclude that he had been, and I don't know that is (unhinged).

There is so much I don't know, Bill, that I hang my head in shame.

FWright: Ignorance about McCain, shame about that ignorance, contrition concerning my lack of understanding - and now shock, the SHOCK of finding out there is gambling in this Establishment - oh, sorry, wrong movie - the SHOCK of Rovian tactics not matching McCain's allegedly high ideals ... too much much.

- icarusr

July 18, 2008 at 6:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With apologies for the multiple posts - I also don't know if McCain is a bigot, or a Muslimophobe; I also don't know if he is seeking, through his surrogates, to press hot-button issues; I don't know if his surrogates really speak for him, or provide him with plausible deniability in respect of hateful message.

miamiherald.typepad.com/.../mccain-pow-bud.html

"The Muslims have said either we kneel or they're going to kill us.'' By Bud Day, a member of McCain's Truth Squad.

- icarusr

July 18, 2008 at 6:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The snark is delicious today!

- GSpinks

July 18, 2008 at 7:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

it saddens me to see how the word socialism has been hijacked in american discourse to mean communism or something extreme. there is no left candidate, there is only far right and extreme right. does that really reflect the preferences of the electorate?

- jerkaboy

July 18, 2008 at 9:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I accept Blackton's statement of the McCain quote and its context.  So what's the problem?  If Mr. "middle of the road" has managed to compile the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate during his brief time there --even more liberal than Bernie Sanders -- where's the defamation?  Maybe McCain owes an apology to Bernie for the implication that you can't be a real socialist if you have a Democratic colleague who votes to the left of you.

- lsernoff

July 18, 2008 at 10:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"where's the defamation?"

Because it's bullshit?  Because the ranking is based only on the last two years, when Obama and most of the other candidates spent most of their time in Iowa and New Hampshire?  (Note that McCain was even included in that ranking because he didn't show up for enough votes to qualify.) Because it's not supported by the remainder of Obama's Senate career, when he ranked about 20th?  Because voting the Democratic party line is a crappy way to determine ideology - you would *expect* Sanders to diverge a fair amount from the Democratic standard if he's substantially to the left of that caucus?  Because McCain doesn't have the balls to state an actual opinion, and simply lets the accusation hang out there.

It's bullshit.

- FWright

July 18, 2008 at 10:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So when does Obama get play the "family values" card on the divorced McCain?  Low blow?  Sure, but it's the truth isn't it?  Such a matter goes to "character" is the pubes love to blather.

I'd like to see some hard ball from Obama and/or his campaign.  Smear McBush; he deserves the Rovian treatment.  The primaries are over and he should go after McLiar's jugular.

- tnmats

July 18, 2008 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think McCain and his campaign are close to hysteria about Obama's trip.  If the trip goes well and Obama gets a bounce in the polls, we'll probaby see more of these attacks.

- jjridge

July 19, 2008 at 1:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Man, this is the kind of thing where, if Obama had said something like this about McCain instead of vice versa, the "Obama's too big for his britches" crowd would be squealing like a collection of stuck pigs with "2you" affixed to the end of their handles.

- WoodyBombay

July 19, 2008 at 2:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As usual, the groupies are missing the point. The main problem with Obama is that he's _not_ a socialist when it comes to the most important domestic issue of all, UHC.

I have far more respect for those liberals who are willing to stand up and fight for this core principle of the working man's party. Hell, I have more respect for people who are willing to stand and fight for the opposite position. In either case, you sense the existence of a core. Maybe by the time he completes his third book Obama will have discovered his own core.

- teplukhin2you

July 19, 2008 at 3:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

McCain gave an honest answer.  How the hell would he know?  Obama's voting record is so Left, yet he changes his public stances so often, how would McCain, or the rest of us, know for certain what Barry's real politics are?

Meanwhile, if you look at his associates which include terrorists and far Left pastors, what is one supposed to make of that?

It is not McCain who is disingenuous, it is Mr. Obama and Mr. Crowley.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 12:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jerkaboy, the difference between sociaism and communism is the difference between a first degree burn and a third degree.

The instincts and tendencies of socialism are coercive and micro-controlling and intrusive.  by the time these leanings evolve into socialism, the difference is only that all the powers of the state are put to the task and there are no more votes on the question.

I hope socialism as a concept has been dishonored.  It deserves to be.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chan, a couple of questions:

1) What in Obama's voting record suggests that he might be a socialist - not a reliable Democrat, but an honest-to-God socialist?  Are there any examples?

2) What support can you offer for the idea that Obama changes his positions "often"?  The FISA compromise can only be counted once.

Also, you're going to have a hard time making the case that William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright have done more harm to America than Charles Keating and Phil Gramm.

- FWright

July 19, 2008 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chan:

"The instincts and tendencies of socialism are coercive and micro-controlling and intrusive."

Because the instinct of the modern Repbulican "Gitmo"/"anti-abortion"/"anti-choice"/"death penalty" Party are hardly ever coercie, never micro-controlling and absolutely not intrusive?  Because something that Obama has said, in the last six months or in the last six years, tells you that he is going to be "coercive" and "intrusive"?  Because waterboarding is a frollic in the park, and John Yoo never wrote a memo justifying such uncoercive and unintrusive and nonfinal things as torture.  Frankly, Republicans have conceded the moral right to criticise any one on coercive or intrusive politics.

"by the time these leanings evolve into socialism, the difference is only that all the powers of the state are put to the task and there are no more votes on the question."

I don't even know where to begin to respond to this rather silly and, frankly, utterly ignorant statement, either in general or specifically applied to Obama.  Canada has had social government governments at the provincial level, and minority governments propped up by social democracts at many points over the past seventy years.  "No more votes" has never been an electoral plank of any of these governments.  In Europe, after forty years of social democractic rule in Sweden, conservatives came in and undid many of the reforms, and then redid the undid reforms because that's what the people wanted.  In the UK, the very point of Thatcher, you see, was to undo the socialist tendencies of the previous governments, which means that there was a vote, and that your slur on the character and politics of "socialists" is just that.

Finally, the fact is, you can argue all you want that "who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men" ... and there will be no winner, because, as I have demonstrated above, on the basis of your approach, one can NEVER REALLY know that McCain is not a Manchurian candidate, a bigot, a right-wing fascist, or a nutty warmonger.  We don't throw these insults about willy nilly, because it debases political debate and demeans the democratic process.  You would do well to "denounce and reject" such an idiotic and continue to question, if you like, Obama's or the Democratic Party's policies on their merits.

- icarusr

July 19, 2008 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FWright the difference between Keating and Ayers is that Keating did jail time-- 4.5 years.  The further difference is that while Keating certainly swindled innocent people, Ayers was trying to kill them.  And bring down our country at the same time.

It certainly figures that someone on the Left could not see the difference between a financial crime and a corporal one.

As to the difference between socialism and voting the Democratic Party line, there is none.  Unchecked, the Democratic Party, with all its leftover Lefties from the sixties (and younger followers like Obama of Harvard) would take us to socialism and worse.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 4:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ircarusr, they typo I made understandably confused and aroused you.  The sentence ought to have read:

""by the time these leanings evolve into Communism, the difference is only that all the powers of the state are put to the task and there are no more votes on the question."

Socialism is an opiate that seems benign enough in a Danish phase.  (If you think that 70%+ income taxes are benign).   But, taken to it's logical conclusion, socialism will always be coercive in the extreme of the population as a whole.  And in the hands of people with no talent for self-government (Russians, for instance) it is as terrible as anything ever known on earth.

It was not for nothing that NAZI meant National Socialist.  Totalitarians love to employ the siren song of socialism to lull a populace into a nightmare.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FWright, I ought to have put it more strongly:  It certainly figures that someone on the Left could not see the difference between a financial crime and treason.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr writes, "Canada has had social government governments at the provincial level, and minority governments propped up by social democracts at many points over the past seventy years."

Yes, and though Canada is obviously not a tyranny, a magazine is currently on trial for the politically incorrect crime of criticizing Muslims.  i.e., MacLeans, I believe, reproduced an article that originally appeared in a U.S. publication.  

Canada has no Bill of Rights, and thus with a socialist government in power and the kind of laws they pass, a person or the press can be prosecuted for expressing opinions not approved by the State.

That is what I mean by the extremely coercive and controlling tendencies of Socialism.  It always means well.  And the road to hell is paved by well meaning workers.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr, a Manchurian Candidate attack on McCain would have zero credibility because of his demonstrated.  He put his life and body on the line, so he'll never have anything further to approve.

And, unlike Obama, McCain does not have friends (Wright, Ayers) whose loyalties are very much in question.  People on the Left don't see treasonous impulses because they so often share them.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MISSING WORDS:  icarusr, a Manchurian Candidate attack on McCain would have zero credibility because of his demonstrated loyalty, in extremis.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 5:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Channy, I don't know if anyone is still on this thread, but I submit that- forget Keating and Gramm- men like Yoo and Addington and Cheney and even Bush, for allowing things he doesn't understand, are every bit as un-American and treasonous as Ayers or, certainly, ex-U.S. Marine Jerimiah Wright.   Simply because they wrongly think they are protecting America doesn't excuse their actions.   Secret prisons, torture, indefinite detention of citizens- these are crimes.   Maybe they won't be punished- ah, but then, neither was Ayers, right?   Unless McCain denounces these cowards and traitors, I don't want to hear a word about people Obama knows.  

