You're still listening to them because the news media keep calling them up.

I think we all know that Obama is trying to hit the ideological reset button, even if he isn't phrasing his effort that way, but societal prejudices and especially the self-interest of media moguls don't turn on a dime.

Okeedoke, now it's time for Harry Kershner to post a bit of pithy commentary about how there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Richard Shelby and Barack Obama.

You're still listening to them because the news media keep calling them up.

I think we all know that Obama is trying to hit the ideological reset button, even if he isn't phrasing his effort that way, but societal prejudices and especially the self-interest of media moguls don't turn on a dime.

Okeedoke, now it's time for Harry Kershner to post a bit of pithy commentary about how there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Richard Shelby and Barack Obama.

Shelby's proposal should actually be seriously considered - we don't need a lot of "zombie" banks like Japan had in the 1990's miring us in a 15-year recession.

And Obama's getting a lot of stupid advice from the left too.

If I may: why on earth do the national news continue to solicit opinion from the dull-witted Republican leaders who, entrusted with the wheel of state, promptly drove it into a ditch?

Harry might be busy just now so let me stand in for him. Almost everyone in the Washington establishment - Republicans, Democrats and the media - have been taking advantage of their opportunities to spout drivel and often outright lies.

One of countless examples: As US unemployment rises inexorably, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is playing his part in ensuring that the trend will continue, while his explanation of "why we are here" overlooks his own role in that descent into economic madness.

Check mediamatters dot org for how the media continuously get it wrong.

Because they are men of faith. The depth of your faith is more important to most Americans than the depth of your intelligence. Personally, I'm suspicious of anyone that "knows" something. I only know if people believe things, and believing in anything but Jesus the Christ is Satan worship. If Dems could learn this, repent and convert, you would have people listening to you. The last President betrayed our agenda; stopped short. Huckabee, Palin, Romney, and Smith will never do that. Phase II is coming, and after it does, you will know the answer to your question.

Goin' Up!

You do Harry a disservice, JVDw. Correct me if I'm wrong Harry, but I think your position has been trivialized. The point he, I and any real progressive are trying to make is that the difference between the two is not consequential for the problems on the table. There's not a dime of difference? That's insulting. Of course there is. The question is, is that difference enough to make the difference between success and failure in our endeavors.

BO constantly promotes, "this is different and it's different enough". Our refrain is, "it's not much different, and it's not different enough to get the job done".

Our refrain is, "it's not much different, and it's not different enough to get the job done".

I have no problem with that refrain, and even share a lot of the opinion. The problem I have with Kershner is his framing, which invariably entails personal abuse of people he deems faux progressives.

There's a difference between debate that aims to change minds, and "debate" that is really just angry, sanctimonious venting. If someone starts out by calling me an selfish, ignorant, war-mongering tool, chances are strong that I'm going to tune him out.

Jeff, it is always good, if not pleasant, to hear the other side of an issue or belief. Oftentimes it reinforces our original point of view, and sometimes we learn something we didn't know before. I don't want to live in a place where people are silenced or are doing things "quietly". Only then would we really have to fear what is being said.

Jeff Alworth says: ...Hoover's do nothingism

I know this is the common conception about Herbert Hoover - but it's also completely off-base. I recommend you read some history.

It's not that Hoover stood by and did nothing during the downward spiral... it's just his policies (Mexican Repatriation, Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, Hoover Moratorium, National Credit Corporation, Federal Home Loan Bank Act, etc) were ineffective and/or insufficient. You may find it enlightening to know that during the 1932 campaign the sainted FDR blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the government dole. He further attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible," and of leading "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." And then FDR turned right around and doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled-down on Hoover's so-called 'do nothingism'...

So you can fault Hoover for not doing enough, I guess - but hindsight is 20/20. And some 'New Dealers' later admitted that much of the 'New Deal' was just extensions of efforts that Hoover actually started.

This article from Alternet will help to explain why Democrats and Republicans sang the same tunes to help get us into the current financial crisis.

The article, however, probably won't do much to persuade Democrats and Republicans that sometimes their tribal loyalties are often misplaced. Faith has a nasty way of trumping reason.

But I suppose you DO want us to listen to folks like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank... even after they assured on multiple occasions over years that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were just fine and that there was no reason for further government oversight/regulation.

There's plenty of stupidity on all sides in Washington, DC - believe me...

It's frustrating to see so many blues creating their own reality to address. Such as the notion that 30 years of Reaganomics and the recent Bush administration is the sole blame for our economic collapse.

Bob Brinker got it right.

Brinker said there were three things that happened that created the situation in the financial markets, and it was definitely bipartisan:

1) Republican Senator Phil Gramm (turned bank lobbyist) promoted and led the bill to Repeal the Glass Stiegel Act in 1999

2) Democrat President Bill Clinton signed the bill to repeal the Glass Stiegel Act

3) In 2007, the repeal of the uptick rule for short sales.

Additionally, the worst lending practices ever in the last several years -- breakdown of the code of lending.

OK, let's define "small government" once and for all.

Does that mean local control of schools? (Whose idea was NCLB?).

Does that mean families or the federal government make medical decisions about a loved one? (Remember Terry Schaivo?)

Does it mean expanding a government program and arm-twisting members who won't go along (Medicare Part D and "vote for this or your son gets no money from the party" to a retiring member of Congress.)

If someone is opposed to LBJ's Great Society, why not say the Great Society was wrong rather than the vague "small government" rhetoric?

And math yields nonpartisan answers: 40 years ago in January, Richard M. Nixon was sworn in as president.

I have to ask, as someone that doesn't view broadcast or cable tv, if you had a reasonable expectation of sentience on the show you were watching. I hate Lawrence Welk, so I don't spend my discretionary time at diamond jubilees, asking when they will get some musical taste. If I were a musician I certainly wouldn't.

I'm asking because I fear and have to shudder every time I see a reasonably progressive American act as though they are out of touch if they don't check in with the boob tube at least twice a day.

I guess it's like people that watch the NFL think they're seeing sport. They see some, but, on balance, what per cent is it of the viewing time? How about commercials? On balance you're watching a string of commercials, punctuated by just enough action to keep you viewing. I suppose that once you equate that with watching a football game, you can equate whatever you were watching with a newsmaker interview.

I know this is off the wall in terms of thinking too far outside the box, especially here, but I have to mention that it's odd to hear BO posters complaining about vapid network news (assuming that was the genre of show). Money is the mother's milk of politics? Those very dollars are the life blood of vapid network news! I know we're supposed to look through all the crap and keep our eyes on the prize, but it's not technically correct to say $25 to the Obama campaign goes toward restoring our respect in the world. It goes directly to Fox TV, to executives that have been responsible for our losing respect in the world, in the hope that getting them to inflict their shuck and jive on the masses will get the candidate elected, and that will produce the desired outcome. It's so American. Overlook the obvious, disparage the result, find inconceivable making the necessary changes, expect something better in the future. Obviously, the last term is meaningless until you are willing to do something different. Since 2000 the Dem refrain has been to use the same methods as the Reps, toward a better end. Trust us. Real morality, the assumption that the ends can never justify the means it dead or disparaged from left and right equally.

I must say it was really refreshing your and Carla's prefacing your Oscar posting comments with a disclaimer of sorts, not expecting that it is what the average person would have to do, or that it was "social research".

As to a direct answer to the posting question, I still say that they are accomplishing their goals better. There are a lot of Reps that want a fascist gov and know that economic chaos is the surest road. Since the 30s they have turned using that chaos toward short-term self aggrandizement into an art. They are succeeding at the overall goal, they are doing well personally. What, and why, exactly, would any of that change? I'm not a turd. Most want what they think is best for the country. They really believe that a well-run, Mussolini style fascist country is best.

Seriously, it accounts for all their behavior and its shows them to be the intelligent, accomplished individuals, we see in their business and private lives. Evil to the bone, but accomplished. I know I'm always disappointed to get the average POV full in the face, but might I ask: is this just that you like calling the opposition stupid? Why is it a more reasonable explanation for their behavior than what I propose?

The question of who's responsible is substantially beside the point.