- boneill

July 19, 2008 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bone: Amen.

- icarusr

July 19, 2008 at 6:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

boneill, history will sort out the wartime extreme actions of Bush just as it has those of FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln.  

Has Bush done anything that will appear more egregious postwar than FDR's incarceration of American citizens of Japanese descent?  Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus within U.S. borders?  Wilson's incarceration of socialists?  And many more such.

If Bush really and truly took us to war knowingly lying or against the wishes of Congress, yes, that would be treasonous.  Such has been claimed, but hardly proven.

History will judge.  Meantime, we need to argue about it to give history its evidence.

And, yes, Rev Wright was a Marine.  So was Lee Harvey Oswald and Joseph McCarthy.  And Benedict Arnold was Washington's trusted aide.  

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 6:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr, I would further submit to you that you see Socialist outcomes in miniature on numerous college campuses with their rules on correct speech and their intolerance of a college president who deigned to utter an incorrect thought (for which he groveled in apology, ball-less schmuck) but was fired anyway.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 6:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Channy:

I wrote a long-ish reply to your earlier posts, but it vanished into Ether.  I don't have the energy to redo the whole thing - you are spared.

Just four points.

First, your point about MacLean's is simply wrong.  It is not "on trial".  There were three private complaints to human rights commissions, one was dismissed and two were sent for further investigation.  Free country+lawyers+American style class action tactics = law suits.  Bush-Cheney would probably have rendered the complainant to Pakistan or Poland to be tortured'; we just let them sue if they want to, and if they lose, they pay the costs of the defendant.

Second, your point about "Bill of Rights", factually wrong, again.  Canada's Charter of Rights was entrenched in 1982; it even protects foreigners on Canadian soil, including from being extradicted to the US to be killed by the state.  Fox News has no compunctions denigrating Canada for its *excessive* constitutional protections; funny that you denigrate for not having any.  Please read up before making ignorant comments.

Third, please also read up on what a "Manchurian candidate" is: it is someone who, despite evidence of loyalty "in extrmis", turns against his country at an opportune and pre-programmed moment.  And so, evidence of McCain's loyalty says nothing whatever about whether he is a Manchurian candidate.  You just don't know, because you cannot know, because it is impossible to prove a negative point such as this one.

Fourth, your last post proves that a) either you know nothing about socialism; or b) you are just using the word as a general term of opprobrium, regardless of its substantive content - like "liberal" ten years ago.  There is nothing "socialist" about the sacking of Larry Summers; in fact, there is nothing socialist about political correctness, feminism or protection of minority rights and so on.  Any way, Bill Maher was fired; the Dixie Chicks were villified; Kerry was pilloried, all because of things they *said* that may or may not have been politically sound.  As I said, Republicans have conceded the moral right to complain about anything on these matter, especially when it is done with such evident ignorance.

Cheers

- icarusr

July 19, 2008 at 6:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ChanRobt wrote: "Canada has no Bill of Rights."

Canada has a Charter of Rights. Or does it not count unless it exactly mimics, even in name, the U.S. document?

Your use of the term "socialism" is laughably loose. It seems to be linked, in your thinking, to every possible kind of societal or governmental coercion. (Except, of course, the ones Icarusr mentions, for which the Republicans have become so well-known.)

It's true that Canada is a bit more restrictive than the US when it comes to obscenity and hate speech. A country like Holland, though -- which is closer to socialism in the true sense of the word than Canada ever has been -- seems extremely, er, noncoercive. It protects even the most provocative forms of speech quite vigorously and is a lot more permissive than the more capitalistic US when it comes to sex laws, drug laws, etc.

- hemlock41

July 19, 2008 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarusr covered the points I made while I was writing them up (and did so more effectively, as usual!) Sorry for the repetition. Too bad your longer post was lost, Icarus; I'd have liked to see it.

- hemlock41

July 19, 2008 at 7:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chan:  I will assume that your utter failure to cite a single example in response is an admission that there is in fact no overlap between the University of Chicago-approved center-left economic policies of Barack Obama and anything resembling "socialism."

As for treason - Charles Keating engaged in a massive fraud against thousands of Americans that ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers over $3 billion, and tried to avoid getting caught by suborning several U.S. senators into helping him cover it up.  If that doesn't make him an enemy of the American way of life, I don't know what does.

And Charles Keating was a McCain business associate, patron and friend.

- FWright

July 19, 2008 at 7:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ChanRobt: He put his life and body on the line, so he'll never have anything further to approve.

Bennett Marco: Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

Just sayin'.

- AlanSP

July 19, 2008 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just so I'm not misinterpreted, I don't think McCain is a Manchurian Candidate, and if asked point blank if I thought McCain was a Manchurian candidate, my answer would not be "I don't know."  I'm willing to bet that if Obama is ever asked "Do you think John McCain is [ridiculous assertion about McCain]?", he won't say "I don't know."

- AlanSP

July 19, 2008 at 8:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was so busy watching Frank Sinatra's peculiar essaying of his part that I missed the most salient details of The Manuchurian Candidate, so thanks for the correction.

I also stand corrected re Canada's Charter of Rights, which is no doubt a better name for such a thing than "Bill of Rights" which has you constantly reaching for your credit card every time it's brought up.

As I said in my post, Canada is clearly not a tyranny.  But, it is a scandal that in a free country you can be brought before the Bar and forced through the immense trouble and expense of defending yourself against any group of morons that is aggrieved at something you said or wrote about a given group.  

As all of you who hastened to Canada's defense will acknowledge, such is not possible in the United States.  Nor could someone be tried in the U.S. as Bridgette Bardot was by heavily socialist France for the "crime" of supposedly insulting Muslims.  Or tried in abstentia as the late Oriana Fallaci was in Bergamo.  Or convicted for "holocaust denial" as have several been in various Western European nations.

These are all outrage perpetrated under Socialism and Leftism.  We are, thanks to the wisdom of our Framers, who thought to compose amendments called the Bill of Rights after completion of the original Constitution, protected from same.

Again, I attribute to the Left and to Socialist states a propensity to first meddle and nanny, then coerce, then continue to ractchet up their intrusions into the behavior and eventually even the thinking of citizens unfortunate to suffer under any kind of Leftist rule.

Orwell knew this all too well, having originally sympathized with the Left and knowing intimately the Left, so he better than any other satirized and eviscerated the Left.  1984 was to a certain extent a condemnation of Atlee's England as well as Stalin's USSR.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 10:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FWright, it is the ethos of the University of Chicago and its sisters of academia in Cook County that tolerates the likes of Ayers and Dornan in their midst.  So, I'm not so fully persuaded that "University of Chicago-approved center-left economic policies of Barack Obama" is something about anyone ought to be sanguine.

Anything that starts "beningnly" or "center" Left inevitably worms its way like herpes into the citizenry most intimately, meddling in our affairs, confiscating our personal wealth to the furthest extent it can get away with, and pressuring us all to think "correctly".  

Holland notwithstanding, the history of the Left, Socialism, and all the cousins is a creep towards tyranny.  When it doesn't not rush there headlong.  

It is the impulse of the Left, even when controlling all the national video broadcast media and most of the newspapers and popular news magazines to concoct a "Fairness Doctrine" to control and undermine free speech on the radio.  (Ms. Pelosi is lobbying for its return right now, in anticipation of complete Democratic control of the government.)

The Left's deepest desire is complete control of the citizenry.  And they are digging, digging, always digging relentlessly to impose same.  You need only look at institutions that the Left does control-- the Universities and the Media-- to see this imperative at work.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 10:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know that nobody is still looking at this thread, so I'm posting this mainly for my own jollies.

McCain has courage, and a certain sense of honor.  His experience in Vietnam is ample evidence of that, and I will give the man his due in that regard.

But he has no class.  I've known that ever since he made a cruel joke about Chelsea Clinton when she was an adolescent girl.  Grown men with class don't score political points with their cronies by making fun of a child.  It puts them in the same category as hormone-crazed, monosyllabic eighth-grade boys... and Mike Myers.

- drdannyu

July 19, 2008 at 10:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE THOUGH:  Or tried in abstentia for "defaming Islam" in a book, as the late Oriana Fallaci was in Bergamo.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 10:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OH CANADA!

Let the record show that I lived in Canada for a time.  That I have immense affection for that generally kind and gentle country and its people.  

All the more is my outrage at the stain against Canada which are these political prosecutions for incorrect thinking.  Call it "just" a suit, if you wish.  Would you like to have to defend one of your postings here against a lawsuit?  

And, dear writer, you didn't mention what the sanction is for MacLean's or others should they lose said suit.  We know, for starters, they don't get the cost of their defense back.  What else?

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 10:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FWright wrote, "...As for treason - Charles Keating engaged in a massive fraud against thousands of Americans that ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers over $3 billion..."

While the fraud did cause many depositors who could ill afford it losses, in the case of the Federal government, while they had to cough up money up front, the United States ultimately made a profit on the safety net.  As it likely will in the long run in bailing out Freddie and Fannie.

The feds have deep enough pockets to absorb the cashflow problems that kill private corporations, and eventually profit from the misfortune or malfeasance of companies for which it intervenes.  Such was also the case when the government saved Chrysler 20 years ago.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 10:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr, I did read one of your "longish replies" which began, "...Because the instinct of the modern Repbulican "Gitmo"/"anti-abortion"/"anti-choice"/"death penalty..."

I'm sorry you had to reproduce the gist of a lost one.  We should all get in the habit here of saving elsewhere our long or cleverest (or both?) replies so that the robot, when he goes awry, cannot undermine our literary efforts.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 10:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meanwhile FWright, I won't quite agree that Keating's frauds and bribery are the equivalent of treason, though certainly they were egregious.

But, for the sake of argument, I'll accept his actions as analogous to treason.

In contrast to Ayres and Dornan's complete embrace by the Left and Liberal establishment of Chicago, you do not see Mr. Keating in the society of any on the Right.

The Right at least is willing to declare certain people pariah when they commit crimes against us all.  The Left easily overlooks the most heinous behavior by those who opposed their political adversaries.  No matter how tawdry and evil the means.

The Left condemns Nazis but is tolerant of Communists and even publicly lauds to this day the like of Fidel Castro, a tyrant who is a Mini-Me to Stalin.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 10:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hemlock: thanks for the kind words.  Trust me, you were spared the long history of constitutionalism (written and unwritten), human rights protection and protection of freedom of expression in Canada ;-).

Channy, while I'm at it, two more points.

First, your reply to Bone seriously undercut your reply to my Manchurian candidate comment.  As you noted, "Benedict Arnold was Washington's trusted aide"; anyone could, potentially, be or become something else, and you can say "I don't know if he is [blankity blank insult]" about anyone.  The point is that in civilised discourse, and to maintain a semblance of credibility, one avoids saying silly things like this, lest it become routing, thus undermining trust in the politica process itself.  I will give this to you, Hillary started it with her "as far as I know" and she was rightly pillories in these pages by most, including your good self, if I recall, for that qualification.

Second, I know someone is in a moral Chapter VII territory when he a) talks about the judgement of history and b) refers to historical precedents for today's abuses.  For one thing, "history", being an abstraction, will not judge anything one way or another.  Future historians will render judgements specific to their time and to their context, regardless of what "evidence" we keep or produce; and, frankly, I don't care one iota what that judgement is because who knows what that future context is going to be?  For another, I wonder what the relevance of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus has our day.  Are you honestly suggesting that bin Laden is a bigger threat to the United States than a four year-long civil war that cost 600,000 dead?  Honestly, what good is history is you can't do put things in their proper perspective?

- icarusr

July 19, 2008 at 10:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chan:

"Would you like to have to defend one of your postings here against a lawsuit?"

It is one of the glories of the Anglo-Saxon system that anyone can bring a law suit against any one else, as long as there is a lawyer and $50 to file a claim.  And you can ground in anything you wish.  MacLean's published something controversial and it got sued; the suit was thrown out in one forum, but it proceeding in others.  And if it loses?  Well, it will appeal.  And if it loses again, them's the breaks.  I can assure you, no matter what example you raise, I feel considerably more comfortable criticising the Government of Canada in Canada than criticising the US in the United States.  You can complain about Canadian taxes, but freedom of speech is not at risk in Canada.

Your last post about the Right and Left contains a great deal of generalisation and assumptions.  It's too late now to reply, but honestly, can you say with certainty that every single left-wing (whatever that might mean) thinker and philosopher has supported Communism and Communist atrocities?  I didn't think so.  So please, stop this "The Left" and "The Right" business.

- icarusr

July 19, 2008 at 11:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr writes, "...Are you honestly suggesting that bin Laden is a bigger threat to the United States than a four year-long civil war that cost 600,000 dead?  Honestly, what good is history is you can't do put things in their proper perspective?"

One or two terrorists armed with a suitcase nuke, hitting, say, the Capitol building as the State of the Union speech is given, can decapitate the American government and do more damage than all the armies of the Confederacy, who, after all, wished only to be gone from the Union, not to utterly destroy it.  (Though, Lincoln, rightly equted their secession to the destruction of the Union.

Meanwhile, you are correct, we here today have every right to pass judgement on the men and events of our time.  The "judgement of history" simply refers to the perspective achieved over and the consensus reached about past events when they are reviewed outside the passions of contemporaries.

The excesses (if really they were) of past presidents during wartime are sometimes judged more harshly sometimes less by posterity.  But, they are at least seen in the perspective of how much damage was actually done vs how much good was achieved by a given president.

Therefore, these retrospective judgements have a way of being more measured, less passionate, less hysterical than contemporary ones.  Or, in some cases, less forgiving.  In any event, they are also subject to change and succeding generations change judgements on past events and personages all the time.

I don't see gitmo as being beyond the pale.  And certainly less "hysterical" than rounding up hundreds of thousands of peaceful citizens of Japanese descent for internment for the duration.  Though in the context of early post-Pearl Harbor conditions, those actions are certainly understandable.

During wartime measures are taken hastily because there is not the luxury for measured justice in the context of wider existential threats.  Once the full measure of those threats are fully understood, drastic measures can be reversed.  And we are seeing some such of that now.  

But that doesn't make the drastic measures unjustified in their time.  Very few of the gitmo prisoners are American citizens.  And virtually all of them were captured on foreign battlefields when apparently threatening or injuring our troops.

The real difference in this entire 9/11 epoch is that the Right sees 9/11 and the conditions created as war.  The Left, whether honestly or because willfully blinded by contempt for the existing America, does not see it as such.

I have no doubt from reading and listening to the Left that many of its members despise America as it has traditionally existed, and just as in Vietnam, wish for America's defeat in the current conflicts.

The Democratic Party leadership and the Media have clearly seen success in the Middle East on the part of this administration as a threat their success politically.  They have in tandem done everything to undermine that success.  

When the war was going badly, the Left, the Democrats (much the same now), and the Media took delight in it.  When it became clear that we were winning, post-Surge, the Left and the Democrats and the Media first ignored the success, then denied it, then tried to run to the head of the parade of victory as if they had been for it all along.

It is this that I have found truly despicable.

- ChanRobt

July 19, 2008 at 11:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr, I'm glad you can be sanguine about being sued for political speech.  But, such suits could and I'm sure have, bring much political discourse to a halt.  If the power to tax is the power to destroy, so is the power to sue over political opinion.

Meanwhile, Left and Right are not surgically precise.  But, the Left in the United States since 1968 is a pretty identifiable collection of like-thinking and like-actiing.  It is certainly more real and more destructive than Hillary's Great Right Wing Conspiracy.

This Left is on parade in the media, in its takeover of the Democratic Party, in music and entertainment and movies.  The Left has shown itself to be widely hostile to American power, American success, and American influence.  

It celebrates American defeats and wishes for them when America fails to be defeated.  It embraces totalitarians like Fidel and Che and Mao.  It is an apologist for Communists and makes martyrs of those in America who suffered for promoting that disgusting ideology.

Left isn't a perfect appellation, icarusr.  But as with 'jellyfish" and "cancer" it is a precise enough definition of an organism and a disease which is many symbiotic organisms and many rotting diseases.

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 12:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And buy the way, icarusr, name me a critic of the government of the United States who has in the last generation been punished for speaking against the government.

Most of the people I can think of jailed by the government over politics have been prosecuted by those in service of Democratic opinions and interests as during Watergate, the Plame Affair, Iran-Contra, etc.

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 12:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ChanRobt is right.  Canada is no longer a free country.  It is a country whose people have thrown away their liberty in the pursuit of political correctness.  The behavior of Canadians in the face of Islamofascist and radical feminist intimidation is utterly disgusting.

ChanRobt is also right that American leftists are enemies of this country, its people, and its ideals.  The key difference between leftists and Americans is over the concept of liberty.   For Americans liberty is what gives life meaning and dignity.  For leftists liberty is an outmoded concept, an obstacle to their program of managing the lives of the rest of us to conform to their twisted ideology.

- bulbman1066

July 20, 2008 at 3:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Everything about Obama's history suggests that he is a socialist* at heart.  We can get scholastic about whether Bernie Sanders is more extreme, but the fact is that Obama’s, career as an “activist” and his  voting record indicate that he believes that the government, rather than individuals and families, should make decisions about how people should live and spend their money.   He has expressed contempt for working class people for their belief in religion** and in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.  He has said that he would appoint Supreme Court justices on the basis of their “compassion”, i.e. their willingness to bend the law to conform to political correctness – the Constitution be damned.

Obama is a combination of Chicago race hustler and pissant NPR latte liberal.  The man is an utter fraud.  The fact that the liberals treat him like the Second Coming shows only that liberals’ appetite for copping self-righteous attitudes based on deliberate self-delusion knows no bounds.

*There are two kinds of socialists.  The first consists of people who don’t like to work and who want to live at the expense of others.    The other kind are people who want to control the lives of others by pandering to the first kind.   The second type have one and only one talent:  an ability to manipulate people by making them feel guilty.  But it is a talent that will get you far in the worlds of politics, academia and journalism.

**Religion is not my cup of tea.  But I have the highest respect for the solid working class people of this country, who believe in hard work and love of family and country, and who disdain the liberals’ dream of turning them into so many welfare clients.