It seems to me and, I presume, others that if we don't learn who got it wrong in the past and how they did so we will be less likely to get it right in the future. Of course, if someone is trying to cover up friends' sins then that would be the way to go.

Why do networks have these men and women on time after time after time? Because large media networks are owned by enormous corporations who view the acquisition and practice of political power not in terms of facts or truth but in terms of public relation spin.

The corporations use public relations and advertising to distract us from inconvenient facts they want us to ignore. The response to Hurricane Katrina was not a complete and total failure and a human disaster of historic proportions to them. It was only a PR problem.

Conservatives now wail, moan, throw their hands into the air in a mighty hissy-fit over the Obama budget, economic trends and subjects such as earmarks while all the time completely ignoring their roles in driving this country off the economic cliff.

It's how the corporate/Washington Insider class plays the game. They are all people with seven figure incomes who hang out together, go to the same parties, belong to the same clubs, who went to the same schools and have absolutely nothing in common with the rest of us.

That's how those people end up on those shows all the time even though they are almost always wrong and spout totally stupid drivel.

The media has been taken over by the rich and the conservative. It's up to us to see through the crap.

"There are a lot of Reps that want a fascist gov and know that economic chaos is the surest road."

How do you know that? If there are a lot where are they? I know many but I have never met, heard or read of any? or Did you you just make that up?

"The media has been taken over by the rich and the conservative. It's up to us to see through the crap."

ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NYT, LAT etc are conservative?

Why do networks have these men and women on time after time after time? Because large media networks are owned by enormous corporations who view the acquisition and practice of political power not in terms of facts or truth but in terms of public relation spin.

Jon Stewart skewered CNBC's bullshit artists. If the people running that channel had any integrity or sense of shame they would have fired Cramer, Kudlow and the rest of their sorry brothel. And what does it say for the pathetic specimens in their audiences that continue to believe the crap they put out?

I don’t find the Shelby comment all that off-base. I’m not a big fan of spending my tax dollars to bail out rich bankers who ran their firms into the ground. I’d rather see it spent on research, conservation, and education, for example.

Most of the conversations these days seem to focus on the “fail” part of “Too big to fail.” Personally, I’m kind of stuck on the “too big” part. I think the government should nationalize some of these big losers, break them up into parts small enough so they can fail without bringing the whole system down, and then let the market sort it out. The shareholders will take it in the shorts, but that’s why “investing” is not “saving.” In the future, we should make sure that these finance companies never get “too big” again, not that they never fail.

Too much of our tax money is being used to hide the fact that people paid too much for their houses, and that Wall Street firms paid too much for their mortgage securities. The housing markets and credit markets are paralyzed by fear of finding out what these things are actually worth. And the only cure for that fear is knowledge. Once prices return to a realistic value, people will start trading them again.

Thanks to Harry Reasoner and Bill Bodden for the support.

I've tried hard to disregard the psychotic ramblings of my ideologically challenged detractors, but just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

You selfish, ignorant, war-mongering tools:

There IS a dime's worth of difference between Obama and the RP, and I always have said there was.

Leo's analysis is important. Nomi Prins says, "The very idea that the government should capitalize these convoluted institutions rather than separating out and concentrating on the specific divisions that are fully understandable and whose risks are quantifiable, defies logic. It has also proved tremendously inefficient and costly." (AIG Bailed Out Again, but Endless Fire-Drills Don't Put Out Fires)

I would add that it's the current underpricing of systemic risk that would be adjusted if we were to break up the corporate entities that are "too big to fail". Markets can only work when they are properly regulated and when risks that endanger us all are born by those who would take them.

I really, really wish, on some naive level, the only reason that Republican leaders keep getting so much air time on MSM news is because someone wants to catch them at the precise moment that they break down and say "Okay, yeah, everything we did over the last 30 years didn't work the way we hoped it would." But you know it's just because the owners of the networks want to put their own GOP golfing buddies from the country club on the TV to get their message out. After all, the system that failed is the system that made that handful of people insanely wealthy, so wealthy that a recession is really no big deal to them. I just have a hard time buying that the MSM is so stupid that they still think the Republicans still have something more to offer, after having their backsides whupped in 2 consecutive elections. After all, a good businessman would put more Democrats on to mirror the electorate and boost the ratings. But that's just not happening outside of MSNBC, a network that is gaining huge ratings, after starting out as a laughingstock.

Most of the conversations these days seem to focus on the “fail” part of “Too big to fail.”

Wall Street's House of Cards Too Big...Period or as someone once said on a management principle, "If anyone in the company ever becomes indispensable, get rid of him."

Yes Richard all the media outlets you mentioned are conservative/corporate friendly. Few papers were more pro-Iraq invasion than the WaPo. What paper more than the NYT ignored any skeptical voices on the question of the phony weapons of mass destruction prior to invasion?

Where was the accurate reporting by any of the media you mentioned when it came to the rape of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the Bush administration during the last 8 years?

What media entity that you have listed did anything but cheerlead during the creation of the Bush Economic Bubble?

Sure there were individual voices; Paul Krugman, Keith Olberman and now Rachel Maddow that might be considered liberal. I just consider them fair minded people whose world view is based in reality unlike the conservative world view.

Let's see who writes for the WaPo: The soon to be late, Bob Novak, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Michael Gearson, Howard Kurtz, Robert Kagan, David Broder, Richard Cohen and Fred Hiatt........ all of whom have no problems spouting the 'conventional wisdom' of Washington which is decidedly conservative in nature.

MSNBC: I count Chris Matthews among the conventional beltway villagers crowd and anything but a progressive liberal. Joe Scarborough is a conservative. Imus, hardly a liberal was bounced for inappropriate comments.

The NYT just fired Bill Kristol but they are still left with David Brooks and the ever so brain dead and useless Tom Friedman.

I don't have time to go through each and every media outlet but you should get the idea. You need to actually look at what they write and say instead of what Rush says their reputation is.

The corporate media has admitted that Drudge rules their world. So, if they take their cue from Drudge, how liberal can they be?

What paper more than the NYT ignored any skeptical voices on the question of the phony weapons of mass destruction prior to invasion?

Not to mention continuously publishing Judith Miller's lies about WMDs.

Harry K.--First of all, enough of the fantasy that you've been baited by anyone. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black....BTW I'm inclined to regard having you call me "psychotic" as a badge of honor.

richard--You screwed up your comments in this thread: you forgot to include any links to the latest, greatest Obama assassination fantasies at Free Republic, your favorite website.

alcatross--you are of course correct about FDR's campaign rhetoric and the tabulation of acts passed under Hoover. But...the particulars of those acts that you listed? Liberally quoting from the pertinent Wikipedia entry:

At the outset of the Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach. Critics, such as liberal economist Paul Krugman, on the other hand, accuse Hoover of sharing Mellon's laissez-faire viewpoint. It is often inaccurately stated that Herbert Hoover did nothing while the world economy eroded. President Hoover made attempts to stop "the downward spiral" of the Great Depression. His policies, however, had little or no effect. As the economy quickly deteriorated in the early years of the Great Depression, Hoover declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions.

In 1929, President Hoover authorized the Mexican Repatriation program. To combat rampant unemployment, the burden on municipal aid services, and remove people seen as usurpers of American jobs, the program was largely a forced migration of an estimated 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans to Mexico. The program continued through 1937.

Congress approved the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. The legislation, which raised tariffs on thousands of imported items, was signed into law by President Hoover in June 1930. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, economic depression now spread through much of the world, and other nations increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade, and worsening the Depression.

President Hoover, in 1931, urged the major banks in the country to form a consortium known as the National Credit Corporation (NCC).[30] The NCC was an excellent example of Hoover's belief in volunteerism as a mechanism in aiding the economy. Hoover encouraged the member banks of the NCC to provide loans to smaller banks in order to prevent them from collapsing. Unfortunately, the banks within the NCC were often reluctant to provide loans, usually requiring banks to provide their largest assets as collateral. It quickly became apparent that the NCC would be incapable of fixing the problems it was designed to solve, and it was abandoned in favor of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

Hoover was in some ways an earlier-day Jimmy Carter, who did truly fine humanitarian works both before and after his troubled presidency.