- bulbman1066

July 20, 2008 at 3:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can sense the relief in the wingers here on Talkback now that someone has brought up a category that's an old comforting friend - where they can simply access the file marked "socialist" in their minds and spew forth without having to think about the realty of how far we have sunk in this country anymore.  It's too hard to think in new ways, let go of old tired categories that no longer apply, the habit of rageoholicism - or god forbid work towards fixing, or even talking about, something real in this country.  Best to stick with what you know - turning anyone who thinks differently than you into a demon.

Bulbman, you come acorss as nothing less than a raving lunatic bigot - not a racial bigot, a bigot towards anyone you see as different than your political orientation.  You are not talking about a real person or real people, you are trafficing in bigoted stereotypes. The same steps are there: demonization, dehumanization, broad generalizations that foster this dehumanization, narrow mindedness so pinched as to remind me of being yelled at by a schoolmarm from hell.  You convince no one of anything nor is that your goal - your goal is soley to demonize, create an enemy to be blamed.  Such mindless ranting is dangerous and you're effing scary.  You render yourself without any credibility because of it.

No points brought up about  the destruction wrought by the right are even mentioned, natch.  What can one say about the irresponsibility of Phil Gramm's entire record - which I'm sure all you wingers are aware of right?  Check it out sometime and then defend it for me, it should be worth a laugh.  I wonder if his wife is still working for Enron?  Anyway, as long as anyone has an R in front of their name, they are good, anyone else is bad.  So childish.  The exact mindset that has caused so much destruction in this country, which you do not even mention.  Scary how little was learned.

Most of the worst problems in this country have been absolutely created by the right, which has had almost absolute power for the past eight years.  Yet the way this mess will have to be addressed will have nothing to do with right or left, but real solutions that will work for the most people in the most efficient manner. These solutions will not be perfect and will take compromise and sacrifice - concepts I know wingers reflexively ignore - uber-patriots that they are, but that most people do understand.  But then I know that non-ideological reality is too frightening of a thought, best to go back to your binary ranting where you feel safe.

You have no idea how tired and absurd you sound, embarrassibg really - blathering on about Ayers and socialism - with no mention of the tanking economy, global warming, the lobbyist-run prostitution ring that is campaign finance, energy independence, infrastructure falling apart, middle class destroyed - you say nothing of concrete value really, nothing helpful or even real in any way.  Just sophmoric dorm room at midnight ranting.  About socialists, of all things - which would be funny - and often is, especially to anyone under 40 - if it wasn't so narcissistic.  No wonder young people are so thoroughly disgusted with our immature toxic political culture and the gruesome spectacle of what it has caused, I wish them  the best in burning it down entirely.

- Wandreycer1

July 20, 2008 at 6:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ChanRobt, I won't take the time to line by line demonstrate the utter stupidity of your comments in general.  But the theme that the left hates America is utterly ignorant.  You are such a dumb asshole that you have taken a mindless right wing propaganda slogan -- "why do you hate America?" -- and in your ignorance have turned it into an assertion of fact.

In my left wing local Democratic Party, we say the Pledge of Allegiance before every meeting.  That policy was unanimously approved.  On a more tangible level, our state's left wing attorney general is a former marine reservist; my son who grew up in our left wing household served seven years as a navy officer; my daughter, a physician, intends to dedicate her life to helping overcome diseases born of childhood poverty -- which, you dumb shit, means she loves America not that she hates it.  I served two years in the US Army.

Tell us, big mouth, what you have ever done for America, other than degrade it with your channeling the worst right extremist nonsense.

In my humble left wing opinion, the people who truly hate America are the big money types who think that America is nothing more than a cow to be milked so they can live in big houses, take expensive trips to Europe, drive German cars, promote wars in which other people's children are  killed and maimed, and complain about their taxes (most generally avoided).

Chan -- yes this is a personal attack -- you are a disgrace to America.

- PeteBeck

July 20, 2008 at 9:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chan, your "American Right: defenders of liberty" theme sort of clashes with reality.  Which side routinely uses the ACLU as one of its bogeymen?  Which side had the most fervent backers of anti-sodomy laws that dictated what consenting adults could do in the privacy of their own home?  When the issue of broadcast indecency law comes up, where are all these right wing champions of free speech?

- AlanSP

July 20, 2008 at 10:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also, you mention Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus and Japanese Internment under FDR.  You could add to that list the Espionage and Sedition Acts signed into law by Wilson during World War I, which prohibited speaking out against the government (not just an empty threat either.  Eugene Debs spent 5 years in prison for violating those laws).  Perhaps those actions were understandable given the climate in which they occurred.  They were still wrong.  The U.S. was not made safer by the by the suppression of speech during World War I, or the imprisonment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II.  Why repeat history? What evidence is there for the belief that trying to sidestep the Constitution is an effective means of making our country safer?

- AlanSP

July 20, 2008 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bulbman:

**Religion is not my cup of tea.  But I have the highest respect for the solid working class people of this country, who believe in hard work and love of family and country, and who disdain the liberals’ dream of turning them into so many welfare clients.

I, too, have the highest respect for the solid working class people of this country.  Which is why I am outraged that this decidely anti-liberal administration has put them in a position where keeping their homes, buying a gallon of gas, or obtaining affordable health insurance weighs heavy on their minds, day in and day out.

It has never been my dream to turn hard-working Americans (or any other group of human beings) into welfare clients.  Which is why I am outraged when I see a whole new group of people hanging their heads as they wait in line at the local food pantry.

I'm sure that you'll find a way to describe the downfall of the working class on liberal ideology.  Or perhaps wax "scholastic" on the topic.  But save it.

- Lyn39

July 20, 2008 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The question they need to ask: Is McBush a FASCIST the answer ABSOLUTELY I find it ridiculous that the stupid media ask such nonsense when they should be more focus on what the current administration has done to this country and McBush's desire to CONTINUE doing it. The intelligence of our media continues to go down the toilet.

Carol

- harriscrl3

July 20, 2008 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

O'Channy....

Word of advice from a friend....you tend to unleash your prototypical cannonades...

exactly when you should fold up the tent you borrowed from FOXGOP crewman...

What often often happens to you in these kinds of pissing matches is that your basic good natured conservatism, when attacked, goes straight to cartoon caricature right outta your buddy Bill's playbook.

and then you start bringing up all kinds of barely tangential shit in an effort, I think to change the subject and perhaps save face.

Thought of the day: Our resident conservatives, guys like O'Channy and jwl who I usually find a nice dose of comic relief, are starting to get very edgy lately. Hell, jwl's comments over on the Chait Naomi Klein thread were just appalling and certifiably misogynistic and I think that is why tnr froze the thread. I know that I wrote 2 replies to his repugnant post over two days ago and the thread is still stuck on 21.

Remember O'Channy, when you start to feel the need to crank up the old cannon, go out and take a walk.

- thejauntyboulevardier

July 20, 2008 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ChanRobt intones:

"One or two terrorists armed with a suitcase nuke, hitting, say, the Capitol building as the State of the Union speech is given, can decapitate the American government and do more damage than all the armies of the Confederacy..."

Well for gracious sake don't give OBL and AQ any more ideas!

Seriously, it's hysterical conjectures like this that make my eyes glaze and blood pressure rise. The one-second story is another. What - really - is the probability that any of these scary scenarios could happen? Think for a moment how many ways they would not happen. A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand?

A small chunk of an asteroid landing in the Atlantic a hundred miles offshore could wipe out the government and a goodly portion of the Eastern seaboard besides. God knows, a thousand suitcase nukes would pale before such an event. The question is, what are the real world probabilities of any of these or a hundred other highly improbable events? Not "is it possible?" That isn't real world thinking, it's just dumb.

- tomeg

July 20, 2008 at 12:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When someone plays the "the Left and the Media hate America and revels in her failures" card, they're really saying "I have nothing of substance to add to this argument, and my side is losing it, so I will start flinging poo around like a monkey at the zoo."

- WoodyBombay

July 20, 2008 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wonder what it actually takes to get kicked off this site - it seems pretty clear that jwl just hit it, come Monday morning, I'm calling people at TNR until that gets done.

- Wandreycer1

July 20, 2008 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"it is a precise enough definition of an organism and a disease which is many symbiotic organisms and many rotting diseases."

Channy, others have responded to the rest of your rant - and, with all due respect, it was a rant, so I decided not to engage the discussion any more.  Reading your stuff again this afternoon, I came across the above line.  It is a disturbing line, though not at all surprising.  It is disturbing that any citizen in a democratic country would describe any part of his own society - and the "Left" is not an insignficant part of it - as akin to a rotting disease.  It is not surprising, however, because all totalitarian mindsets - and the Republican "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset is nothing short of totalitarian - end up using the language of "disease" in reference to their political oponents.  

The words above are identical to those used by the Islamic Republic in referring to their opponent, by the Cuban communist tyranny, by the Soviets, by the Nazis, by the Fascists ...

Any way, one good has come out of this.  Growing up under a totalitarian system, as I did, you learn one thing.  There is no arguing with anyone who likens his fellow citizens, or any citizens, to cancerous growths.  You are entitled to your view, and I am entitled not to take you seriously anymore as a sentient being; a box of Special K has more moral fibre.

Cookie: no one who has a "basic good natured conservatism" comes up with this scary stuff.  I might, once in a while, loosen a personal fusilade against a moron like JWL - and the "Left" in the TNR Talkback is "good natured" enough to tell me not to personalise attacks even against a cockroach like JWL.  But to describe entire segments of society as aking to a rotting disease, as cancer - we are in deep psychological problem territory.  I am not American, and I am not a leftist, whatever that might mean, but unless Channy apologises to his fellow Americans, I am going to employ the old communitarian, conservative method of shunning, for my own sanity's sake.

Bulbman: thanks mate, for a good laugh.  At first I was somewhat bemused by the thought that a knuckel-dragging ape with the vocabulary and forsight of an armadillo could type out your statement - and even find the asterisk, which amused me no end.  Then I realised that you were the comic relief, writing a brilliant parody to remind us of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the"Right".  Thanks again!!  I look forward to your straight-faced defence of creationism, flat earth and racial superiority of the White Race in your future threads!!

Wandrey, et al: superb replies.  I admire your patience and good humour in reading and responding to all this nonsense.

- icarusr

July 20, 2008 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandrey: wait for Channy to use your last post as proof of anti-democratic sentiment on the part of the Left, as political correctness gone wild, as yet another attempt by Leftists to shut down legitimate - even if offensive - debate and discussion in furtherance of Democratic ideals. (I'm learning, eh? ;-))

- icarusr

July 20, 2008 at 2:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Channy, first, I would actually like to thank you for taking the time to do more than breath through your mouth, drag your knuckles and grunt obscenities about Obama on this thread. It is most pleasing to read your comments when you actually engage in a form of discourse.

Second, the major problem I have with your entire thesis is that you've placed the fault for all of the worst outcomes directly on the forms and theories of political thought themselves. This is wrong.

It is not about the political theory in question, it is about the bad people who have used various economic theories to consolidate power unto themselves. Despots used brute force and fear, Monarchs used brute force and religion (divine right), Fascism has tended to use socialism and "reason" (*puke*). In all of history, however, it was never the form of government that led to the collapse of the sovereignty. It was either a) war (Rome, Nazi Germany), or b) the dedication of that government to sustaining a minimally acceptable quality of life for its population (France, China, Indonesia, Russia, America).

America does not actually face the slippery slope of socialism that will inexorably draw us into fascism, any more than if faces the slippery slope of elitism or capitalism that will inexorably draw us into an Aristocracy, Plutocracy, Technocracy or any other non-democratic form of governement.

Every country in the world faces the same slippery slope, the efforts of the less than honorable to pillage their society for all forms of personal gain at the expense of society as a whole. In America, this threat can come from The Right just as easily as from The Left because Fascism does not swear fealty to any particular economic theory or domestic policy (despite what Limbaugh says). Fascism relies solely on rationalization (as opposed to actual reasoning which denotes coherent logical arguments), and can just as easily achieve its goal using socialism as it can capitalism. In either case, all that is required is a seemingly irrefutable series of rationalizations established to obscure the motives of the principles, while the principles establish a system which invariably funnels all forms of power unto itself. The end result is the same, regardless of the form of government or the economic theory in play.

- GSpinks

July 20, 2008 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Chan went away but I'd like to thank him also for not being an idiot, and taking on all comers with a good spirit.

My two cents: Obama is not a socialist, unless you really really really want to believe he is. The Ayers thing is fodder for those who do - anyone who knows the context and extent [negligible] of O's "association" with Ayers knows better. Obama certainly likes to talk to everyone and "disagree without being disagreeable". We all know that, and some might disagree with it, but to then impute Ayers' bomb-throwing shennanigans to Obama is just wishful thinking on the part of his enemies.

- psantillana

July 20, 2008 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wandrey...

good for you. I just emailed foer and asked him the same thing: Just what does it take to kick someone off the boards? If jwl's despicable Naomi Klein post doesn't do the trick, then my guess is that a poster can truly write anything without sanction. It was pretty disgusting. I hope that tnr opens up the thread and allows more posts, because I have two more entries. Problem is that jwl may have topped his last odious entry and tnr decided to just kill the board.

- thejauntyboulevardier

July 20, 2008 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarsusr,

Of course, everything you say is true. All I can say is that for some reason, I have a real soft spot of O'Channy. Call me an idiot but I have always liked him, even when he goes off his meds, which seems to be more often now that he and his like minded brethren are facing a total, humiliating, soul searing ass kicking in November.

as for jwl? He strikes me as an angry, lonely, frustrated soul. Normally, I am kind and understanding with such lost waifs, but his recent posts are getting scary. He rarely offers more than just caricature and right wing boilerplate talking points but his performance on the Naomi Klein thread was chilling. Truly, how someone could be so clueless as to present his unbridled misogyny on a public post is not only crazy but really really stupid. I just emailed foer and complained.

- thejauntyboulevardier

July 20, 2008 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Cookie

Up until his "rotting disease" post, I also had a soft spot for Channy - well, more like a grudging respect for his knowledge of US history.  This is why I engaged him on the Canadian issue, even though the depth of his ignorance, especially for someone who claims to have lived in Canada, was startling.  But, you know, when you start using Ahmadinejad-like language here in reference to your fellow citizens, I think there is something disturbing lurking underneath, and I don't want to sully my keyboard responding to him anymore.

As for JWL, on the Obama-comedy thread you saw how his anti-gay tirades drove me off the deep end.  At the time, I apologised to my fellow Talkbackers, entirely out of respect for them than for that ignorant insect and even though I felt entirely justified.  Well, on another thread he had some racist comments as well, to which I responded less heatedly than it deserved ... again out of respect for the rest.  And then there is the Naomi Klein thing - wow, man - talk about a nutcase.  Still, I am not sure if kicking him off Talkback is the answer.  It's good to have him around, as long as can all ignore him, only to show us what too much testosterone can do to political, ahem, intercourse. ;-)

- icarusr

July 20, 2008 at 4:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

GSpinks, I am in complete sympathy with your thesis that that tyranny can use either the path of the Left or the Right to bring itself to power.  

However, in Europe, Spain and Portugal are the only two nations I can easily think of where more or less pure Conservatism led to dictatorship and tyranny (though not to totalitarian states.)

In Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union, the ideas and ideals of variously Communism, Socialism, and general Leftism were major levers bringing totalitarian governments to power.

In the United States, the most meddiling, intrusive, controlling, coercive instincts and impulses have come from the Left.  Often well-meaning and high-minded, albeit.  But, still resulting in various kinds of oppression and behavior control as well as attempted control of political expression.  

Once again, you need only look to American academia or to concepts like  the putative "Fairness Doctrine" to see how scary this can be.

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey, guys, jwl isn't our most brilliant poster, but so what?  Let him speak.

My experience at tnr is that people who don't debate well leave of their own accord.  And, if you don't like what he rights, skip his posts.

As long as the man is not stringing together yards of obscenities, you gain more by giving him his say then by censoring him.

And, yes, Wandrey, stomping on this guy does reinforce my assertion that the Left has an impulse to control political speech.

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr, for the record, I lived in Canada for a summer and a fall when I got a job up in Vancouver at age 19.  (The province was, at the time, surprisingly Socialist to this Californian.)

The British Columbia of that era seemed to my young self as some combination of England and Scandinavia.  This was also a time when B.C. and Vancouver was kind of a well-kept secret to Americans.

I did not emigrate so I did not study Canadian history or government.  And I never got into any trouble.  So I had not need to learn what freedoms were protected under the Charter of Rights.  

I believe it is true that Britain has no equivalent to a Bill or Rights.  And, I sometimes make the mistake of many Americans of conflating prominent former Commonwealth nations with G.B.

Meanwhile, I will reiterate, I see Leftist thought as a cancer, slow-working though it may often be.  I see certain radical Leftists (the Ayers and Dornans of our country) as a cancer, too.  

I don't see individuals whose Leftist believes emerge from well-meaning intentions as a "cancer".  But, I do see them as misguided, as putting heart over head, and, in aggregate, if their votes move us well Left, with nationalized medicine and the rest, their good intentions will be very damaging and, perhaps, irreversible.

(See the decline of Europe, the result of two civil wars and then a general surrender to Leftism in their aftermath.)

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hmmmm, now it looks like it's one of my detailed posts that has been swallowed up, as was icarusr's yesterday.

will check back.  

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

post not lost.  see above  (I wouldn't want any of you to have worried.)

Meanwhile, I have visited the Naomi thread and read jwl's posts there.  Truly vile in his use of a repeated string of the worst obscenities.

I now have to agree with Wandrey and the rest.  That sort of thing is definitely beyond the pale.  

It is not the content of ideas that ought ever to be censored.  But, when the mode of expression is so contemptibly disgusting, that is another story.  

I would suggest that jwl be warned once by the editors that in all future posts he must temper such vileness.  If he repeats same again, then it would be more than fair to expel him.

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Going back to the origin of this thread, I don't think it was oily of McCain to say that he has no idea if Obama is a Socialist.  

From a ?Rightist p.o.v., and unalloyed string of party line votes with the modern Democratic Party would augur towards European style Socialism.  And, as most of you defending Obama also imply strongly, being a Socialist is hardly a bad thing.