FDR came into office, grasped the situation, and set about priming the pump big-time, which is something that Hoover never did. FDR also did stuff like slash military spending, as the military-industrial complex wasn't yet calling the shots the way it has been doing for the last 50+ years.

Um, the right-wing obsession with the New York Times as supposedly a flaming left-wing rag is fundamentally cultural, just as is the Right's obsession with "Hollywood" and San Francisco. When wingnuts start blathering about these things, they're just dog-whistling, using code for Jews, people of color, gays, and everything non-puritanical.

Bill R,

You are correct. CNBC should remove all opinions that do not conform with President Obama and liberal ideology. They should be investigated and brought up on charges of sedition.

Sieg Heil!

That's a good analysis, Kevin. You're right, we are making different assumptions about talking about behavior vs character. I'm the kind of existentialist that says that it is impossible to take a consistent role and not be the role. I consider it medieval Thomism to talk about actions as independent of some unknowable internal essence/soul, about which we cannot speak. Perhaps the comparisons to slavery and the enviro debate that have been popping up have this in mind. Both issues try to talk about behavior without addressing the fact that fundamental character change is required. It would be nice to take the purely linguistic approach, but there is no zero level language, that neither conceals or reveals, but just says. As such, the language recapitulates the weltgestalten (conceptualization of entities and processes and their combining into a meaningful world picture) of the speaker. You cannot debate the words without debating the world view. That, by definition, is a personal attack. If you reject that, you are only left with disagreements working out predicates, when you accept the same assumptions, which is to say, are speaking from the same weltgestalten.

Agreed, too, JVDW. I engage in that attitude as well. It comes from the masthead announcement that this is a progressive blog, as opposed to an Oregon Dem blog. That's why faux progressives often = "you". When Dems adopt regressive leg and sell it as progressive, and locals follow suit, the bile flows. Let me put it this way. There're lots of posts like this thread, saying, "good progressives just don't get what those Reganauts are talking about". Fair dinkum. Where's the "good progressives just don't get what that Dem is talking about"? It happens almost as often. A real progressive cast would find those episodes equally objectionable as the slope-browed rudeness of the Reps.

Put another way, have you seen the "faithful", on here, ever say a single negative word about Nancy Pelosi? Forget definitions, have you ever met someone you would call a progressive that doesn't have major probs with her performance/principles? When the people that are silent, due to party loyalty, self-identify as progressive, then say, we have no problem with her, it promotes the idea that progressives have no problem with her. As that is self serving, howls follow. Put another way, how would you like for me to premise one of my venomous theses with my history of working for Dem campaigns? I can easily claim Dem credentials ahead of 1/2 the readership. I can see the party has defined itself differently, though, I respect the will of the majority, and identify myself as different. If I was only interested in winning elections, I would start to sound a lot like posters here, in reverse. Doesn't leave much room to respect the motivation. That said, the more you read this, the harder it becomes to say, "you". While that's normal and civil, it's not good.

That was an explanation of my take. Any similarity to Harry's is purely coincidental. Funny how sound logic and stoically accepting facts when they disagree with your premises and passionately pursuing the conclusions lead to such coincidences.

Zarathustra--well, I don't know all your terminology, but to recapitulate the point I was trying to make in regards to Harry Kershner: there's a difference between argument and "argument". The first is about engaging people and trying to persuade them. ("Agree to disagree" and all that.) The second is about insulting people and proclaiming one's moral superiority; persuasion is most definitely NOT involved. The sad thing is that Kershner has a lot to contribute if he chose the "engage and persuade" approach.

Now, it's easy to see how one's life experiences can lead one to opt for "argument" rather than argument, but it's still a choice. We can choose to walk around bitter for the rest of out lives, or we can try to shed the bitterness and move on. I try to do the latter, but I know I don't necessarily succeed. I don't think Kershner even tries.

Zarathustra--in response to your point about "why no criticisms of Pelosi?", I suppose it comes down to the collision between ideology and politics. There's always a collision, and each of us chooses how to deal with it. Some are ideological purists who get a charge out of denouncing every piece of actual legislation as a sellout; others see themselves as pragmatists who think the ideologically motivated are naive (one commonly hears this as a characterization of Rahm Emanuel). Some of the editors of Blue Oregon pretty clearly fall into the "pragmatist" category. We all make choices and there's no single right way.