This is not the same as Hillary saying she doesn't know if he's a Muslim.  Obama has stated that he is a Christian, and he has been a member of a Christian denomination for 20 plus years.  So, how can you not take him at his word, those being the facts.

Hillary was being disingenuous.  I don't believe McCain was.

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus - " (I'm learning, eh? ;-))" I would say you have it down to a "T"! Brilliant.

- GSpinks

July 20, 2008 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And then there is the Naomi Klein thing - wow, man - talk about a nutcase.  Still, I am not sure if kicking him off Talkback is the answer.  It's good to have him around, as long as can all ignore him, only to show us what too much testosterone can do to political, ahem, intercourse. ;-)"

I agree with icarusr. Some of jwl's posts are completely disgusting. But they're a useful (if sobering and depressing) reminder of two things: 1) the limits of reasoned deliberation (its impotence in the face of truly blinkered, ideologically knee-jerk forms of thinking) ; and, 2) the limited existence of the kind of civility and generosity on which the very freedoms JWL claims to cherish partly rest. Maybe we can add these two "uses" to what williamyard recently wrote about on another thread: the "there but for the grace of god" effect of such comments (also known as the Dixie cup epiphany.)

- hemlock41

July 20, 2008 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As long as jwl is warned by a tnr honcho that the next time he wanders into that kind of vile swamp he is gone, then I concur that a stiff warning is sufficient.

- thejauntyboulevardier

July 20, 2008 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perils of Pauline, redux.

Well, it turns out that my detailed post addressing the most recent fusillades of my worthy adversaries did go into the cyberhole (I dare not say "black hole" after recent events in a city council) and is known but to God.

I did not take my own good advice to icarusr and save my mini-tome elsewhere.

Tragic though this loss may be, I have at least spoken to the misunderstanding that I was calling people a cancer as opposed to ideas same.  Which is certainly fair use.

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 5:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chan - last week you called me Camille Paglia - or shades of her anyway, and now I'm the PC police.  You know damn good and well I am no such thing.  Everyone is right: Bad Chan (spouts deeply tired, deeply moronic FOX news mentality out of previously classic, learned mind - bizarre) has re-emerged.  I guess we all have our dark side.  My experience with cornered wingers is that they can dish it out but they cannot take it for one second.

OK, fine.  I'm the PC police.  

How about if the next time someone refers to any woman you know as a skank and a cunt (words used on another thread by the mentally ill jwl) , and you don't punch the guy in the face so hard you knock him out, that its OK if I applaud your commitment to open speech (while also considering you a pussy of the first order).

The female writer in question on the other thread will have every right to hold TNR accountable if she feels threatened or frightened by that discourse, as she should.  I'd act if I were you TNR.

- Wandreycer1

July 20, 2008 at 7:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And icarus - I always applaud your fearless defense of enlightment principles and true progressive values, don't stop now.  We mustn't go wobbly.

I say we must damn the torpedos, full steam ahead on bigots, especially towards our gay brethren - who have been especially exploited by the rancid Rove machine (did you know Rove's stepfather was gay? And that Rove had a loving relationship with him?  And Rove hated his mother? Who committed suicide? And we're supposed to be civilized?  These sick people who have so befouled this country can go screw themselves, civility has its place, but stirring up hate for votes is not it).

You have me as your wingman always.

- Wandreycer1

July 20, 2008 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Channy: ideas as cancer are better than people as cancer, although I objected, and still object, to the characterization because of the sad and disreputable provenance of the whole "rotting disease" discourse.  I press the "ignore" button in my head for anyone who talks about "dustbin of history", and have the same mental reaction to "rotting disease" or "cancer".  Also, please note that your earlier post juxtaposed cancer with jellyfish; ideas are not jellyfish; in context, one could reasonably have read your sentence as referring to people in its entirety, and of course that would be completely unacceptable.  I won't dwell on this any more and accept your clarification.

"It is not the content of ideas that ought ever to be censored.  But, when the mode of expression is so contemptibly disgusting, that is another story."

Funny you should say that, Channy, because that is precisely why MacLean's has got into trouble.  It was not the content of the cartoons, but the mode of expression that, to Muslims, was "contemptibly disgusting".  Showing Mohammad in a turban that is also a bomb is no different, to a Muslim, than calling Naomi Klein the C word.  I guess at least you understand the principle that the two provincial human rights commissions are trying to apply - and there is no guarantee, by the way, that the complainants will win.  (For the record, I am not Muslim; I think that the whole thing was overblown, and do not at all agree with human rights commissions getting involved in these issues.  And of course, this is a side issue.  I was merely trying to correct the record - and to demonstrate how seemingly innocent comments may develop a life of their own if unchecked.)

"And, as most of you defending Obama also imply strongly, being a Socialist is hardly a bad thing."

Now you are being disingenuous.  No, it is not a bad thing to be a socialist, just as it is not a bad thing to be a capitalist.  And it is not a bad thing to be a Muslim, an Arab or a Martian for that matter.  Nor was it a bad thing to have fathered a mulatto child out of wedlock.  And yet, in context, each of these can become an insult.  As McCain how he felt about the deep-sixing he got in 2000, and then you will understand why seemingly innocent and "not a bad thing" statements or characertisations, in context, can be worse than insults.

- icarusr

July 20, 2008 at 7:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hemlock (out of curiosity, is your handle a reference to the tree or to Socrates?):

"the limited existence of the kind of civility and generosity on which the very freedoms JWL claims to cherish partly rest" ... Amen.

My favourite Twilight Zone episode - I showed to my "Philosophy of Law" class - was the story of the family who built a bomb shelter, and then there was the false news of a nuclear attack ... and how the neighbours destroyed the guy's shelter trying to get in. (How he thought he would survive a nuclear blast using doors that buckled under a crowbar is, of course, an open question - but I digree.)  Rod Serling's bromide: "For civilisation to continue, people must continue to be civilised."

I'm a free speech absolutist from a legal perspective, and don't think the state should intervene to correct unwelcome expression - and that inclused burning the flag, or calling Naomi Klein a c***.  But the use of such expression in civilised society is a different matter and, as I said, I very strongly believe in the collective therapeutic value of shunning. :-)

- icarusr

July 20, 2008 at 7:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandrey: thanks for the kind words - couldn't have asked for a better wingman :-).

The funny (sad funny) thing is that, as I apologised on the other thread re my intemperate remarks to JWL, I noted that there were three things that pushed my button and got me going: using "gay" as an insult, the N word and the C word.  And of course JWL, having done the first in the Obama threat, proceeded to the C word in the Klein thread not twenty-four hours later.  Oh well ...

- icarusr

July 20, 2008 at 7:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Channy - a man who has made it clear that he deeply admires the foreign policy of George HW Bush is rather tough to pigeon hole as a socialist.  

Please give it a rest, its unsupportable nonsense, gibberish even.

- Wandreycer1

July 20, 2008 at 7:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh no, this is all too high minded for me with jwl - you guys can shun all you want, I'm much more interested in the punch on the face.

- Wandreycer1

July 20, 2008 at 7:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wandrey...

funny you should mention that Old Testament style consequence....

in one of the two posts that I sent in, and now seem to be lost to the ethers, I told the callow jwl that one of the disadvantages of blogging is that I cannot self select who I want to be around. I never hang out with the kind of cretins who would call women "c---s" and "s---k", and the like. Like icarusr, I more or less shun them. Not that from their perspective, it is any great loss...these kinds of guys have always stayed away from me. Call it a mutual disregard.

I did tell the young hater that if foer does pull together a fall tnr confab, he best NOT use this kind of conversation around me because I will use everything in my toolkit of persuasion - a varied collection of soft and hard methods - to disabuse him of ever making that mistake again.

But I would be very interested in seeing exactly what the kind of guy who would use this kind of language on a blog actually looks like....the mind reels with possibilities...

- thejauntyboulevardier

July 20, 2008 at 7:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bravo Jaunty.  I know that word makes women violent, I can't promise civility in the face of that stuff.  I have never punched anyone and normally shun violence (except in boxing), but I'd be happy to try it out if he showed up somewhere I was.

- Wandreycer1

July 20, 2008 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandrey, when I counseled against censorship, I said it was only fitting when the words in question were obscene.  I subsequently went to the Naomi thread and read what JWL had written there.  And was just as appalled as you and many of the rest.

I don't believe that any ideas ought to be censored.  But points made with such vile language are beyond the pale.  Which point I made earlier.  

Our messages are crossing in the mail.

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 8:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hey wandrey,..

Before you go and start scrappin', you best let me soften the boy up a bit...an old specialty of mine...

Once I got the boy exactly in the appropriate receptive mood, I'll toss what's left of him over to you and then you can do what you like with the tatters...

- thejauntyboulevardier

July 20, 2008 at 8:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Channy,

"In Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union, the ideas and ideals of variously Communism, Socialism, and general Leftism were major levers bringing totalitarian governments to power."

Its seems to me the economic and political theories put into play in these situations were a logical response to the economic situations of the people. I would only expect that the tyrant-to-be would assume a political platform that would most effectively consolidate power unto them, and a starving population is easily swayed by the promise of food on the table. Being a convenient political theory for tyrants looking to take control of a country of starving people does not make any "general Leftism" political theories any worse than any other political theory.

"In the United States, the most meddiling, intrusive, controlling, coercive instincts and impulses have come from the Left.  Often well-meaning and high-minded, albeit.  But, still resulting in various kinds of oppression and behavior control as well as attempted control of political expression."

First, given the trains of political thought which have occurred in America these last 7+ years, there are many negative instincts and impulses that originate from The Right (wasn't Fox arguing for Texas and against that sect?), and sometimes meddling, intrusion, control and coersion are necessary and good (one word, "warrant"). Second, the hypocracy of this truism in the face of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act is astounding.

So basically, there is nothing you have said here that cannot be said about the right and your use of the descriptor "the most" is highly subjective and not a qualification supported by a factual quantification of a defined and well measured set of political outcomes; in fact, given what has happened in the last 7+ years, I would argue that it is The Right to which your description most applies.

"you need only look to American academia or to concepts like  the putative "Fairness Doctrine" to see how scary this can be."

There is much I could say one way or the other, but I think it would be best summarized. It seems to me that your broad strokes and one-sided analysis undermine your very reasoning. You could take bad about Academia until you're blue in the face, and I might agree with every point you make, and yet you will not have shown why the institution of Academia needs to be abolished. As for Fairness Doctrine, it seems to me that The Right has concocted its own share of incredibly stupid, or at least well meaning but poorly implemented ideas, and yet The Left has never called for abolishing The Right.

If I want to scare myself, I need only consider the consequences we face if the Bush Administration has actually managed to erode the separation of powers, and established the Presidency as above even the rule of law. THAT is scary.

- GSpinks

July 20, 2008 at 8:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gspinks, you write, "...You could take bad about Academia until you're blue in the face, and I might agree with every point you make, and yet you will not have shown why the institution of Academia needs to be abolished. "

It is not the institution of Academia that is as fault in this instance.  It is the infusion of Left-Think into Academia since '68 that has brought the proscriptions on free speech and open thought.  It is this Left-Think that has seen people on the Right driven off the stage by thugs at such exalted universities as Columbia.

My problem, as it has been all along here, is not with a given institution.  It is what Left concepts do to mutate and corrupt our institutions.

As to The Patriot Act and the rest, these laws are not the natural outgrowth of Rightist philosophy so much as driven by the exigencies of war.  Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were all liberal thinkers and generally friends of liberty.  But, they all three, in wartime situations, practiced policies and caused laws to be enacted that were illiberal and anti-Liberty in the extreme.

As I pointed out earlier, the great divide between Left and Right since 11 September is the question of whether we are engaged in a war or simply fighting international criminal elements.  

So, GSpinks, I'm not at odds with you whether under certain circumstances (meaning mainly war) either Left or Right can engender harsh, anti-Democratic laws.  They both can.

But, I maintain that under ordinary circumstances, a Johnson following his philosophy will do a lot more damage to liberty than will an Eisenhower following his.

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gspinks, you write, "...You could take bad about Academia until you're blue in the face, and I might agree with every point you make, and yet you will not have shown why the institution of Academia needs to be abolished. "

It is not the institution of Academia that is as fault in this instance.  It is the infusion of Left-Think into Academia since '68 that has brought the proscriptions on free speech and open thought.  It is this Left-Think that has seen people on the Right driven off the stage by thugs at such exalted universities as Columbia.

My problem, as it has been all along here, is not with a given institution.  It is what Left concepts do to mutate and corrupt our institutions.

As to The Patriot Act and the rest, these laws are not the natural outgrowth of Rightist philosophy so much as driven by the exigencies of war.  Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were all liberal thinkers and generally friends of liberty.  But, they all three, in wartime situations, practiced policies and caused laws to be enacted that were illiberal and anti-Liberty in the extreme.

As I pointed out earlier, the great divide between Left and Right since 11 September is the question of whether we are engaged in a war or simply fighting international criminal elements.  

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Going back to the origin of this thread, I don't think it was oily of McCain to say that he has no idea if Obama is a Socialist...Hillary was being disingenuous.  I don't believe McCain was."

I will respectfully disagree. We know they've worked on bills together, and we know they're in the business of politics, and I've never met anyone who did not learn much about their coworkers aptitudes and tendencies after working with them for any appreciable length of time. In order for McCain to honestly have no idea of Barack's political motives/tendencies/leanings (being politicians and having worked together in the realm of politicis), he would have to be completely oblivious to the world around him. But McCain is not a drooling idiot. Which means my options for guessing his motives are limited...

"From a ?Rightist p.o.v., and unalloyed string of party line votes with the modern Democratic Party would augur towards European style Socialism."

The main problem I have with talk about party line votes is that it doesn't actually augur anything. There are any number of reasons for any politician to vote yea, nay, present, or skip the vote entirely; and not all of these reasons have to do with the content of the bill in question. There is also the issue of the bill in question, and how one goes about reducing every multidimensional issue into the exact same binary categories. Given this, I find the whole topic to be something of a political bullshit fest designed to avoid discussing actual issues and proposed solutions and that it says a lot of things about politicians who attempt to play the game.

- GSpinks

July 20, 2008 at 9:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey, gang, is everybody here experiencing disappearing posts?  I know that both icarusr and I have.

I've taken to copying and saving my posts elsewhere before submitting.  In case they never show up, I can always try to post again.

I don't think there are gnomes censoring us here.  Just a dumbass robot screwing up.

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 9:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gspinks, in order to make these discussions coherent, I think we almost have to separate our philsophy and opinions from what the two American Parties actually do.

They are both to one extent or another gaming the system.  They are neither of them acting very close to their supposed beliefs.

And most of the actions and words in Washington are almost entirely intended for political effect rather than for actual action.

Neither American political party these days is a very good example of any philosophy or belief.

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 9:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Back to the original topic for a moment, there's a flaw in McCain's reasoning that often worms its way into political conversation.  McCain points to the fact that Obama voted with the Democrats more often than Sanders did as evidence that Obama is "to the left" of Sanders.  Essentially, this conflates consistency with extremity with regard to political position.  Leaving aside all of the flaws of those most liberal/conservative rankings (limited number of votes, procedural reasons for voting against a bill, etc.), the only thing those rankings can conceivable tell you is how *frequently* a person took the position of the rest of his or her party.  They tell you literally nothing about the relative extremity of those positions.

Chan takes it a step further by taking voting with the Democrats to be a proxy for favoring more government interference and fewer liberties.  These are simply not the lines along which our modern parties separate.  To oversimplify a great deal (but still less than Chan does), mainstream liberals tent to want the government to play a larger role in economics and a limited role in social/cultural issues, while mainstream conservatives tend to want the reverse.  The type of generalized big government philosophy that Chan fears characterizes neither major political faction.  In fact, a person with such an extreme statist position would show up in these rankings as a "moderate", since he would tend to vote with the Democrats on economic issues and with the Republicans on issues of things like national security, flag-burning amendments, and the like.

- AlanSP

July 20, 2008 at 9:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AlanSP, I understand your point.  But, nationalizing the entire American health system, which is essentially what the Democratic Party has been pushing one way or another-- and now intensely-- for 16 years, is a might big state intrusion.

- ChanRobt

July 20, 2008 at 10:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Channy: actually, no one is talking about "nationalising" the US health care system.  But even if that were the case, let McCain go out and discuss the issue.  His "I don't know", in legal terms, is grossly prejudicial and has no probative value to boot.  It is an insinuation of ill motives and, as you have demonstrated from your Fox News speaking points, it means to blacken character rather than address issues and positions.  

This is the heart of the matter, which you have been trying to obfuscate by long disquisitions about Canada and Benedict Arnold.  Right now, you are demonstrating the primacy of ideology over reason, the very thing you accuse the "Left" of doing.  Give it up man, you can't win this one; accept that McCain is behaving like an oily pol and move on.

- icarusr

July 20, 2008 at 10:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Channy - I know full well you hadn't read the jwl posts, you are a gentleman with decorum and manners about women, this wasn't even a tough call for anyone. I just had to get self righteous. My dark side.  I was spitting mad and the whole PC police thing is just not applicable on these boards very often.  

The secret to Channy is that he likes Obama, Icarus.  He keeps trying not to by digging up every old canard he can, but he's already been busted.  He admires him for many of the same reasons many of us do (brilliance, exceptional reason, erudite, great American success story, oratory like we haven't seen in years). I've seen Channy's respect for him with my own eyes, much like Peggy Noonan, who is totally out of the closet as an Obama fan, even Lynne Cheney is said to admire him!  I get it, Lynne Cheney may be a total loon, but she's a classically trained thinker and knows a compadre in that way when she sees one.

Channy is running back to ideology for some unknown reason, but that respect is there.

- Wandreycer1

July 20, 2008 at 10:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"in order to make these discussions coherent, I think we almost have to separate our philsophy and opinions from what the two American Parties actually do.

They are both to one extent or another gaming the system.  They are neither of them acting very close to their supposed beliefs.

And most of the actions and words in Washington are almost entirely intended for political effect rather than for actual action."

I don't disagree. I think we *absolutely* have to separate philosophy, facts and opinions from parties and identity, because that is the true nature of bi-partisanship and the only way real progress can be accomplished. Inserting Party Identity into "the open discussion" has changed the course of the dialogue in America from "issues" (what is the problem, what are our options, and how to proceed) to "identity" (are you with us, or against us).