To add to Z's comments. There is a quality common to many people known as tribalism. It takes several forms. Some people are born into it, such as, among many other examples, the Sunnis and Shias of the Middle East, Kosovars and Serbs in the Balkans, and some "Protestants" and "Catholics" in Northern Ireland. To some extent something similar applies to supporters and adherents of political parties; although, some of them don't inherit their affiliation but choose it. What they all have in common is an attitude of "my tribe, right or wrong."

If you criticize their tribes and your case is weak, you will cause annoyance and displeasure, but if your case is strong and true then you will provoke hostility.

In a political world where there is much cause for despair there is a glimmer of hope in the slightly increased numbers of people abandoning the Republican and Democratic parties for independence which, hopefully, will translate to more independent thought.

The top Republican in the House is seizing on the latest spike in unemployment to call for a freeze on government spending and to urge President Barack Obama to veto a $410 billion spending bill.

While Rush Limbaugh is openly hoping for the failure of our government the rest of the Republican leadership is actively calling for measures that will indeed doom this administration.

Why? Because the Republicans are not interested in the success of America, they ONLY are interested in regaining control of the government so they may resume the destruction of democracy and finally install the Republican police state that was almost achieved by George “The Torturer” Bush.

Some are ideological purists who get a charge out of denouncing every piece of actual legislation as a sellout; others see themselves as pragmatists who think the ideologically motivated are naive (one commonly hears this as a characterization of Rahm Emanuel).

Joel: Might we agree that between your poles of "ideological purists" and "pragmatists" there is a gray area inhabited by people who strive and advocate for higher ethical standards and greater competence than we have now but are willing to compromise to some degree as long as that compromise stays clear of a sellout? Might you also agree that some "pragmatists" are on occasions too reluctant to stand on principle and are overly quick to agree to the dominant force that appears to be on their side of the fence?

Bill: of course we can agree; the bi-polar, either/or formulation is of course simplified rhetoric. I don't espouse either rigid ideology or allegedly nonideological pragmatism. [A bit of critical thinking, of course, reveals that the claim "I'm pragmatic, not ideological" is itself an ideological claim :-) ]

Where there will always be disagreement, of course, is exactly what constitutes a "sellout". Here's where vigorous debate is indispensable.

Very roughly speaking, I would suggest, we have "strategy"=long-term vision=ideology, and "tactics"=short-term vision=politics. Some people have a flair for either one or the other. Few have a flair for both.

Yep, once again Republicans are to blame for everything. Democrats are like Jesus - they walk on water.

Gradually, as Obama works through the mess left by Bush and the ardent know nothings we will begin to see the change we need.

But not until the people who want the change they believed candidate Obama was proposing stand up and demand that change. There is a case for cutting him some slack just now but not for the rest of his term as president.

Is it my imagination, or are trolls making up an increasing fraction of the commenters at Blue Oregon? I suppose there must be a site something like rushlimbaughisgod.org where the trolls go to find out which "blue" blogs ought to be tormented.

Obviously we only disagree on where the line is, where the trade-off between pragmatism and idealism should happen. I think that is a symptom of discussing everything in the abstract. If we came down to brass tacks on an issue, and agreed how to measure progress, we would agree, full stop.

A good metaphor would be Piaget's concept of intelligence. You can assimilate or accommodate new experiences. Intelligence is the environmentally determined sound balance between the two. I think we all agree that pure idealism that sets out to trash every implementation would be akin to pure assimilation, which is not intelligent. It's an American problem, imhe. Europeans hate our giving the finger not because it's rude- Italians do much worse- but because it doesn't allow for a response. "Ahh, I think you Mama would look good (fill in the blank)", allows for a response. Demands one. I obviously don't have a problem with strong disputation. I just think the guide should be, "and how does that advance your argument"? Obviously one must allow for a degree of delusion, as I'm sure many think most my presentations don't advance the argument, though I do. It's the motivation that counts. Rules of cricket.

As to the trolls, it's only one, I believe. Pretty sure that's WunderBlunder, though I'm not complaining this time. At least this time it could be argued that he made a statement that was close to being a personal opinion. If I'm right, though, about most progressive arguments only being a failure to get down to brass tacks, then he's really only different in degree. Both have chosen to make a simple characterization rather than work out a common position.

Yep, once again Republicans are to blame for everything. Democrats are like Jesus - they walk on water.

Jason: If you pay attention to this blog you will find some of us are bi-partisan in our criticism. The Republican and Democratic aren't exactly the same, but they have several negative fundamentals in common. I believe the affiliation of people towards political parties is roughly one third each for Democrats, Republicans, and independents and other parties. If you're not brainwashed by some party you might consider being independent and thinking independently.

Stevie M,

I certainly am not a Nazi. My comments are directed at those who wish to silence any dissenting opinion that doesn't conform with the illogicial liberal dream vision. Attempts, and success, at silencing disent is a current them of Liberal conversation via the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine would have been something you'd expect from Nazi Germany.

My German salute is satire, directed at Bill R's post. I realize you may not be capable of anything more than a literal read of someone's post.

Next time, I'll provide a special translation for like you. Stevie M, why don't you print the following and past tape it to your computer so you can remember what this means.

SATIRE: "A very common, almost defining feature of satire is its strong vein of irony or sarcasm, but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. The essential point, however, is that "in satire, irony is militant".[2] This "militant irony" (or sarcasm) often professes to approve the very things the satirist actually wishes to attack."

Might you also agree that some "pragmatists" are on occasions too reluctant to stand on principle and are overly quick to agree to the dominant force that appears to be on their side of the fence?

Stephen M. Walt On Chas Freeman's withdrawal. A sordid case in point.

Obama, the "pragmatist."

As I write this members of the house of representative in Congress are making speeches critical of China's abuse of human rights against the people of Tibet. That's very good, but where are they when our "friends" in Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Colombia and other nations commit major abuses of human rights? Nowhere. Why? Because they are "pragmatists."

When Walt and Mearsheimer spoke here last year, I challenged them on their presumptions that our policy makers are not hegemonists, and that U.S. policy has nothing to do with Israel being seen as a strategic asset.

Walt is wrong when he says, "...this incident reinforces my suspicion that the Democratic Party is in fact a party of wimps." The DP has the same interest in domination of Middle East resources that the RP has, and Israel is a strategic asset to the DP just as much as it was to the RP. Furthermore:

"One of the many services that Israel performs for its patron is to provide it with a valuable military base at the periphery of the world's major energy resources. It can therefore serve as a forward base for US aggression -- or to use the technical terms, to 'defend the Gulf' and 'ensure stability.'

"The huge flow of arms to Israel serves many subsidiary purposes. Middle East policy analyst Mouin Rabbani observes that Israel can test newly developed weapons systems against defenseless targets. This is of value to Israel and the US 'twice over, in fact, because less effective versions of these same weapons systems are subsequently sold at hugely inflated prices to Arab states, which effectively subsidizes the U.S. weapons industry and U.S. military grants to Israel.' These are additional functions of Israel in the US-dominated Middle East system, and among the reasons why Israel is so favored by the state authorities, along with a wide range of US high-tech corporations, and of course military industry and intelligence." (Exterminate All the Brutes)

U.S. Middle East policy is anti-Semitic in the broadest possible sense. We slaughter and torture the Arabs and we blame the Jews.

Listen to Joseph Massad, a Palestinian intellectual who has been viciously attacked by the Lobby:

"...when and in what context has the United States government ever supported national liberation in the Third World? The record of the United States is one of being the implacable enemy of all Third World national liberation groups, including European ones, from Greece to Latin America to Africa and Asia, except in the celebrated cases of the Afghan fundamentalists' war against the USSR and supporting apartheid South Africa's main terrorist allies in Angola and Mozambique (UNITA and RENAMO) against their respective anti-colonial national governments. Why then would the US support national liberation in the Arab world absent the pro-Israel lobby is something these studies never explain." (Blaming the lobby)

All nation-states are interested in concentrating power and wealth into the hands of dominant groups.

Believe in a your conspiracy theory if you want. You can eliminate us all, and you will still be imperialists.

<hr/>