"Neither American political party these days is a very good example of any philosophy or belief."

In the sense that American politics have declined dramatically, and are no longer a good example of how Democracy, Human Rights, and The First Amendment lead to improved quality of life for everyone across the board, I agree.

However, in the sense that there are lessons to be learned from the behavior exhibited by the political parties, especially their "proponents" and "surrogates" and how their true philosophies and beliefs are exposed, I disagree.

- GSpinks

July 20, 2008 at 11:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AlanSP -- excellent points (as always.)

Chan -- "Nationalizing" health care would mean, at a minimum, pursuing a single-payer system, wouldn't it? Obama's plan is does not involve a single-payer system, and doesn't even mandate coverate for adults. It would help your case against alleged "lefties" if you paid more attention to at least some of the specifics of their views, instead of sticking to wild broadsides.

Icarusr: Both. The town where I grew up was surrounded by forests full of hemlock; and the Apology and Crito are two of my favorite political philosophy texts.

- hemlock41

July 21, 2008 at 12:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FWIW, icarusr, I completely agree with you about preserving absolute freedom of speech at the level of legal regulation and informally shunning repugnant speech at the level of civil society.  Communitarianism is all well and good, as long as we keep it in its place :-)

- hemlock41

July 21, 2008 at 12:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hemlock41, I missed icarusr's post, but I second your motion backing him re shunning repugnant speech at the civil level, etc

- ChanRobt

July 21, 2008 at 12:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hemlock41 as far as I'm concerned, any further intrusion of the federal government into health care is nationalizing, whether single payer, or not.

The beginning of the end of affordable medical care in the U.S. was Lyndon Johnson's introduction of Medicare which created a collusional system between the feds, the hospitals, and supposedly private medical insurance.

It is a giant scheme which has distorted costs beyond all recognition.  I wish it would collapse overnight and have to be abandoned to re-invention on an essentially market driven, private level.

I believe the ridiculous cost of medicine can mainly be traced to the involvement of government.  Not to the advanced technology of modern medicine as claimed.

Modern cars and PCs are far more advanced than what existed in the 60s.  But, they cost either the same (in adjusted terms) or far less than cars and computers did 40 years ago.

I guarantee you, if the Federal government had intruded itself as heavily into automobiles and computers as they have into medicine, neither would be affordable.

- ChanRobt

July 21, 2008 at 12:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As to The Patriot Act and the rest, these laws are not the natural outgrowth of Rightist philosophy so much as driven by the exigencies of war.  Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were all liberal thinkers and generally friends of liberty.  But, they all three, in wartime situations, practiced policies and caused laws to be enacted that were illiberal and anti-Liberty in the extreme."

And in my opinion, of all the instances listed above, only Lincoln got it right. The remainder, to one degree or another, over-reacted.

"the great divide between Left and Right since 11 September is the question of whether we are engaged in a war or simply fighting international criminal elements. "

First, war is not, in and of itself, a justification for the subversion of basic human rights. That, to my thinking, is the secular equivalent of the Inquisition.

Second, its no real question because the answer is actually "yes". On the one hand you have the Taliban in the role of established government, and the in the other hand you have AQ, an organization predicated on violence and sedition.

- GSpinks

July 21, 2008 at 12:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

GSpinks writes, "I don't disagree. I think we *absolutely* have to separate philosophy, facts and opinions from parties and identity, because that is the true nature of bi-partisanship and the only way real progress can be accomplished. "

As you will recall, G, Washington hated the idea of parties and both hoped and expected (unrealistically) that they would not develop in America.

Washington was right to wish not to have them.  But, the need to organize around identity is, I'm afraid, hardwired in human beings.  We are tribal organisms.  If we aren't born into a tribe, we will create one.  This is no doubt an excellent survival mechanism in many circumstances.  But, it is often counter-productive.

- ChanRobt

July 21, 2008 at 12:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Washington hated the idea of parties and both hoped and expected (unrealistically) that they would not develop in America."

I know. If memory serves, he had no prior experience with politics either.

"the need to organize around identity is, I'm afraid, hardwired in human beings."

I would disagree for the simple fact that humans have always organized around needs and goals. Society itself is a construct formulated to better meet the needs of the people; this is almost a law of nature, as I can think of no society which has survived, in tact, the failure to meet the needs of its people. After Need comes Ideology and the desire to accomplish other things once the Needs are met. Party Identity, per se, seems to be a relatively recent phenomenom, visible perhaps only during the last 50-75 years in America, and is more like a means to an end (a call to orthodoxy to increase the voting power of a particular bloc in a Democratic system)  than an Ideology.

- GSpinks

July 21, 2008 at 3:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hate political parties. And while I understand the "need" for them, I think that need will grow smaller and smaller as the ability to get information for onesself, via the fabulous internet, grows larger. A person can find out for himself what a candidate thinks on all issues without resorting to the party proxy.

- psantillana

July 21, 2008 at 4:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

THIS IS A TEST, in the event of a real post...

- ChanRobt

July 21, 2008 at 8:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The beginning of the end of affordable medical care in the U.S. was Lyndon Johnson's introduction of Medicare which created a collusional system between the feds, the hospitals, and supposedly private medical insurance."

My first problem with this thesis is that said collusion ensured pricing was consistent and reasonably profitable (not too high, not too low). My second problem with this thesis is that insurance is on the wrong side of the equation. Health care costs drives the price of insurance. However, aside from colluding with health care providers, insurance's only recourse is to adjust the terms and prices of the coverages.

"I believe the ridiculous cost of medicine can mainly be traced to the involvement of government.  Not to the advanced technology of modern medicine as claimed."

Actually, the cost of "medicine" is a combination of Pharmaceutical companies gaming the patent system to prevent generics and inflation in general ( I will give a nod to the standard corporate sinkholes like bonuses for executives). The cost of "providing health care" is related to the costs of educating doctors (again, inflation a big role), and gotchas like malpractice insurance, as well as things like hospital administration standards and techniques which became large sinkholes over the last few decades. And while government interventions have produced countless migranes within the Health Care industry, by and large the interventions have been necessary and good for the Health Care industry: updating standards and mandating certain improvements (like Drug Utilization and Review data, which is somewhat costly to implement retroactively but has helped decrease the rate of medical errors in relation to dispensing pharmaceuticals for hospitals and pharmacies).

"Modern cars and PCs are far more advanced than what existed in the 60s.  But, they cost either the same (in adjusted terms) or far less than cars and computers did 40 years ago."

This is simply not true. Having purchased both repeatedly over the last 20 years. in the early 90's, my top-of-the-line-not-cutting-edge PC cost only $600 (486/66MHz, 4Mb ram, 20 Meg hard disk, good video) and companies like Gateway and IBM were selling their top-of-the-line offerings at around $1200 (laptops are always higher). Today's equivalent PC costs around $2000 (Pentium IV/3GHz, 1Gb Ram, 80Gb hard disk, good video) and the top-of-the-line from Alienware (highly recommended in my book) run about $3000. I'm a little fuzzier on the car index because I bought my first car well used, but in the last 5-10 years it seems prices have gone up about 20% overall (some models more than others).

I realize this is anecdotal, but if you are going to try to argue that prices are holding steady (adjusting for inflation), you're going to have to come up with something better than incredulity with one of the simplest truths of economics.

- GSpinks

July 21, 2008 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gspinks, buy an entry level iMac for $1250.  It will beat your $2k pc

- ChanRobt

July 21, 2008 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know. I'm waiting until my PC dies before I buy another.

- GSpinks

July 21, 2008 at 5:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kill it, GSp.  No jury in America will convict you.

You know, friends don't let friends use Windows and all that.  Goes ttriple for Vista.

- ChanRobt

July 21, 2008 at 8:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And, if we're going to Geek-Riff, GSpinks, the first Mac in 1984 cost $2500 bucks with no hard drive and 128k RAM.

PCs in the mid 80s, which now seem pitiful, with DOS and all, were going for $2 to $3k.  Adjusted dollars, that $2,500 in 1986 is just under $5,000 now.  My recollection is that top of the line PCs in the mid 80s, running DOS, went for nearly $5k.   That's nearly 10 grand in 2008 bucks.

- ChanRobt

July 21, 2008 at 8:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Vista is probably my #1 argument for finally making the switch.

Those prices indicate bleeding-edge tech pricing (I'm really trying not to remember the days when 20MB hard disks felt like I could download the world and have room left for my Castle Wolfenstein saves), and your guestimates for today's prices are about right for the technological equivalents of today.

- GSpinks

July 22, 2008 at 2:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Even a Kaypro or an Osborne, GS, were over $2 grand if memory serve.

Anybody 35 still here must be just rolling their eyes at all this.

- ChanRobt

July 22, 2008 at 2:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Even a Kaypro or an Osborne, GS, were over $2 grand if memory serve.

Anybody 35 still here must be just rolling their eyes at all this.

- ChanRobt

July 22, 2008 at 2:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Even a Kaypro or an Osborne, GS, were over $2 grand if memory serve.

Anybody 35 still here must be just rolling their eyes at all this.

- ChanRobt

July 22, 2008 at 2:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close